Number of treatment sessions received was not associated with end-of-treatment performance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Regression models controlling for pretest indicated that dosage (number of treatment sessions) did not predict end of treatment performance. → Amy E. Barth 2016

Evidence¶

Amy E. Barth 2016¶

Amy E. Barth, Sharon Vaughn, Philip Capin, Eunsoo Cho, Stephanie Stillman-Spisak, Leticia Martinez, and Heather Kincaid. (2016). Effects of a Text-processing Comprehension Intervention on Struggling Middle School Readers. Top Lang Disord. 2016; 36(4): 368–389. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000101

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Secondary regression analysis of dosage, with mean total instruction of 17.3 hours (SD = 2.6, Range = 8 - 21 hours) recorded via attendance records. The article reports dosage was not associated with end of treatment performance; no effect size is printed.

"regression models examining whether the number of treatment sessions predicted outcomes controlling for pretest indicated that dosage was not associated with end of treatment performance"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Intervention dosage (duration, frequency, intensity) shows no consistent association with app effect sizes — related
• Variation in instructional dosage did not explain variation in writing instruction effect sizes — related
• Dosage significantly predicts intervention effects in a linear model (β = 0.03 per hour), but the dosage main effect is no longer significant after controlling for moderators — related
• Interventions providing more than 15 total hours significantly moderate mathematics outcomes for students with MD in grades 4–12 — related
• No moderator variable (intervention type, group size, grade level, implementer, hours of intervention) significantly explained variance in intervention effects, though moderator analyses were underpowered. — related
• An on-treatment dosage analysis found no significant relationship between number of sessions attended and reading outcomes — related
• An on-treatment analysis found no significant effect of intervention dosage on reading outcomes — related
• No relationship was found between treatment dosage variables and students' response to the NS1 intervention — related