The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of Treatment Approaches for Children and Adolescents with Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Open accessAbstract
Children and adolescents with reading disabilities experience a significant impairment in the acquisition of reading and spelling skills. Given the emotional and academic consequences for children with persistent reading disorders, evidence-based interventions are critically needed. The present meta-analysis extracts the results of all available randomized controlled trials. The aims were to determine the effectiveness of different treatment approaches and the impact of various factors on the efficacy of interventions. The literature search for published randomized-controlled trials comprised an electronic search in the databases ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Cochrane, and an examination of bibliographical references. To check for unpublished trials, we searched the websites clinicaltrials.com and ProQuest, and contacted experts in the field. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 49 comparisons of experimental and control groups could be included. The comparisons evaluated five reading fluency trainings, three phonemic awareness instructions, three reading comprehension trainings, 29 phonics instructions, three auditory trainings, two medical treatments, and four interventions with coloured overlays or lenses. One trial evaluated the effectiveness of sunflower therapy and another investigated the effectiveness of motor exercises. The results revealed that phonics instruction is not only the most frequently investigated treatment approach, but also the only approach whose efficacy on reading and spelling performance in children and adolescents with reading disabilities is statistically confirmed. The mean effect sizes of the remaining treatment approaches did not reach statistical significance. The present meta-analysis demonstrates that severe reading and spelling difficulties can be ameliorated with appropriate treatment. In order to be better able to provide evidence-based interventions to children and adolescent with reading disabilities, research should intensify the application of blinded randomized controlled trials.
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
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Langenberg, D. N. (2000) · Cited by 4,305
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
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003) · Annals of Dyslexia · doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9 · Cited by 1,914
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub‐Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.1598/rrq.36.3.2 · Cited by 1,493
Publication bias in meta-analysis its causes and consequences
Thornton, A. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00161-4 · Cited by 1,291 · cited 1×
“Publication bias refers to the appearance that many studies remain unpublished because of negligible effect sizes or nonsignificant findings [53].”
BackgroundEstimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments.
Hedges, L. V. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.92.2.490 · Cited by 1,062
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., & Willows, D. M. (2001) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543071003393 · Cited by 931
Cited by
Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618772271 · Cited by 1,297
Wyse, D., & Bradbury, A. (2022) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3314 · Cited by 117
Schiavo, G., Mana, N., Mich, O., Zancanaro, M., & Job, R. (2021) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12530 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K., & Schulte-Körne, G.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-02-26
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e89900
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008807393
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 6.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Effectiveness of Treatment Approaches for Children and Adolescents with Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0089900
- The paper
- Galuschka, K., Ise, E., Krick, K., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Effectiveness of Treatment Approaches for Children and Adolescents with Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089900
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.