Nonresponsive students were in classrooms with lower-quality Ladders implementation and lower fall first-grade PALS fidelity¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2006 · 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 i? Responsiveness status was associated with quality of Ladders implementation and fall first-grade PALS fidelity, but not with K-PALS or spring PALS fidelity. → 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
Univariate ANOVAs on implementation fidelity by responsiveness status. Post hoc Tukey comparisons showed nonresponsive students were in classrooms with significantly lower Ladders quality (p < .01 vs. both responsive groups) and lower fall first-grade PALS fidelity than always responsive students (p < .01).
"There were statistically significant differences in average quality ratings for Ladders, F(2, 67) = 7.42, p < .001; and for combined teacher–student fidelity of first-grade PALS in the fall, F(2, 36) = 12.70, p < 001."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Naming speed, vocabulary, sentence imitation, problem behavior, and amount of intervention correctly classify most nonresponsive and always responsive students
- Nonresponsive students scored significantly lower than always responsive students on seven measures and higher on problem behavior
- Nonresponsiveness to kindergarten intervention is persistent and predicts school-identified reading problems through third grade
- 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 |
fidelity-associated-with-responsiveness |
title |
Nonresponsive students were in classrooms with lower-quality Ladders implementation and lower fall first-grade PALS fidelity |
description |
Nonresponsive students were in classrooms with lower-quality Ladders implementation and lower fall first-grade PALS fidelity |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
mixed |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
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.