Computer-Assisted Remedial Reading Intervention for School Beginners at Risk for Reading Disability Nina L. Saine, Marja-Kristiina Lerkkanen, Timo Ahonen, Asko Tolvanen, and Heikki Lyytinen University of Jyva ¨skyla ¨ The aim of the longitudinal study was to investigate whether a computer application designed for remedial reading training can enhance letter knowledge, reading accuracy, fluency, and spelling of at-risk children. The participants, 7-year-old Finnish school beginners (N = 166), were assigned to 1 of 3 groups: (a) regular remedial reading intervention (n = 25), (b) computer-assessed reading intervention (n = 25), and (c) main- stream reading instruction (n = 116). Based on the results, computer-assisted remedial reading intervention was highly beneficial, whereas regular type of intervention was less successful. The results indicated that at- risk children require computer-based letter–name and letter–sound training to acquire adequate decoding and spelling skills, and to reach the level of their non-at-risk peers. Poor phonological awareness and letter knowledge have been acknowledged as main obstacles to suc- cessful reading acquisition (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1983; McCormick, 1999; Torgesen, 1998). The litera- ture cited earlier provides the theoretical back- ground for reading intervention programs that promote these two key factors (e.g., Hatcher, Hul- me, & Snowling, 2004; Wimmer & Mayringer, 2002) and further spelling ability (cf. Hatcher et al., 2006; Share, 1995). However, although, early training in letter–sound relations has been advocated (Beech, Pedley, & Barlow, 1994), research on letter–sound interventions is scarce, as are training studies among at-risk school beginners. Consequently, in the present study reading acquisition was explored in two at-risk groups. The benefits of regular reme- dial reading intervention (RRI) and computer- assisted remedial reading intervention (CARRI) were scrutinized in school beginners with compro- mised prereading skills in orthographically regular Finnish language context. The main focus in theoretical accounts of literacy skill development has been on word recognition because of its central role in beginning reading. Process-oriented theories share the idea of a contin- uum: Each stage of development builds upon ear- lier experiences and provides the foundation for later ones (e.g., Ehri, 1989; Ehri & McCormick, 1998; Frith, 1985). All readers will pass through the stages from prereading to skilled reading. A point of divergence, however, is in the importance attached to letter–sound knowledge when children begin to read and spell. One of the most frequently used models of read- ing achievement in beginning readers is Ehri’s (Ehri & McCormick, 1998) stage model, in which the acquisition of alphabetic knowledge and facility with letter–sound relations is of pivotal importance in the process of learning to read and spell. In Ehri’s model, each of the five stages characterizes the learner’s understanding and use of the alpha- betic system in word reading. During the prealpha- betic stage, the child acquires oral language skills and begins to identify printed signs from the envi- ronment, learning the shapes and names of letters. Transition to the partial-alphabetic stage is thus sig- naled when the child starts attending to specific letter–sound relations to aid word recognition. In the full-alphabetic stage, the child is able to recognize the connections fully between the letters and The research was supported by a grant from the Research Foundation of the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare, the Jyva ¨skyla ¨ Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia (JLD), the Graduate School of Psychology, and the Niilo Ma ¨ki Institute. The develop- ment of the prevention game technology has been supported by the Finnish Centre of Excellence Programs 44858 and 213486 (2000–2005 and 2006–) of the Academy of Finland. We are grate- ful to the teachers, parents, and children in the participating schools for their unstinting support in this long-term research project. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nina L. Saine, Department of Psychology, PO Box 35, University of Jyva ¨skyla ¨, 40014 Jyva ¨skyla ¨, Finland. Electronic mail may be sent to nina.saine@psyka.jyu.fi. Child Development, May ⁄ June 2011, Volume 82, Number 3, Pages 1013–1028 Ó 2011 The Authors Child Development Ó 2011 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2011/8203-0021 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01580.x