Spelling is a vital academic skill that supports students’ writing and reading development (Kim, 2020). We conducted a comprehensive meta-analytic review of spelling interventions with students with or at-risk for learning disabilities (LDs) employing randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, and single-case designs. Fifty-nine studies met inclusion criteria—39 group design and 20 single-case design (SCD) studies—comprising 2,229 students in Grades K–9, the vast majority of whom were described as with or at-risk for LDs, with only one study including general education students. The studies yielded 327 spelling and word reading effect sizes that were used to answer three research questions regarding the overall average impact of the interventions on spelling and word reading outcomes, differential effects of the spelling intervention approach, and characteristics that may moderate effects. We ran four meta-analytic models on spelling interventions’ effects on spelling and reading outcomes, conducted subgroup analyses on group designs for different spelling approaches, and ran meta-regression models with five covariates on group designs to examine moderating effects. Publication bias analyses were also conducted. Results indicated that group design spelling interventions had a small but significant effect on spelling (g = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.26, 0.40]) and word reading (g = 0.25, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.37]) outcomes, while SCDs had a large and significant impact on spelling (between-case standardized mean difference [BC-SMD] = 2.47, 95% CI = [1.82, 3.13]) and word reading (BC-SMD = 1.52, 95% CI = [0.83, 2.21]) outcomes. Furthermore, results demonstrate that group design spelling interventions employing whole word study (g = 0.56, 95% CI = [0.41, 0.71]) and multilinguistic (g = 0.43, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.60]) approaches benefit spelling outcomes, while phonemic approaches to spelling intervention transfer to word reading outcomes (g = 0.45, 95% CI = [0.35, 0.55]). Findings highlight the need for systematic replication of spelling interventions to further understand the impact on writing and reading outcomes for students with LD.
*AguirreA. A.RehfeldtR. A. (2015). An evaluation of instruction in visual imagining on the written spelling performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 31, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-015-0028-0
2.
*Alber-MorganS. R.JosephL. M.KanotzB.RouseC. A.SawyerM. R. (2016). The effects of word box instruction on acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of decoding and spelling skills for first graders. Education and Treatment of Children, 39(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2016.0002
3.
*AlemanC.McLaughlinT. F.BialozorR. C. (1990). Comparison of auditory/visual and visual/motor practice on the spelling accuracy of learning disabled children. Reading Improvement, 27(4), 261–268.
4.
AllenA. A.LembkeE. S. (2022). The effect of a morphological awareness intervention on early writing outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(2), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720912414
5.
ApelK.MastersonJ. J. (2010). The spelling sensitivity score: Noting developmental changes in spelling knowledge. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508410380039
6.
BahrR. H.SillimanE. R.BerningerV. W.DanzakR. L.WilliamsonC. M. (2009). What spelling errors have to tell about vocabulary learning. In WoodC.ConnellyV. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on reading and spelling (pp. 312–336). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203877838-14
7.
*BazisP. S.HebertM.WamboldB.LangD. (2022). Integration of reading and writing instruction to increase foundational literacy skills: Effects of the “Write Sounds” intervention on handwriting, decoding, and spelling outcomes. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 20(2), 151–174. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1359625
8.
*BerningerV. W.AbbottR. D.WhitakerD.SylvesterL.NolenS. B. (1995). Integrating low- and high-level skills in instructional protocols for writing disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 293–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511235
9.
*BerningerV. W.LeeY. L.AbbottR. D.BreznitzZ. (2013). Teaching children with dyslexia to spell in a reading-writers’ workshop. Annals of Dyslexia, 63, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0054-0
10.
*BerningerV. W.VaughanK.AbbottR. D.BrooksA.AbbottS. P.RoganL.ReedE.GrahamS. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems: Teaching functional spelling units of varying size with a multiple-connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.587
11.
*BerningerV. W.VaughanK.AbbottR. D.BrooksA.BegayisK.CurtinG.GrahamS. (2000). Language-based spelling instruction: Teaching children to make multiple connections between spoken and written words. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511141
12.
*BerningerV. W.WinnW. D.StockP.AbbottR. D.EschenK.LinS.-J.GarciaN.Anderson-YoungstromM.MurphyH.LevitD.TrivediP.JonesJ.AmtmannD.NagyW. (2008). Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for students with dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 21, 95–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9066-x
13.
