A supplemental computer-assisted intervention to prevent early reading difficulties in Spanish learners: a randomised controlled trial.

A SUPPLEMENTAL COMPUTER-ASSISTED INTERVENTION TO PREVENT EARLY READING DIFFICULTIES IN SPANISH LEARNERS: A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL Juan L. Luque, Almudena Giménez, Soraya Bordoy, Auxiliadora Sánchez y Josep Sopena* University of Málaga, *University of Barcelona IWORDD2016 –International Workshop on Reading and Developmental Dyslexia. San Sebastian, Spain. 5-6 may 2016 Introduction It is possible to prevent early decoding difficulties in most of the students with phonological deficit (Torgesen, 2009; Snowling, 2012a). Difficulties implementing effective instruction for at-risk students arise from two challenges: evidence-based knowledge transfer and lack of economic resources. Computer-assisted programs can offer a suitable solution, providing quality instruction with low cost resources (Torgersen and Barker, 1995; Olson, Wise, Ring and Johnson, 1997). There are a group of studies on early intervention in children with reading delay which have achieved promising results (Macaruso, Hook, & McCabe, 2006; Magnan, & Ecalle, 2006; Regtvoort, & van der Leij, 2007; Saine , Lerkkanen, Ahonen, Tolvanen, & Lyytinen, 2011). Another strategy to optimize resources is to develop interventions that produce major benefit in the shortest period of time. Case et al. (2010) conducted a review about short supplemental interventions for first graders. They concluded that supplemental intervention benefits children with learning reading difficulties, when compared to the typical classroom instruction or even to an instruction improved class (Allor and McCathren., 2004; Berninger et al, 2000; Fuchs et al, 2008;. Hatcher et al., 2006; McMaster et al., 2005 Ryder et al, 2008). Objective This study aims to design and test an intervention with three characteristics: - A supplemental activity. - Training decoding is based on the syllable (Binding Method by Sopena et al; http://www.binding-edu.org/). - A short-term intervention Method 32 children (grade 1) with learning difficulties were identified and paired on at least three pretest reading measures (reading efficiency of monosyllabic and disyllabic items, words, pseudowords, and texts speed; see Table 2). Each pair was assigned to two different intervention programs: a computerassisted instructional program (CAIP) focused on developing phonological route versus to the Spanish Public School Assistance Services (PSAS). Computer-assisted instruction consisted of four individual 12-15 minute sessions per week focused on syllable decoding plus a collective comprehension session per week of 1 hour. CAIP was delivered by university students. The assistance services typically consisted of one hour per week, individually or in small groups, delivered by trained teachers. Both programs were applied for 11 weeks. Results Table 1. Differences between CAIP and PSAS conditions on postest Test PSAS CAIP t Difference SD Effect Size Letters 35,33 37,51 0,28 -2,18 10,48 -0,21 Monosyllables Reading 45,52 55,38 0,014** -9,86 12,96 -0,76 Disyllables Reading 24,31 30,60 0,041** -6,29 10,25 -0,61 Words Reading 32,60 39,08 0,056* -6,48 11,52 -0,56 Pseudowords Reading 28,26 32,5 0,083* -4,21 8,53 -0,49 Text Reading Speed 48,49 60,69 0,068* -12,19 23,02 -0,53 Oral Comprehension 15,38 16,13 0,32 -0,75 4,44 -0,17 Reading Comprehension: Previous Knowledge 3,13 3,69 0,04** -0,57 0,91 -0,62 Ideas Memory 1,75 2,75 0,01** -1 1,27 -0,79 Inferences 1 1,86 0,01** -0,86 1,1 -0,79 Integration 2,38 3,13 0,096* -0,75 1,6 -0,47 Total 8,25 11,48 0,006** -3,19 3,69 -0,86 Table 2. Treatment resisters in both conditions Pretest Postest Subjetcs Monosyllabics Disyllabics Words Pseudowords Text Speed Monosyllabics Disyllabics Words Pseudowords Text Speed Treatment resistance Reading comprehension PSAS 1 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - 3 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - 4 - - - + - + + + + + 1 - 5 - - - - - + + + + + 1 + 6 - - - - - + + + + + 1 - 7 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - 8 + + - - - + + - - - 0 + 9 + - - - - + + + + + 1 - 10 - + - - - + - - - - 0 - 11 - - - - - + + + + + 1 + 12 - - - - - + + + + + 1 - 13 - - - - - - - - - - 0 + 14 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - 15 - - - - - + + - - - 0 + 16 + - - - - + + + + + 1 - CAIP 17 - - - - - - - + + + 1 + 18 + - - + - - - - - - 0 - 19 - - - - - + - - - - 0 - 20 + + - - - + + + + + 1 + 21 - - - - - + + + + + 1 + 22 - - - - - + + + + + 1 + 23 - + - - - + + + + - 1 + 24 + + - - - + + + + + 1 + 25 - - - - - + - - + - 0 + 26 - - - - - + + + - - 1 + 27 - - - - - + + + + + 1 + 28 - - - - - - + + + + 1 + 29 - - - - - - - - - - 0 + 30 - - - - - + + + + + 1 + 31 - - - - - + + + + + 1 + 32 - - - - + - - - - - 0 + DECODING SKILLS ●CAIP is significantly or marginal higher than PSAS in all measures. ●CAIP has a medium or large impact on decoding skills compared to the PSAP program. ●The impact of CAIP condition is 25 percentage points higher than the PSAS condition. ●While CAIP produces a progress that exceeds the 30th percentile in 68.75%of the students, the PSAS condition reaches only progress in student 43.75. TRANSFERENCE TO COMPREHENSION SKILLS ●Special mention deserves the impact of CAIP condition on measures of comprehension. CAIP condition was significantly higher than the PSAS condition, reaching large size effects. PROGRESS AND COMPREHENSION SKILLS ●7/16 PSAS students progressed in decoding skills above the 30th percentile, however, only two of these students showed reading comprehension scores above the 30th percentile. ●CAIP. 11/16 students progressed in decoding skills and they were up to 14 those moving above the 30th percentile in reading comprehension test. ●In short, both conditions showed an equivalent oral understanding in pretest and postest, however, in the postest, only 31.25%of the PSAS condition progressed on reading comprehension, while the CAIP’s one reached 87.5%.