What Does Science Say About Orton-Gillingham Interventions? An Explanation and Commentary on the Stevens et al. (2021) Meta-Analysis

A recent meta-analysis published in Exceptional Children (Stevens et al., 2021) looked at the effects of Orton-Gillingham (OG) reading interventions on reading outcomes for students who have word reading difficulties. The results of the study, which showed no statistically significant effect but a practically important effect size (explained further below), have led to questions and lively conversation among practitioners and reading researchers. One of the things that is important about science is that it is constantly evolving: this is true in education science as much as it is in the health sciences. Because this journal is committed to translating empirical findings from reading research in order to make education science accessible to practitioners, the intent of this commentary is to provide a clear description of the findings reported in this recent meta-analysis, addressing the degree to which they align with those reported in similar reviews of OG interventions. We discuss the degree to which the findings represent an evolution of reading science and their implications for instructional practice, policy, and future research.