*BerningerV. W.VaughanK.AbbottR. D.BegayK.ColemanK. B.CurtinG.HawkinsJ. M. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.291
14.
BorensteinM.CooperH.HedgesL.ValentineJ. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2, 221–235. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-05060-012
15.
*BrownB. O. (1995). The effects of a spelling word study strategy on the spelling performance of high school students with learning disabilities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Florida.
16.
*BryantN.DrabinI. R.GettingerM. (1981). Effects of varying unit size on spelling achievement in learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14(4), 200–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948101400405
17.
*CassarA. G.JangE. E. (2010). Investigating the effects of a game-based approach in teaching word recognition and spelling to students with reading disabilities and attention deficits. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404151003796516
18.
CastlesA.FriedmannN. (2014). Developmental dyslexia and the phonological deficit hypothesis. Mind & Language, 29(3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12050
19.
CattsH. W.McIlraithA.BridgesM. S.NielsenD. C. (2017). Viewing a phonological deficit within a multifactorial model of dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 30, 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9692-2
20.
ChomskyN.HalleM. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper & Row.
21.
ChowJ. C.EkholmE. (2018). Inflated effects in studies of interventions for young children: An examination of the evidence. Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1268083
22.
CiulloS.ElyE.McKennaJ. W.AlvesK. D.KennedyM. J. (2019). Reading instruction for students with learning disabilities in grades 4 and 5: An observation study. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718806654
23.
*Clark DraperI. L. (1990) A study of the efficacy of a student-controlled errorless learning device in spelling remediation with urban elementary learning-disabled students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Wayne State University.
24.
ColenbranderD.KohnenS.BeyersmannE.RobidouxS.WegenerS.ArrowT.NationK.CastlesA. (2022). Teaching children to read irregular words: A comparison of three instructional methods. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(6), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2077653
25.
*ColenbranderD.ParsonsL.BowersJ. S.DavisC. J. (2022). Assessing the effectiveness of structured word inquiry for students in grades 3 and 5 with reading and spelling difficulties: A randomized controlled trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 307–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.399
26.
ConradN. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 869–878. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012546
*DarchC.EavesR. C.CroweD. A.SimmonsK.ConniffA. (2006). Teaching spelling to students with learning disabilities: A comparison of rule-based strategies versus traditional instruction. Journal of Direct Instruction, 6(1), 1–16. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ755191
*DarchC.SimpsonR. G. (1990). Effectiveness of visual imagery versus rule-based strategies in teaching spelling to learning disabled students. Research in Rural Education, 7(1), 61–70. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ418893
31.
*DavisL. H. (2000). The effects of rime-based analogy training on word reading and spelling of first-grade children with good and poor phonological awareness [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northwestern University.
32.
DenoS. L.FuchsL. S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086131
33.
*EdwardsB. J.BlackhurstA. E.KoorlandM. A. (1995). Computer-assisted constant time delay prompting to teach abbreviation spelling to adolescents with mild learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(4), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264349501200402
34.
EhriL. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In PerfettiC. A.RiebenL.FayolM. (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 237–269). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
EhriL. C.SatlowE.GaskinsI. (2009). Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword analogy instruction for struggling young readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(2–3), 162–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683549
37.
*EnglertC. S.HiebertE. H.StewartS. R. (1985). Spelling unfamiliar words by an analogy strategy. The Journal of Special Education, 19(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698501900306
38.
FitzgeraldJ.ShanahanT. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3501_5
39.
*FrankA. R.WackerD. P.KeithT. Z.SagenT. K. (1987). Effectiveness of a spelling study package for learning disabled students. Learning Disabilities Research, 2(2), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/093889828700202a07
40.
*FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamletC. L.PowellS. R.CapizziA. M.SeethalerP. M. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050701
41.
*FulkB. M. (1996). The effects of combined strategy and attribution training on LD adolescents’ spelling performance. Exceptionality, 6(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex0601_2
42.
GaluschkaK.GörgenR.KalmarJ.HaberstrohS.SchmalzX.Schulte-KörneG. (2020). Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1659794
43.
