Claims

Student engagement ratings were statistically significantly higher in CCT classrooms than in BAU comparison classrooms

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? Observers rated overall student engagement higher in CCT classes (M = 2.11, SD = 0.34) than BAU classes (M = 1.96, SD = 0.67), a statistically significant difference, t = 2.21(235), p = .03. → Nathan H. Clemens 2019

Evidence

Nathan H. Clemens 2019

Nathan H. Clemens, Eric Oslund, Oi-man Kwok, Melissa Fogarty, Deborah Simmons, and John L. Davis. (2019). Skill Moderators of the Effects of a Reading Comprehension Intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918787339

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Direct classroom observations rated engagement on a 1-to-3 scale with 91.6% interobserver agreement. Only a test statistic was printed, no effect size, so impact is null. Implementation quality across CCT components averaged 3.05 (SD = 0.31).

"The mean engagement rating was greater in CCT classes (M = 2.11, SD = 0.34, range = 1–3) compared to BAU (M = 1.96, SD = 0.67, range = 1–3); this difference was statistically significant; t = 2.21(235), p = .03"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.