The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities: Immediate and Long-term Outcomes From Two Instructional Approaches
Abstract
Sixty children with severe reading disabilities were randomly assigned to two instructional programs that incorporated principles of effective instruction but differed in depth and extent of instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic decoding skills. All children received 67.5 hours of one-to-one instruction in two 50-minute sessions per day for 8 weeks. Both instructional programs produced very large improvements in generalized reading skills that were stable over a 2-year follow-up period. When compared to the growth in broad reading ability that the participants made during their previous 16 months in learning disabilities resource rooms, their growth during the intervention produced effect sizes of 4.4 for one of the interventions and 3.9 for the other. Although the children's average scores on reading accuracy and comprehension were in the average range at the end of the follow-up period, measures of reading rate showed continued severe impairment for most of the children. Within 1 year following the intervention, 40% of the children were found to be no longer in need of special education services. The two methods of instruction were not differentially effective for children who entered the study with different levels of phonological ability, and the best overall predictors of long-term growth were resource room teacher ratings of attention/behavior, general verbal ability, and prior levels of component reading skills.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.468 · Cited by 1,077
Self-citationSaracoglu, B., Minden, H., & Wilchesky, M. (1989) · Journal of Learning Disabilities · doi:10.1177/002221948902200913 · Cited by 101
Cited by
Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x · Cited by 2,555
Share, D. L. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584 · Cited by 1,022
Educating English Language Learners: A Synthesis of Research Evidence
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, B., & Christian, D. (2006) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511499913 · Cited by 743
Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., Mencl, W. E., Constable, R. T., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K. E., et al. (2004) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.12.019 · Cited by 613
The Prevention of Reading Difficulties
Torgesen, J. K. (2002) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0022-4405(01)00092-9 · Cited by 580
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Learning Disabilities
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-58
- ISSN
- 0022-2194 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-4780
- OpenAlex
- W2150052952
- Cited by
- 980
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 65.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities: Immediate and Long-term Outcomes From Two Instructional Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/002221940103400104
- The paper
- Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities: Immediate and Long-term Outcomes From Two Instructional Approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.