Reading Simplified
Excellent Evidence of Relative Effectiveness
Summary: Reading Simplified (and its earlier iteration, the Targeted Reading Intervention) has been the subject of a number of educational studies, most of which were randomized controlled trials (the gold standard in educational research). I have reviewed 6. All 6 of the studies (100%) had at least one measure where Reading Simplified/TRI had a statistically significant positive impact compared to controls. Furthermore, in the studies, those receiving Reading Simplified always outperformed controls, and the impacts almost universally reached the level of statistical significance.
Reading Simplified Research
(formerly called the Targeted Reading Intervention)
Reading Simplified is a Linguistic Phonics (aka "Speech-To-Print" or S2P) phonics, phonemic awareness, decoding, and fluency-building program. It is designed to teach its entire scope and sequence over the course of a 12 -16 week reading intervention. It can also be used whole-class in Kindergarten or First Grade. Reading Simplified is the publicly available offshoot of the Targeted Reading Instruction program ( formerly called the Targeted Reading Intervention - TRI ). Both programs were designed by Dr. Marnie Ginsberg, and the word work activities within the program are modelled after the speech-to-print approach developed by Dr. Diane McGuinness. The full Reading Simplified scope and sequence takes 3 to 6 months to complete as intervention, but can be delivered over the course of 1-1.5 years, if preferred, as a whole-classroom Tier 1 program.
In total, 6 research studies with control groups have examined the effectiveness of the Reading Simplified instructional approach (known in research as the Targeted Reading Intervention - TRI), making it one of the most thoroughly studied programs I have reviewed. Most of the studies used some form of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) study design, which is considered the gold standard in clinical research.
A preliminary study of Reading Simplified was carried out in 2010, when it was called the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI). In this randomized controlled trial, researchers found that struggling Kindergarten students who received approximately 9 hours of TRI instruction had significantly higher gains in word identification measures than the control group, with a large effect size. No significant effects were found in word attack, vocabulary or for First Grade, where the small sample size and lack of fidelity were noted as complications ( Vernon-Feagans et al. 2010 ). A 2011 study used a cluster randomized control design to examine the impact of the TRI on 112 struggling readers in Title 1 schools in the southwest. Intervention times per student varied, but most teachers provided a total of 2 to 5 hours of TRI instruction over the course of several weeks. The study found that students who received the TRI scored significantly higher than controls across the board. Effect sizes were medium for word-attack, and letter-word identification, medium-high for passage comprehension, and smaller for spelling. Furthermore, these impacts translated beyond the target intervention students. Students in classrooms whose teacher received TRI training performed significantly better than classrooms whose teacher did not receive TRI training (Amendum et al. 2011). A subsequent study of struggling readers in Title 1 schools in the rural southeast found that overall, students who received TRI had significant positive impacts on letter-sound knowledge and word reading (medium effect sizes), and positive, but non-significant impacts on word attack. The study found that students with slower processing skills benefited more than those with higher processing skills (Vernon-Feagans et al. 2012). A similar RCT study of 635 students in poor rural counties found that struggling readers who received 3-5 hours of TRI, though only able to catch up to their non-struggling peers in spelling, outperformed controls in all areas. The intervention had medium effects in letter & word identification, and spelling, slightly smaller effect sizes for word attack, and passage comprehension, and a small effect on vocabulary. All effects were statistically significant. (Vernon-Feagans et al 2013). In a more recent study Amendum et al 2018 used a randomized control design to examine the impact of the TRI on English Language Learners (ELLs) who had been identified as struggling readers. The study found that after 5 hours of instruction (delivered over 9 weeks) the TRI had statistically significant positive effects on letter, word, and nonsense word reading measures (all effect sizes medium), and positive, though non-significant impacts on passage reading. Vernon-Feagans et al. 2018 carried out a 3 year RCT study with 556 at-risk students (305 treatment, 251 control). Each student received approximately 4 total hours of intervention over the course of 6 to 8 weeks. The study found that students who received the TRI intervention performed better than controls, with small but significant effect sizes across the board, in letter-sound knowledge, nonsense words, word reading, passage comprehension, and spelling. Researchers noted that fidelity to time-of-intervention was an issue: students should have received 7-10 hours of intervention but only received 4 hours. Bratsch-Hines et al 2020 further analyzed the data collected for the Vernon-Feagans 2018 study and found that the TRI intervention seemed to be equally effective for students who pre-intervention, had a range of phonological awareness skills. It also found that with regards to student differences in oral vocabulary, the TRI, while effective across the board, was most effective for students who came to the table with low vocabulary, as opposed to average or high vocabulary.
