↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Phonics training for English-speaking poor readers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009115.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Genevieve McArthur, Philippa M Eve, Kristy Jones, Erin Banales, Saskia Kohnen, Thushara Anandakumar, Linda Larsen, Eva Marinus, Hua-Chen Wang, Anne Castles

Abstract

Around 5% of English speakers have a significant problem with learning to read words. Poor word readers are often trained to use letter-sound rules to improve their reading skills. This training is commonly called phonics. Well over 100 studies have administered some form of phonics training to poor word readers. However, there are surprisingly few systematic reviews or meta-analyses of these studies. The most well-known review was done by the National Reading Panel (Ehri 2001) 12 years ago and needs updating. The most recent review (Suggate 2010) focused solely on children and did not include unpublished studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 169 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 21%
Researcher 34 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 25 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 27%
Social Sciences 33 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Neuroscience 9 5%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 35 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2019.
All research outputs
#432,042
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#972
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,570
of 263,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.