Subgroup advantages for low performers and Title I students exceed full-sample effects in two qualifying studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i2 In Macaruso, Hook, and McCabe (2006), Title I students showed a statistically significant advantage on Letter-Sound Correspondences (effect size 0.88, improvement index +31), and in Macaruso and Walker (2008), kindergarten low performers showed a statistically significant composite advantage (effect size 1.51, improvement index +43). → What Works Clearinghouse 2009

Evidence¶

What Works Clearinghouse 2009¶

What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. (2009). WWC Intervention Report: Lexia Reading, Beginning Reading. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/274

q2 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Subgroup findings reported in WWC Appendix A4.1 for the Title I subsample of Macaruso, Hook, and McCabe (2006): the quoted row shows an effect size of 0.88, statistically significant, improvement index +31. Appendix A4.3 reports a kindergarten low-performer composite effect size of 1.51, statistically significant, +43.

"Gates-MacGintie Reading Test: Letter-Sound Correspondences Grade 1: Title I Students 10/30 39.80 (5.50) 34.80 (5.50) 5.00 0.88 Statistically significant +31"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Lexia Reading shows no discernible effects on general reading achievement — a broader claim this one bears on
• Lexia Early Reading shows no significant advantage over Earobics on alphabetics, with several negative effects substantively important — related
• Lexia Early Reading outperforms no supplemental instruction on kindergarten alphabetics outcomes in Gale (2006), significant by author but not WWC calculations — related