GarciaN. P.AbbottR. D.BerningerV. W. (2010). Predicting poor, average, and superior spellers in grades 1 to 6 from phonological, orthographic, and morphological, spelling, or reading composites. Written Language & Literacy, 13(1), 61–98. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.13.1.03gar
44.
*GeorgiouG. K.SavageR.DunnK.BowersP.ParrilaR. (2021). Examining the effects of Structured Word Inquiry on the reading and spelling skills of persistently poor grade 3 readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12325
45.
*GettingerM. (1993). Effects of invented spelling and direct instruction on spelling performance of second-grade boys. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-281
46.
*GettingerM.BryantN. D.WayneH. R. (1982). Designing spelling instruction for learning-disabled children: An emphasis on unit size, distributed practice, and training for transfer. The Journal of Special Education, 16(4), 439–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698201600407
47.
GilbertJ.GrahamS. (2010). Teaching writing to elementary students in grades 4–6: A national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 494–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/651193
48.
*GordonJ. S. (1992). The effects of phonemic training on the spelling performance of elementary students with learning disabilities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Miami.
49.
*GrahamS.FreemanS. (1986). Strategy training and teacher-vs. student-controlled study conditions: Effects on LD students’ spelling performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510590
50.
*GrahamS.HarrisK. R.AdkinsM. (2018). The impact of supplemental handwriting and spelling instruction with first grade students who do not acquire transcription skills as rapidly as peers: A randomized control trial. Reading and Writing, 31, 1273–1294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9822-0
51.
*GrahamS.HarrisK. R.ChorzempaB. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.669
52.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.Fink-ChorzempaB.MacArthurC. (2003). Primary grade teachers’ instructional adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.279
GrahamS.HebertM. (2011). Writing to read: A meta-analysis of the impact of writing and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4), 710–744. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566
55.
GrahamS.SantangeloT. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0
56.
HallC.Dahl-LeonardK.ChoE.SolariE. J.CapinP.ConnerC. L.HenryA. R.CookL.HayesL.VargasI.RichmondC. L.KehoeK. F. (2023). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477
57.
HayesJ. R. (2006). New directions in writing theory. Handbook of Writing Research, 2, 28–40.
58.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164588
59.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
60.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
61.
*HughesT. A.FredrickL. D.KeelM. C. (2002). Learning to effectively implement constant time delay procedures to teach spelling. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511303
62.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
KearneyC. A.DrabmanR. S. (1993). The write-say method for improving spelling accuracy in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600106
65.
*KeeseyS.KonradM.JosephL. M. (2015). Word boxes improve phonemic awareness, letter–sound correspondences, and spelling skills of at-risk kindergartners. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514543927
66.
KimY. S. G. (2020). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading-writing relations. In Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science (pp. 11–34). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_2
67.
KimY. S. G.PetscherY.WanzekJ.Al OtaibaS. (2018). Relations between reading and writing: A longitudinal examination from grades 3 to 6. Reading and Writing, 31, 1591–1618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9855-4
68.
*KinneyM.HochstetlerE.McLaughlinT. F.DerbyK. M.KinneyM. (2013). The effects of cover, copy, compare to teach spelling to middle school students with learning disabilities and OHI. Educational Research Quarterly, 36(4), 25–48. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1061938
69.
*KirkC.GillonG. T. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(3), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/08-0009)
70.
KroeseJ. M.HyndG. W.KnightD. F.HiemenzJ. R.HallJ. (2000). Clinical appraisal of spelling ability and its relationship to phonemic awareness (blending, segmenting, elision, and reversal), phonological memory, and reading in reading disabled, ADHD, and normal children. Reading and Writing, 13, 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008042109851
71.
*KubinaR. M.YoungA.KilleenM. (2004). Examining an effect of fluency: Application of letter sound writing and oral word segmentation to spelling words. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 17–23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ808001
72.
LarkinR. F.SnowlingM. J. (2008). Comparing phonological skills and spelling abilities in children with reading and language impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820601178584
73.
LedfordJ. R.LambertJ. M.PustejovskyJ. E.ZimmermanK. N.HollinsN.BartonE. E. (2023). Single-case-design research in special education: Next-generation guidelines and considerations. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402922113765
74.