The IES What Works Clearinghouse reviewed the Targeted Reading Intervention and lists it as having “Positive Effects.” Due to its promising results, the IES recently awarded researchers a $5 million research grant to replicate the TRI studies and examine the program further. This research will be completed in 2026. Evidence for ESSA also lists the TRI as having strong research and a moderate effect that is above average for tutoring. For further discussion of Reading Simplified / TRI, see also this meta-analysis on PedagogyNonGrata, who gave it the highest ranking of any program it has reviewed.
My Takeaway? Reading Simplified consistently gets very good results in a very short amount of time. I won’t mince words; it is, hands-down, the best phonics program I have ever seen. It has very good evidence supporting it, replicated in multiple, large, randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, students see these gains after an incredibly short amount of intervention (if you look back at the TRI studies, this is typically 5-10 hours, carried out over several weeks. Reading Simplified extends this to 12-16 hours, over a few months to deliver its entire scope and sequence).
Many people get hung up on this short intervention time. We have become so used to phonics interventions which take an incredibly long time, so much so that we have a mantra for it: “it’s a marathon, not a sprint.” But here, we have to look at what the evidence is telling us. And what it indicates is that teaching phonics, phonemic awareness, and decoding to struggling readers really does not have to take as long as we thought, so long as the program is well-structured. Based on my research thus far (and, fwiw, my personal experience as a mother and reading tutor), Reading Simplified / TRI should really be the first phonics program parents and educators reach for when teaching a child to read … especially if they have a struggling reader.
Similar Linguistic Phonics Programs: Reading Simplified is what is known as a Linguistic Phonics or “Speech-To-Print / S2P ” program. Not sure what that is? Here is my Linguistic Phonics 101 Primer doc. While Reading Simplified is certainly the most well studied of the programs, there are others that follow a similar approach to teaching phonics (I have summarized some research on them but many of those studies do not include control groups. See also this extended discussion on research and S2P Programs at PedagogyNonGrata).
I will list the major Linguistic Phonics intervention programs below along with any research studies that used an experimental control design, and the approximate dosage for each of the interventions.
Reading Simplified ( Dosage: 12-16 hours, 1 hr/wk )
Studies with controls: Several. See above discussion.
Phono-Graphix / Reading Reflex Book ( Dosage: 12-24 hours, 1 hr/wk )
It is important to mention that this program is the grandparent of the other programs listed here. While it hasn’t had any educational studies with experimental controls, it has been the subject of several experimental neuroscience studies. These show significant positive impacts on reading as well as on neural reading networks. In Simos 2002, for example, the researchers concluded that after 2 months of Phono-graphix “dyslexia can be reversed.”
SPELL-Links ( Dosage: 12-24 hours )
Studies of SPELL-Links with Control: Wanzek 2017: Significant positive impact
Sounds-Write: ( Dosage: 3 years for classroom. Intervention dose unknown )
Studies of SW with Control: Alfey 2009: Positive impact, albeit similar to other interventions
EBLI ( Dosage: 12-24 hours, 1 hr/wk )
That Reading Thing: ( Dosage: 12+ hours, 1hr/wk )
Phonics for Pupils with SEN: ( Dosage: Varies )
The Reading Foundation: ( Dosage: Varies )
Rooted in Language: ( Dosage: 1-2 years for homeschool curriculum )
Sharpen / ABeCaDerian: ( Dosage: 2-12 months for homeschool curriculum )
Research Studies:
Amendum, S. J., Vernon-Feagans, L., & Ginsberg, M. C. (2011). The effectiveness of a technologically facilitated classroom-based early reading intervention: The targeted reading intervention. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 107-131. Google Scholar
Amendum, S. J., Bratsch‐Hines, M., & Vernon‐Feagans, L. (2018). Investigating the efficacy of a web‐based early reading and professional development intervention for young English learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 155-174. Google Scholar
Bratsch-Hines, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., Pedonti, S., & Varghese, C. (2020). Differential effects of the targeted reading intervention for students with low phonological awareness and/or vocabulary. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 214-226. Google Scholar
Return to the Know Your Options Table of Contents
This Research Summary is a work in progress.
Leave me a comment if you know of other studies that I could include!
No comments:
Post a Comment