Claims

Initially lowest-performing students on phonological decoding grew more than peers regardless of condition, with the largest growth in the morphological-awareness vocabulary condition

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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.

q2 i3 Higher-risk students (at or below the pretest NWF median of 35 sounds per minute) improved more from pretest to posttest than lower-risk students (d = .69 vs. d = .26), and among them the MA condition showed the largest effect (d = 1.01 vs. SR .65 and PAD .63), though between-condition differences were not statistically significant. → Filippini 2012

Evidence

Filippini 2012

Filippini, A. L., Gerber, M. M., & Leafstedt, J. M. (2012). A Vocabulary-Added Reading Intervention for English Learners At-Risk of Reading Difficulties. International Journal of Special Education, 27(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1001055

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Pre-post effect size analysis of higher-risk students defined by the pretest NWF median split in this exploratory study; the MA group's d = 1.01 is a large effect. A Kruskall-Wallis test on posttest NWF mean ranks was not significant (c2(2) = 1.63, p = .443), though mean rank was higher for MA (19.94) and SR (19.40) than PAD (14.96).

"Among the higher risk students, the MA group had the largest effect size (d = 1.01) compared to SR (d = .65) and PAD ( d = .63)."

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.