Study designs and statistical analyses in literacy resilience research are often insufficient to distinguish promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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? The designs and/or statistical analyses used in included studies were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors. → Appels 2024
Evidence¶
Appels 2024¶
Appels, S., van Viersen, S., van Erp, S., Hornstra, L., & de Bree, E. (2024). A scoping review on word-reading resilience in literacy: Evaluating empirical evidence for protective factors. Learning and Instruction, 93, 101969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101969
q2 · i? · review · r2
The review's second main finding from analyzing the 22 included studies: their "study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors". No effect size is printed for this methodological conclusion.
"2) study designs and/or statistical analyses used were often insufficient to distinguish between promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors in literacy resilience is underrecognized while the same evidence is overinterpreted towards protective effects — related
- Most studies of literacy resilience have (very) small sample sizes and low statistical power to find relevant effects — related
- Empirical evidence for protective factors in word-reading resilience is sparse and based on only a few studies — related
- Trait resilience had a promotive role in academic performance for immigrant and non-immigrant students alike, and an additional protective effect mitigating the negative effect of school discrimination specifically among first- and second-generation immigrant students (reported by the editors, citing Huang et al.) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Vocabulary was a promotive but not protective factor for word reading: its interaction with phonological awareness was skill-enhancing, benefiting the lower-risk group — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
designs-insufficient-distinguish-resilience-factor-types |
title |
Study designs and statistical analyses in literacy resilience research are often insufficient to distinguish promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors |
description |
Study designs and statistical analyses in literacy resilience research are often insufficient to distinguish promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — appels-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.