*LeeS. H.ScanlonD. M. (2015). The effects of the interactive strategies approach on at-risk kindergartners’ spelling. Reading and Writing, 28, 313–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9526-z
75.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
76.
LovettM. W.FrijtersJ. C.WolfM.SteinbachK. A.SevickR. A.MorrisR. B. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181
77.
*MacArthurC. A.HaynesJ. A.MaloufD. B.HarrisK.OwingsM. (1990). Computer assisted instruction with learning disabled students: Achievement, engagement, and other factors that influence achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 6(3), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.2190/CP8T-03UR-UP3E-1DFK
78.
MacSuga-GageA. S.SimonsenB. (2015). Examining the effects of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2015.0009
79.
MagginD. M.PustejovskyJ. E.JohnsonA. H. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior: An update. Remedial and Special Education, 38(6), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517716900
80.
ManfredA.McLaughlinT. F.DerbyK. M.EversonM. (2015). The effects of a modified cover, copy, compare on spelling tests and in written compositions for three students with specific learning disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(3), 3–31. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1061939
81.
MarulisL. M.NeumanS. B. (2013). How vocabulary interventions affect young children at risk: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 223–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.755591
82.
*MatlockK. J. (1998). Comparing reading instructional methods for mildly disabled students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Carolina.
MoatsL. C. (2005). How spelling supports reading. American Educator, 6(12–22), 42.
85.
MoeyaertM.FerronJ. M.BeretvasS. N.Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2015). From a single-level analysis to a multilevel analysis of single-case experimental designs. Journal of School Psychology, 53(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.12.002
86.
*MurphyJ. F.HernC. L.WilliamsR. L.McLaughlinT. F. (1990). The effects of the copy, cover, compare approach in increasing spelling accuracy with learning disabled students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15(4), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(90)90031-H
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). The Nation’s Report Card: 2022 NAEP reading assessment (NCES 2022-513). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/
89.
NelsonG.CookS. C.ZarateK.PowellS. R.MagginD. M.DrakeK. R.. . .EspinasD. R. (2022). A systematic review of meta-analyses in special education: Exploring the evidence base for high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 43(5), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211063491
90.
NeseJ. F. T.BiancarosaG.AndersonD.LaiC. F.TindalG. (2012). Within-year achievement growth using curriculum-based measures and computer-adaptive tests: Implications for evaluating responsiveness to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.08.001
91.
NiesK. A.BelfioreP. J. (2006). Enhancing spelling performance in students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-006-9017-7
92.
*O’ConnorR. E.JenkinsJ. R. (1995). Improving the generalization of sound/symbol knowledge: Teaching spelling to kindergarten children with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699502900301
93.
*OttJ. C. (2019). The effects of time delay procedures on the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of spelling sight words for elementary students with high-incidence disabilities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The Ohio State University.
94.
OuelletteG.Martin-ChangS.RossiM. (2017). Learning from our mistakes: Improvements in spelling lead to gains in reading speed. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1306064
95.
PactonS.FayolM. (2004). Learning to spell in a deep orthography. In BermanB. A. (Ed.) Language development across childhood and adolescence (pp. 163–176). https://hal.science/hal-00115953
96.
PanY.RickardK.BjorklundD. F. (2021). Spell-check and autocorrect influence the teaching and assessment of spelling: A cognitive perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 684285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.684285
97.
ParkS.BeretvasS. N. (2019). Synthesizing effects for multiple outcomes per study using robust variance estimation versus the three-level model. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 152–171. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1156-y
98.
PerfettiC. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–175). Erlbaum.
99.
PerfettiC. A.HartL. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In VehoevenL.ElbroC.ReitsmaP. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). John Benjamins.
100.
PerryT.MorrisR.LeaR. (2022). A decade of replication study in education? A mapping review (2011–2020). Educational Research and Evaluation, 27(1–2), 12–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.2022315
101.
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153
102.
PopperK. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson & Co.
103.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2022). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections (R package version 0.5.8). https://cran.r-project.org/package=clubSandwich
104.
PustejovskyJ. E.ChenM.HamiltonB.GrekovP. (2023). scdhlm: A web-based calculator for between-case standardized mean differences (Version 0.7.2) [Web application]. https://jepusto.shinyapps.io/scdhlm
105.
