Naming speed, vocabulary, sentence imitation, problem behavior, and amount of intervention correctly classify most nonresponsive and always responsive students¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2009: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
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.
q3 i? A cross-validated discriminant function analysis using four child-characteristic variables and intervention amount correctly predicted 82.40% of nonresponsive, 30.80% of sometimes responsive, and 84.10% of always responsive students, with kappa = .64. → Al Otaiba 2006
Evidence¶
Al Otaiba 2006¶
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who Are the Young Children for Whom Best Practices in Reading Are Ineffective? An Experimental and Longitudinal Study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414-431. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222194060390050401
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Discriminant function analysis on 104 children using pretreatment Rapid Letter Naming, PPVT-R, Achenbach, and Sentence Imitation plus intervention amount, cross-validated with leave-one-out. Overall "70.20% of the students were correctly classified" and kappa was .64, described as respectable agreement beyond chance.
"group membership was correctly predicted for 82.40% of nonresponsive, 30.80% of sometimes responsive, and 84.10% of always responsive students. Overall, 70.20% of the students were correctly classified through the cross-validated method. The kappa approach (Cohen, 1960) was used"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Nonresponsiveness to kindergarten intervention is persistent and predicts school-identified reading problems through third grade
- Nonresponsive students were in classrooms with lower-quality Ladders implementation and lower fall first-grade PALS fidelity
- Nonresponsive students scored significantly lower than always responsive students on seven measures and higher on problem behavior
- A meta-analysis attributes the strongest predictors of nonresponsiveness to rapid naming and problem behavior — related
- Nonresponsive, sometimes responsive, and always responsive students differ reliably on problem behavior, vocabulary, naming speed, sentence imitation, syntactic awareness, and segmentation — related
- Always responsive students showed large effect-size advantages over nonresponsive students, with the largest effect sizes ranging from 0.58 to 1.72 — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
discriminant-predictors-of-nonresponsiveness |
title |
Naming speed, vocabulary, sentence imitation, problem behavior, and amount of intervention correctly classify most nonresponsive and always responsive students |
description |
Naming speed, vocabulary, sentence imitation, problem behavior, and amount of intervention correctly classify most nonresponsive and always responsive students |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
recheck_by |
2009 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — al-otaiba-2006 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.