In the Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006) trial, Enhanced Proactive Reading students significantly outperformed comparison students on Word Attack and Passage Comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2006 · 1 of 2 entries checked against their sources (automated) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Statistically significant differences favoring the intervention group appeared on two of four reading measures, Word Attack (effect size 1.53) and Passage Comprehension (effect size 1.32). → Enhanced Proactive Reading 2006 q3 i? The average effect size for reading achievement in this study was statistically significant and large enough to be considered substantively important using WWC criteria. → Enhanced Proactive Reading 2006 (2)

Evidence¶

Enhanced Proactive Reading 2006¶

Enhanced Proactive Reading. (2006). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Randomized controlled trial with randomization problems (41 first-grade Hispanic English language learners, 14 classrooms, Texas). Appendix A3.1 reports Word Attack effect size 1.53 (improvement index +43) and Passage Comprehension effect size 1.32 (+41), both statistically significant.

"Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006) found statistically significant differences favoring the Enhanced Proactive Reading students in two of the four reading measures (Word Attack and Passage Comprehension)."

Enhanced Proactive Reading 2006 (2)¶

Enhanced Proactive Reading. (2006). What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

q3 · i? · causal · r?

WWC calculations for the Vaughn, Mathes, et al. (2006) trial. The report states the average effect size for reading achievement in this study "was statistically significant, as calculated by the WWC, and large enough to be considered substantively important using WWC criteria." No effect size value is printed in this sentence.

"Further, the average effect size for reading achievement in this study was statistically significant, as calculated by the WWC, and large enough to be considered substantively important using WWC criteria."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In the Vaughn, Cirino, et al. (2006) trial, no reading measure reached statistical significance, but five of seven effect sizes were substantively important — related
• Enhanced Proactive Reading shows no discernible effects on English language development — related
• Enhanced Proactive Reading has potentially positive effects on reading achievement for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems — a broader claim this one bears on
• Supplemental first-grade interventions for ELLs improved phonological and word-level skills but not comprehension, with comprehension gains emerging at one-year follow-up — reports the opposite