Interventions targeting different reading and skill content domains show mostly small differences, with average effect sizes of 0.14–0.22 all statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Interventions targeting fluency, vocabulary, multiple reading areas, meta-cognitive, social-emotional, or general academic skills, comprehension, spelling and writing, and decoding had average effect sizes ranging from 0.14 to 0.22, all statistically significant. → Dietrichson J 2020

Evidence¶

Dietrichson J 2020¶

Dietrichson J, Filges T, Klokker RH, Viinholt BCA, Bøg M, Jensen UH. (2020). Targeted school‐based interventions for improving reading and mathematics for students with, or at risk of, academic difficulties in Grades 7–12: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1081

q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup meta-analyses of short-run effects by content domain. The review reports "average effect sizes ranging from 0.14 to 0.22, all of them statistically significant", with mostly small differences between domains; maths-test effects (0.34) were the exception.

"The differences between effect sizes from interventions targeting different content domains were mostly small. Interventions targeting fluency, vocabulary, multiple reading areas, meta‐cognitive, social‐emotional, or general academic skills, comprehension, spelling and writing, and decoding had average effect sizes ranging from 0.14 to 0.22, all of them statistically significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Phonics instruction has a small but statistically confirmed effect for children with reading disabilities, while Orton-Gillingham structured-literacy programs show positive but non-significant effects — a broader claim this one bears on
• In the 2010 RCT, LLI showed no discernible effects on alphabetics (domain average effect size 0.13, not statistically significant) — related
• In a randomized study in rural and suburban Georgia and New York, LLI produced an average effect size of +0.17 across five DIBELS scales with significant differences on Non-Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency — related
• In a 2010 RCT in Georgia and New York, LLI produced a statistically significant positive effect on general reading achievement (effect size 0.35, improvement index +14) — related
• SMART® effects on comprehension were not statistically significant on either subtest, though the domain-average effect size was substantively important — related
• Content domain shows little association with effect sizes, except fractions in mathematics — related
• Literacy First shows strong ESSA evidence of positive effects in phonics and related alphabetics, reading fluency, and reading comprehension for grades K–2 — related
• Prior reviews report positive word-reading intervention effects for adolescents but with a wide range (0-1.31) due to broad outcome conceptualization — related
• Extensive reading shows small-to-medium significant positive effects on every measured language domain, including vocabulary, reading comprehension, and general proficiency — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Reading interventions significantly improve literacy skills of Chinese children overall (g = 0.68) — related
• SRL strategy interventions improve academic achievement, with meta-analytic effects that vary by domain — related