What Does Science Say About Orton-Gillingham Interventions?
March 29, 2021
Solari, E., Petscher, Y., & Hall, C. (2021). What Does Science Say About Orton-Gillingham Interventions? An Explanation and Commentary on the Stevens et al. (2021) Meta-Analysis.
There are important implications and limitations of the Stevens et al. (2021) findings for research. First, we echo the calls for more rigorous, experimental research on OG interventions. The inconclusive evidence reported in the Stevens et al. meta-analysis and in other research reviews is due to a confluence of factors, including (a) relatively few studies that meet inclusion criteria due to inadequate rigor in their experimental designs, (b) smaller sample sizes that can either inflate or underestimate program effects, and (c) a lack of designs that specifically test the value of exposure to multisensory instruction. An important limitation of the Stevens et al. meta-analysis is that it did not analyze differences between studies that used branded or unbranded interventions. Further, a number of the studies that used branded interventions included instructional add-ons that made the programs being evaluated slightly different from the published version of the programs. These limitations could serve to encourage reanalysis of data or proposals of new intervention studies.