Effect sizes are higher against education-as-usual controls and lower against reading-treatment control conditions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Effect sizes depended on control group condition: they were higher when the control received education as usual and lower when the control received a reading treatment. → Verhoeven 2022

Evidence¶

Verhoeven 2022¶

Verhoeven, L.T.W.; Voeten, M.J.M.; Segers, P.C.J. (2022). Computer-assisted word reading intervention effects throughout the primary grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, article 100486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100486

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Control-condition moderator analysis in the meta-analysis of 67 studies; the review reports effects were "higher in the case of a control condition with education as usual and lower in cases of a reading treatment control condition". No effect size for this moderator is printed in the available text.

"The effect sizes were dependent on the control group condition in that the effect sizes were higher in the case of a control condition with education as usual and lower in cases of a reading treatment control condition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Procedural and strategic supports during reading tended to positively affect comprehension compared to no-treatment controls, with exceptions when compared against mobilization — related
• Against no-treatment controls, ITS produce a large statistically significant effect (g = 1.23) under a random-effects model — related
• Intervention effect sizes are moderated by treatment length, subword-level criterion variables, and speeded tests — related
• Formative assessment shows positive effects on learning, with d = 0.32 in regular classrooms — related