Claims

Minimally trained, non-education-major college tutors implemented the structured program with high fidelity (average 96.3%)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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 i? Implementation fidelity across both semesters ranged from 84% to 100%, averaging 96.3%, despite tutors receiving only four 1-hour training sessions and no prior reading-instruction coursework. → Lindo 2018

Evidence

Lindo 2018

Lindo, E. J., Weiser, B., Cheatham, J. P., & Allor, J. H. (2018). Benefits of structured after-school literacy tutoring by university students for struggling elementary readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2017.1357156

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Fidelity observations of 13.5% of tutoring sessions, twice each semester, by research assistants using observation forms covering corrective feedback, organization, script adherence, and praise. The article notes interrater reliability observations were not conducted because of limited resources.

"Fidelity of implementation over both semesters ranged from 84% to 100%, with the average being 96.3%."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.