ReviewInternational journal of language & communication disorders2021
An evidence-based synthesis of instructional reading and spelling procedures using telepractice: A rapid review in the context of COVID-19.
Review in International journal of language & communication disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Telerehabilitation of Developmental Dyslexia: Critical Considerations on Intervention Methods and Their Effectiveness.Brain sciences · 2024Review
- The COVID generation: Online dyslexia treatment equally effective as face-to-face treatment in a Dutch sample.Annals of dyslexia · 2024Article
- Remote treatment of developmental dyslexia: how ADHD comorbidity, clinical history and treatment repetition may affect its efficacy.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Reading fluency during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2022Article
- A trial of online ABRACADABRA literacy instruction with supplementary parent-led shared book reading for children with autism.Research in developmental disabilities · 2022Article
- Remote Neuropsychological Intervention for Developmental Dyslexia with the Tachidino Platform: No Reduction in Effectiveness for Older Nor for More Severely Impaired Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Towards development of guidelines for virtual administration of paediatric standardized language and literacy assessments: Considerations for clinicians and researchers.SAGE open medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to COVID-19, many educators and allied health practitioners are facing the challenge of rapidly transitioning to telepractice delivery of instructional reading and spelling procedures without being fully informed of the evidence.
aimsA rapid review was conducted to provide educators, allied health practitioners and policymakers with a synthesis of valid, relevant and actionable evidence relating to telepractice delivery of instructional reading and spelling procedures. The aim was to investigate the nature and outcomes of studies examining instructional reading and spelling procedures delivered via telepractice to school-aged students. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A rapid review was undertaken in accordance with the eight-step process published by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Medline (all databases), Embase, Cochrane and ProQuest Central were systematically searched with predefined search terms organized across four key concepts relating to the research questions. OUTCOMES &
resultsNine studies were included in this rapid review. Reading and spelling instruction and intervention using telepractice can be feasible and engaging. Telepractice assessment for reading and spelling can be equally effective as onsite assessment. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The evidence base for telepractice delivery of reading and spelling procedures is in its infancy in terms of both the quantity and the quality of the evidence. Insufficient evidence exists to draw clear conclusions about its efficacy, and therefore practitioners should proceed cautiously. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject For onsite delivery, evidence-based reading and spelling assessment, instruction and interventions delivered by educators and allied health practitioners have been shown to accelerate students' skills; less is known about the efficacy of instructional reading and spelling procedures in a telepractice model, which have rapidly become the new norm in many countries due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The benefits of telepractice include improved access to services, increased service availability, convenience, time efficiency, caseload management efficiency and removal of logistical barriers relating to cost and geographical location. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telepractice has facilitated continued access to services. What this study adds to existing knowledge Reading and spelling instruction and intervention delivered via telepractice can be feasible and engaging. Telepractice is a viable mode to deliver reading and spelling assessments with strong agreement between telepractice and onsite scores. Given their low methodological quality, the studies in this review provide valuable information around the how of telepractice reading and spelling procedures and highlight the factors that may contribute to positive outcomes with this service delivery model. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Educators and allied health practitioners need a thorough understanding of the student's telepractice environment and require adequate training and support to engage in telepractice service delivery. Educators and allied health practitioners should consider students for telepractice on a case-by-case basis. Practitioners should proceed cautiously with telepractice reading and spelling assessment, intervention and instruction, with the knowledge that the current available evidence is of limited quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.