No supplemental intervention was significantly better than another, and gains were not tied to program type¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies (3 entries) · 1 causal r2, 1 review r2 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? There was no main effect of tutoring condition and no time-by-condition interaction in the repeated measures MANOVA. → Sabatini John P. 2011 q3 i? The data do not support that any program was superior overall or that skill-specific gains mirrored instructional emphasis. → Sabatini John P. 2011 (2)

q2 i? Using within-individual gains replicated over tests (WIGROT), neither group nor individual analyses revealed differences in efficacy between the three instructional programs compared. → Mary Beth Calhoon 2013

Evidence¶

Sabatini John P. 2011¶

Sabatini John P., Shore Jane, Holtzman Steven, Scarborough Hollis S. (2011). Relative Effectiveness of Reading Intervention Programs for Adults with Low Literacy. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269067/

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Repeated measures MANOVA of the 148 completers found "no main effect of tutoring condition, F(6, 140) = 0.20, p = .998" and no time-by-condition interaction, so gains did not depend on which of the three programs students received.

"There was no main effect of tutoring condition, F(6, 140) = 0.20, p = .998, nor any interaction with time, indicating that gains were not conditioned on which instructional program students received."

Sabatini John P. 2011 (2)¶

Sabatini John P., Shore Jane, Holtzman Steven, Scarborough Hollis S. (2011). Relative Effectiveness of Reading Intervention Programs for Adults with Low Literacy. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3269067/

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Discussion of research question 2 states "the data do not support the hypothesis that any of these programs was superior to any other overall" and that skill-area gains were not tied to program; MANOVA results for intervention type were not significant.

"the data do not support the hypothesis that any of these programs was superior to any other overall, nor that gain in particular skill areas were tied to the instructional program. The MANOVA results for intervention type were not significant."

Mary Beth Calhoon 2013¶

Mary Beth Calhoon, Hollis S. Scarborough, Brett Miller. (2013). Interventions for struggling adolescent and adult readers: instructional, learner, and situational differences. Read Writ 26:489–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9442-7

q2 · i? · review · r2

The editorial reports that Scarborough, Sabatini, Shore, Cutting, Pugh, and Katz used WIGROT to identify gainers among adult literacy learners and found "Neither group nor individual analyses revealed differences in efficacy between the three instructional programs"; equivalence was not tested beyond this null.

"Neither group nor individual analyses revealed differences in efficacy between the three instructional programs that were compared."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Adults who completed supplemental basic-skills tutoring showed significant pre-to-post gains across a battery of decoding, word recognition, fluency, and comprehension measures — related
• Students receiving the most Scooter supplementary exercises showed significantly better learning and caught up by post-test, though there was no overall between-condition learning effect — related
• No significant differences in learning measures across teacher-coached, researcher-coached, and BioWorld-alone conditions — related
• Reading outcomes of struggling adolescent readers were strongly related to the instructional modality of a common reading program (Calhoon and Petscher) — related
• The 46% of adult learners classified as gainers had higher pretest reading and phonological awareness scores and included fewer adults with a history of special education (Scarborough et al.) — related