PustejovskyJ. E.HedgesL. V.ShadishW. R. (2014). Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline designs: A general modeling framework. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(5), 368–393. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998614547577
106.
RappB.LipkaK. (2011). The literate brain: The relationship between spelling and reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(5), 1180–1197. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21507
107.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
108.
ReedD. K. (2012). Why teach spelling?RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
109.
RichardsT. L.AylwardE. H.FieldK. M.GrimmeA. C.RaskindW.RichardsA. L.. . .BerningerV. W. (2006). Converging evidence for triple word form theory in children with dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30(1), 547–589. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn3001_3
110.
RodgersD. B.LoveallS. J. (2023). Writing interventions for students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 44(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325221108896
*RossA. H.StevensK. B. (2003). Teaching spelling of social studies content vocabulary prior to using the vocabulary in inclusive learning environments: An examination of constant time delay, observational learning, and instructive feedback. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(4), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026002710327
113.
SchmalzX.MarinusE.ColtheartM.CastlesA. (2015). Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1614–1629. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0835-2
114.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.TorgesenJ. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
115.
*SimmonsD. C.KameenuiE. J.HarnB.CoyneM. D.StoolmillerM.SantoroL. E.SmithS. B.BeckC. T.KaufmanN. K. (2007). Attributes of effective and efficient kindergarten reading intervention: An examination of instructional time and design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400040401
116.
*SimmonsK. D. (2007). Improving the spelling skills of elementary students with mild learning and behavior problems: A comparison between an explicit rule-based method and traditional method [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auburn University.
117.
SnowlingM. (1998). Dyslexia as a phonological deficit: Evidence and implications. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 3(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00201
118.
*SpencerF.SnartF.DasJ. P. (1989). A process-based approach to the remediation of spelling in students with reading disabilities. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 35(4), 269–282. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-15842-001
119.
*StevensK. B.SchusterJ. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure on the written spelling performance of a learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510750
120.
SwansonE.SolisM.CiulloS.McKennaJ. W. (2012). Special education teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices in response to intervention implementation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711432510
121.
*TaylorL. K.AlberS. R. (2003). The effects of classwide peer tutoring on the spelling achievement of first graders with learning disabilities. The Behavior Analyst Today, 4(2), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100113
122.
*TelecsanB. L.SlatonD. B.StevensK. B. (1999). Peer tutoring: Teaching students with learning disabilities to deliver time delay instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9(2), 133–154. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022841001198
123.
*TelzerE. G. (1993). The effects of modeled strategies and attributions on students’ self-regulated learning and spelling achievement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. City University of New York.
124.
*TraininG.WilsonK. M.Murphy-YagilM.Rankin-EricksonJ. L. (2014). Taking a different route: Contribution of articulation and metacognition to intervention with at-risk third-grade readers. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 19(3–4), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2014.972103
125.
Van CampA. M.WehbyJ. H.MartinB. L. N.WrightJ. R.SutherlandK. S. (2020). Increasing opportunities to respond to intensify academic and behavioral interventions: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 49(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1717369
126.
VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12031
127.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
128.
*WaddelJ. D. (1998). The effect of treatment structure and locus of control on spelling achievement [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Cincinnati.
129.
*WanzekJ.GatlinB.Al OtaibaS.KimY.-S. G. (2017). The impact of transcription writing interventions for first-grade students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 33(5), 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1250142
130.
WanzekJ.StevensE. A.WilliamsK. J.ScammaccaN.VaughnS.SargentK. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110
131.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.GatlinB.WalkerM. A.CapinP. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7
132.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.WexlerJ.SwansonE. A.EdmondsM.KimA. H. (2006). A synthesis of spelling and reading interventions and their effects on the spelling outcomes of students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 528–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390060401
133.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL. D. A.FrançoisR.YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
134.
WilliamsK. J.WalkerM. A.VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2017). A synthesis of reading and spelling interventions and their effects on spelling outcomes for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415619753
135.
*WolterJ. A.DilworthV. (2014). The effects of a multilinguistic morphological awareness approach for improving language and literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509972
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
