Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39212901›Full record

ArticleAnnals of dyslexia2025

Exploring the feasibility of implementing the SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing intervention.

Katlynn Dahl-Leonard, Colby Hall, Philip Capin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of dyslexia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katlynn Dahl-LeonardDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. kdahlleo@central.uh.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6124-5990
Colby HallDepartment of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0779-1322
Philip CapinMeadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8305-5549

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined six reading intervention teachers' implementation of the SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing intervention with students in Grades 2 and 3. The purpose was to explore the extent to which teachers who received a one-day training session without ongoing coaching support were able to implement the intervention with fidelity. It also aimed to better understand the determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of teachers' implementation and their perceptions related to the importance, feasibility, and effectiveness of the intervention. Data from four sources (implementation logs, implementation observations, interviews, and surveys) were collected and analyzed. Participating teachers did not implement the intervention at the intended dosage of 4 days per week, but they did demonstrate high adherence and quality on average. Several barriers to implementation were identified, including intervention training, intervention content and structure, compatibility with existing practices, and alignment with goals. Notable facilitators of implementation were teacher capability and peer support. Teachers had varying perceptions of the intervention, with neutral satisfaction on average. These findings indicate a need for further research on determinants of intervention implementation as they may be crucial in supporting teachers' implementation fidelity.

Indexed as

ReadingSchool TeachersWritingAdultChildFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleDeterminants of implementationFidelityReading intervention

Identifiers

PMID39212901
PMCPMC11954702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.