Claims

EDIT Strategy effects maintained at 5 weeks for total, spelling, punctuation, and substance errors

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2017 · 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.

q3 i3 Five weeks after instruction, the intervention group significantly outperformed controls on total errors (d = 1.01), spelling (d = .97), punctuation (d = 1.17), and substance (d = 1.13). → 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 · r2

Maintenance probe administered 5 weeks after instruction without strategy review, analyzed via ANCOVA with pretest covariate. Total errors "yielded significant results in favor of the intervention group with a large effect size" (p = .003, d = 1.01); spelling, punctuation, and substance also significant; capitalization and overall appearance not significant.

"At 5 weeks, the raters' average total EDIT scoring key posttest scores for the intervention and control groups yielded significant results in favor of the intervention group with a large effect size p /H11005.003, d /H110051.01."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.