Adequate responders differ from typical readers on verbal knowledge, listening comprehension, working memory, and phonological awareness¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Even students who responded adequately to intervention scored significantly below typical readers on four of six cognitive attributes: verbal knowledge, listening comprehension, working memory, and phonological awareness. → Cho Eunsoo 2015

Evidence¶

Cho Eunsoo 2015¶

Cho Eunsoo, Roberts Garrett J., Capin Philip, Roberts Greg, Miciak Jeremy, Vaughn Sharon. (2015). Cognitive Attributes, Attention, and Self-Efficacy of Adequate and Inadequate Responders in a Fourth Grade Reading Intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793275/

q3 · i3 · associational · r2

Planned pairwise contrast from the MANOVA profile analysis comparing adequate responders to typical readers. The contrast showed differences on "verbal knowledge, t (65) = 3.52, corrected p = .004, listening comprehension, t (65) = 3.09, corrected p = .015, working memory, t (65) = 3.40, corrected p = .01, and phonological awareness, t (65) = 3.43, corrected p = .008". Table 3 reports Hedges' g values of 1.19 for verbal knowledge and listening comprehension, .89 for working memory, and .84 for phonological awareness.

"Adequate responders differed from typical readers in verbal knowledge, t (65) = 3.52, corrected p = .004, listening comprehension, t (65) = 3.09, corrected p = .015, working memory, t (65) = 3.40, corrected p = .01, and phonological awareness, t (65) = 3.43, corrected p = .008."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Inadequate responders to fourth-grade reading intervention show lower verbal knowledge and listening comprehension than adequate responders and typical readers — related
• The multivariate omnibus test shows significant cognitive profile differences across the four reader groups — a broader claim this one bears on
• Phonological awareness and rapid naming differentiate inadequate responders with word reading deficits from those without — related
• Both inadequate responder groups show more teacher-rated attention problems and lower self-reported self-efficacy than typical readers — related