Both inadequate responder groups show more teacher-rated attention problems and lower self-reported self-efficacy than typical readers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Inadequate responders showed significantly greater teacher-rated attention problems and lower self-reported academic self-efficacy than typical readers. → Cho Eunsoo 2015 q3 i? Adequate responders were also rated as more inattentive than typical readers, but inadequate and adequate responders did not differ on attention or self-efficacy. → Cho Eunsoo 2015

Evidence¶

Cho Eunsoo 2015¶

Cho Eunsoo, Roberts Garrett J., Capin Philip, Roberts Greg, Miciak Jeremy, Vaughn Sharon. (2015). Cognitive Attributes, Attention, and Self-Efficacy of Adequate and Inadequate Responders in a Fourth Grade Reading Intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793275/

q3 · i3 · associational · r2

Series of ANOVAs comparing the four reader groups on teacher-rated attention (SWAN scale) and student-reported academic self-efficacy. The contrasts showed inadequate responders had "greater attention problems, t (130) = 6.33, corrected p < .001, and lower self-efficacy, t (136) = 4.23, corrected p < .001, compared to typical readers". Table 3 reports Hedges' g = 1.14 for attention and g = .80 for self-efficacy on the TR vs. IR contrast.

"Pairwise contrasts indicated that inadequate responders showed greater attention problems, t (130) = 6.33, corrected p < .001, and lower self-efficacy, t (136) = 4.23, corrected p < .001, compared to typical readers. Adequate responders were more inattentive than typical readers, t(61) = 3.56, corrected p = .004."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Inadequate responders to fourth-grade reading intervention show lower verbal knowledge and listening comprehension than adequate responders and typical readers — related
• Inadequate responders were more likely to have identified disabilities and limited English proficiency than adequate responders or typical readers — related
• The multivariate omnibus test shows significant cognitive profile differences across the four reader groups — related
• Phonological awareness and rapid naming differentiate inadequate responders with word reading deficits from those without — related
• Adequate responders differ from typical readers on verbal knowledge, listening comprehension, working memory, and phonological awareness — related
• Different responsiveness-determination approaches (status vs. slope, criteria, domains, cut points) identify different students as adequate and inadequate responders, with little or no overlap — related