Cochrane · systematic review · CD009115
Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers
McArthur, G, Sheehan, Y, Badcock, NA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 4 · 57.1%Moderate 3 · 42.9%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyPhonics training versus control (no training or alternative training) for English‐speaking poor readers
Population: English‐speaking poor readers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Mixed/regular word reading accuracy Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 11 studies · 701 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Non‐word reading accuracy Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 682 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Irregular word reading accuracy Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 294 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Mixed/regular word reading fluency Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 224 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Non‐word reading fluency Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 188 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Reading comprehension Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 343 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Spelling Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 158 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Phonics training compared with control (no training or alternative training) for English‐speaking poor readers
Population: English‐speaking poor readers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Word reading accuracy Immediate Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 683 participants | High |
Nonword reading accuracy Immediate Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 512 participants | High |
Word reading fluency Immediate Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 54 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Nonword reading fluency Immediate Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 18 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Reading comprehension Immediate Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 173 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Spelling Immediate Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 140 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
CI: confidence interval Phonics training vs control (no training or alternative training) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |