Is Phonological-Only Instruction Helpful for Reading? A Meta-Analysis
Stalega, M. W., Kearns, D. M., Bourget, et al. · 2024
grade Cmeta-analysisindependentreplicated
Sample
38 studies / 293 effect sizes, preK-1
Population
Preschool-grade 1 readers.
Design
Meta comparing phonological-only (speech-based) instruction against untreated comparisons and against print-based instruction.
Key findings
Phonological-only instruction beats doing nothing (g=0.57) but LOSES to print-integrated instruction (g=-0.54). Speech-only PA is not the efficient lever; tying phonemes to letters is.
Genetic confound
Experimental base.
Replication notes
Confirms NELP's 'PA needs letters' from the opposite direction.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PA-only vs untreated comparison | g | 0.57 | mixed | end-of-treatment | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| PA-only vs PRINT-based instruction | g | -0.54 (print-based wins) | mixed | end-of-treatment | active-alternative | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
Cited by
- Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters)moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low