Orton-Gillingham (OG) and Orton-Gillingham—based reading instructional programs are commonly implemented reading programs in the United States. Twelve studies that employed quasi-experimental or experimental designs are reviewed. These studies included elementary students, adolescents, and college students. Of the 12 studies, 5 reported that the OG instruction was more effective than were comparison or control interventions for all measured outcomes, 4 reported that the OG instruction was more effective for at least 1 (but not all) outcomes in comparison to other intervention(s), 2 reported that the alternate instruction was more effective than the OG instruction, and 1 reported no significant differences once covariates were included. The largest effects were reported for word attack and non-word reading outcomes, with mean effect size of .82, and comprehension outcomes, with a mean effect size of .76. Following a summary of each study, limitations of the current review and implications for future research and practice are described. Given the small number of studies, the lack of methodological rigor of the existing studies, and the inconclusive findings of the effectiveness of OG programs, additional research is needed before the scientific basis can be established.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bhat, P., Rapport, M.J., & Griffin, C.C. (2000). A legal perspective on the use of specific reading methods for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 283—297.
2.
Biasotto, V.L. (1993). Project ASSIST Institute: AnOrton-Gillingham/ Spalding based curriculum for teachers and volunteers. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 260—270.
3.
Brown, V., Hammill, D.D., & Wiederholt, J. (1978). The Test of Reading Comprehension . Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
4.
Chandler, C.T., Munday, R., Tunnell, J.W., & Windham, R. (1993). OrtonGillingham: A reading strategy revisited . Reading Improvement, 30, 59— 64.
5.
Clark, D.B., & Uhry, J.K. (1995). Dyslexia: Theory and practice of remedial instruction . Baltimore: York Press.
6.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Cox, A.R. (1992). Foundations for literacy: Structures and techniques for multisensory teaching of basic written language skills. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishers Service.
8.
Dooley, B. (1994). Multisensorially integrating reading and composition: Effects on achievement of remedial readers in middle school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Denton: Texas Woman's University..
Enfield, M.L. (1971). Specific language disability programs in Bloomington, Minnesota Public Schools. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 21, 95— 110.
11.
Enfield, M.L., & Greene, V. (1997). Project read. Bloomington, MN: Language Circle Enterprise.
12.
Fast ForWord. (1998). Berkely, CA: Scientific Learning Corporation.
13.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J.M. (1997). Early interventions for children with learning disabilities. Scientific Studies in Reading, 1, 255—276.
14.
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33, 445—457.
15.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M.S. (2005). Quality indicators of group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149—164.
16.
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B.W. (1960). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
17.
Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B.W. (1997). The Gillingham manual: Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. (8th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
18.
Greenwood, C.R., & Abbott, M. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education . Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 276—289.
19.
Guyer, B.P., Banks, S.R., & Guyer, K.E. (1993). Spelling improvement for college students who are dyslexic. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 186—193.
20.
Guyer, B.P., & Sabatino, D. (1989). The effectiveness of a multisensory Alphabetic Phonics approach with college students who are learning disabled. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 430—434.
21.
Hammill, D., & Larsen, S.C. (1988). The test of written language—2nd edition. Austin, TX: ProEd.
22.
Herman, R. (1993). The Herman method for reversing reading failure . Sherman Oaks, CA: Herman Method Institute.
23.
Hook, P., Macaruso, P., & Jones, S. (2001). Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties: A longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 75—96.
24.
Hutcheson, L., Selig, H., & Young, N. (1990). A success story: A large urban district offers a working model for implementing multisensory teaching into the resource and regular classroom. Annals of Dyslexia, 40, 79—96.
25.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G.S. (1984). The Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
26.
Joshi, R.M., Dahlgren, M., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2002). Teaching reading in an inner city school through a multisensory approach. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 229—242.
27.
Karlsen, B.R., & Gardner, E. (1985). Stanford diagnostic reading test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
28.
Knight, J.K. (1995). Starting over: An overview. In C. W. McIntyre & J. S. Pickering (Eds.), Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education (pp. 231—232). Salem, OR : International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council.
29.
Lindamood, C., & Lindamood, P. (1979). The Lindamood auditory conceptualization test . Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
30.
Litcher, J.H., & Roberge, L.P. (1979). First grade intervention for reading achievement of high risk children. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 24, 238— 244.
McIntyre, C. W., & Pickering, J. S. (Eds.). (1995). Clinical studies of multisensory structured language education. Salem, OR : International Multisensory Structured Language Education Council.
33.
No Child Left Behind. (2002). Retrieved September 27, 2004, from http:// www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02.html
34.
Oakland, T., Black, J.L., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N.L., & Balise, R.R. (1998). An evaluation of the Dyslexia Training Program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in students with reading disabilities . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 140—147.
35.
Ogden, S., Hindman, S., & Turner, S.D. (1989). Multisensory programs in the public schools: A brighter future for LD children. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 247—267.
36.
Orton, S. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech problems in children . New York: Norton.
37.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Simpson, S.B., Swanson, J.M., & Kunkel, K. (1992). The impact of an intensive multisensory reading program on a population of learning disabled delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 54—66.
39.
Slingerland, B.H., & Aho, M. (1994—1996). Slingerland reading program . Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
40.
Spalding, R.B., & Spalding, W.T. (1990). The writing road to reading (4th ed.). New York: Quill.
41.
Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (1993). The effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk high school foreign language learners: A replication and follow-up study. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 194—216.
42.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Kenneweg, S., & Miller, K. (1991). Use of anOrton- Gillingham approach to a foreign language to dyslexic/learningdisabled students: Explicit teaching of phonology in a second language. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 96—118.
43.
Sparks, R., Ganschow, L., Pohlman, J., Skinner, S., & Artzer, M. (1992). The effects of multisensory structured language instruction on native language and foreign language aptitude skills of at-risk foreign language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 42, 25—53.
44.
Stoner, J. (1991). Teaching at-risk students to read using specialized techniques in the regular classroom. Reading and Writing. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 19—30.
45.
Torgesen, J.K., & Bryant, B.R. (1994). The test of phonological awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
46.
Traub, N., & Bloom, F. (1992). Recipe for reading (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
47.
Vickery, K.S., Reynolds, V.A., & Cochran, S.W. (1987). Multisensory teaching approach for reading, spelling, and handwriting: Orton-Gillingham based curriculum in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 189— 200.
48.
Westrich-Bond, A. (1993). The e fect of direct instruction of a synthetic sequential phonics program on the decoding abilities of elementary school learning disabled students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New Brunswick: The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.
49.
Wilson, B.A. (1996). Wilson reading system. Millbury, MA: Wilson Language Training Corporation.
50.
Woodcock, R.W. (1973). Woodcock reading mastery test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
51.
Woodcock, R.W. (1989). Woodcock reading mastery test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
52.
Woodcock, R.W. (1998). Woodcock reading mastery test—Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
