C/DM LD status likewise does not predict posttest reading outcomes beyond pretest performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? C/DM LD status was not a significant predictor of posttest decoding, fluency, or comprehension, with eta squared statistics of .00 to .002. → Miciak Jeremy 2016

Evidence¶

Miciak Jeremy 2016¶

Miciak Jeremy, Williams Jacob L., Taylor W. Pat, Cirino Paul T., Fletcher Jack M., Vaughn Sharon. (2016). Do Processing Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Predict Differential Treatment Response? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000096

q3 · i? · associational · r2

ANCOVAs parallel to the XBA analyses using C/DM LD status as predictor for the same 206 treatment-group fourth graders. Pretest eta squared ranged .52-.69; C/DM status added no significant prediction on any outcome.

"C/DM LD status was not a significant predictor of posttest performance in decoding, F (1, 205) = .96, p > .05, η2 = .00, reading fluency, F (1, 205) = .24, p > .05, η2 = .00, or reading comprehension, F (1, 205) = .47, p > .05, η2 = .00."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• For the C/DM, only short-term memory deficit status significantly predicted posttest word reading — related
• XBA LD status does not predict posttest reading outcomes beyond pretest performance in decoding, fluency, or comprehension — related
• A few XBA inclusionary criteria modestly predict word reading only, with very small eta squared values (η2 range .008 to .018) — related
• The XBA and C/DM PSW methods show chance-level agreement (kappa = -.10) in identifying LD among fourth graders with reading comprehension deficits — related