EDIT Strategy instruction significantly improves total editing errors corrected by college students with IDD at posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 College students with IDD who received EDIT Strategy instruction corrected a significantly higher total number of editing errors at posttest than controls (d = .84). → Woods-Groves et al. 2017

Evidence¶

Woods-Groves et al. 2017¶

Suzanne Woods-Groves, Youjia Hua, Jeremy W. Ford, Katelyn M. Neil. (2017). Efficacy of an Electronic Editing Strategy with College Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 422-436. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1160277

q3 · i3 · causal · r1

Randomized (coin flip) pre-/posttest experimental design with 15 college students with IDD (intervention n=7, control n=8); ANCOVAs used pretest as covariate. The intervention group "yielded significant results with a large effect size in favor of the intervention group" (p = .006, d = .84).

"ANCOVA results for the raters' average Total EDIT scoring key posttest scores for the instruction and control groups yielded significant results with a large effect size in favor of the intervention group p /H11005.006, d /H11005.84."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• EDIT Strategy gains at posttest appear for spelling, punctuation, and substance errors but not capitalization or overall appearance — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• EDIT Strategy effects maintained at 5 weeks for total, spelling, punctuation, and substance errors — related
• EDIT Strategy effects persist at 12 weeks for total, spelling, and punctuation errors, with a non-significant substance difference — related
• Access to spell check and editing tools without explicit instruction did not improve, and may have reduced, control students' error correction — related