Always responsive students showed large effect-size advantages over nonresponsive students, with the largest effect sizes ranging from 0.58 to 1.72¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 2006 · 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.
q3 i3 Effect sizes for always responsive versus nonresponsive students reached 1.72 at the top of the printed range, with the largest ESs in absolute value ranging from 0.58 to 1.72. → Al Otaiba 2006
Evidence¶
Al Otaiba 2006¶
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who Are the Young Children for Whom Best Practices in Reading Are Ineffective? An Experimental and Longitudinal Study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414-431. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222194060390050401
q3 · i3 · causal · r2
Effect sizes computed as mean differences divided by pooled standard deviations (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) across the three responsiveness groups. The largest ESs "ranged from 0.58 to 1.72" for always responsive versus nonresponsive students, with the top value ES = 1.72 (Grammatical Closure).
"the largest ESs in absolute value ranged from 0.58 to 1.72 for the always responsive versus the nonresponsive group. For the sometimes responsive versus the nonresponsive group, ESs ranged from 0.08 to 1.10; for the some- times responsive versus the always re- sponsive students, they ranged from 0.03 to 1.03."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Nonresponsive students scored significantly lower than always responsive students on seven measures and higher on problem behavior
- Nonresponsiveness to kindergarten intervention is persistent and predicts school-identified reading problems through third grade
- Naming speed, vocabulary, sentence imitation, problem behavior, and amount of intervention correctly classify most nonresponsive and always responsive students — related
- Nonresponsive, sometimes responsive, and always responsive students differ reliably on problem behavior, vocabulary, naming speed, sentence imitation, syntactic awareness, and segmentation — related
- Nonresponsive students were in classrooms with lower-quality Ladders implementation and lower fall first-grade PALS fidelity — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
nonresponders-large-effect-size-deficits |
title |
Always responsive students showed large effect-size advantages over nonresponsive students, with the largest effect sizes ranging from 0.58 to 1.72 |
description |
Always responsive students showed large effect-size advantages over nonresponsive students, with the largest effect sizes ranging from 0.58 to 1.72 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — al-otaiba-2006 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.