Predicting word-level reading fluency outcomes in three contrastive groups: Remedial and computer-assisted remedial reading intervention, and mainstream instruction
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Saine et al. found that additional GraphoGame intervention produced significant improvements over regular phonics-based remedial training in letter knowledge, decoding, accuracy, fluency, and spelling, with effect sizes between 0.22 and 2.08.
“The results showed that the additional GG intervention produced significant improvements over and above the regular phonics-based remedial training not only in letter knowledge, decoding, and accuracy, but also in fluency and spelling (the effect sizes varied between 0.22 and 2.08).”
From Testing the Effects of GraphoGame Against a Computer-Assisted Math Intervention in Primary School (2022) · cites this paper as Saine et al., 2010
Cites
Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., Erskine, J. M., & collaboration with COST Action A8 network (2003) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1348/000712603321661859 · Cited by 2,601 · see citing works
Not all nonwords are alike: Implications for reading development and theory
Treiman, R., Goswami, U., & Bruck, M. (1990) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/bf03197098 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McTigue, E. M., Solheim, O. J., Zimmer, W. K., & Uppstad, P. H. (2020) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1002/rrq.256 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Testing the Effects of GraphoGame Against a Computer-Assisted Math Intervention in Primary School
Lassault, J., Sprenger-Charolles, L., Albrand, J.-P., Alavoine, E., Richardson, U., Lyytinen, H., & Ziegler, J. C. (2022) · Scientific Studies of Reading · doi:10.1080/10888438.2022.2052884 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“In contrast to the impressive results of Saine et al. (2010, 2011), a recent meta-analysis by McTigue et al. (2020), which included 15 studies that used the GG intervention in 7 different languages (English, Polish, Spanish, German, Finnish, Portuguese, Kiswahili), came to a somewhat less…”
BackgroundResultSelf-citation
- Authors
- Saine, N. L., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Ahonen, T., Tolvanen, A., & Lyytinen, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Jyväskylä (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Saine, Nina L.
- Venue
- Learning and Individual Differences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 402-414
- ISSN
- 1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1983084289
- Cited by
- 99
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 9.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- McGill University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Keywords
- reading fluency, computer-based intervention, pre-reading skills, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, letter knowledge, Finnish language, early reading, school beginners
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
