Latent profiles moderated the effect of reading comprehension intervention: the Treatment by Profile interaction was statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In a random intercept mixed model, treatment effects on Gates post-test reading comprehension were moderated by latent profiles (Treatment by Profile interaction, β = .42; F(1, 181) = 4.33; p = .039). → Kulesz 2024

Evidence¶

Kulesz 2024¶

Kulesz, P. A., Roberts, G. J., Francis, D. J., Cirino, P., Walczak, M., & Vaughn, S. (2024). Latent profiles as predictors of response to instruction for students with reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000832

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Conditional mixed model on the 269 RCT students (nested in 66 teachers within 9 schools) with Gates post-test standard score as outcome, latent profile and condition as predictors, and language proficiency, special education, and gender as covariates. The printed "Treatment by Profile interaction" statistic is β = .42, F(1, 181) = 4.33, p = .039; no standardized effect size was reported.

"The results of the random intercept model treatment effects are moderated by latent profiles (Treatment by Profile interaction, β = .42; F(1, 181) = 4.33; p = .039), when controlling for other terms in the model."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Intervention effects ran in opposite directions by profile: Profile 1 control students outperformed Profile 1 treatment students, while Profile 2 treatment students outperformed Profile 2 control students — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Latent profile analysis of German third graders' reading measures identifies four profiles consistent with the simple view of reading: poor decoders, poor comprehenders, poor readers, and good readers — related