The online vocabulary intervention did not significantly improve reading comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Effects of the intervention on comprehension were non-significant in comparison to the control group. → Proctor 2011

Evidence¶

Proctor 2011¶

Proctor, C.P., Dalton, B., Uccelli, P., Biancarosa, G., Mo, E., Snow, C., & Neugebauer, S. (2011). Improving comprehension online: effects of deep vocabulary instruction with bilingual and monolingual fifth graders. Read Writ 24, 517–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9218-2

q2 · i? · causal · r?

In the same quasi-experimental comparison of intervention and control fifth graders, the article reports effects were "non-significant for comprehension"; no effect size or test statistic is printed, so the null is reported without an equivalence claim.

"In comparison to a control group, there were significant intervention effects on a standardized measure of vocabulary knowledge, but effects were non-significant for comprehension."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• A 16-week universally designed online depth-of-vocabulary intervention improved standardized vocabulary knowledge relative to a control group in fifth graders — related
• Fluency Formula™ shows a negative but statistically non-significant effect on second-grade reading comprehension (effect size –0.28, improvement index –11) — related
• Experimental and control groups were equivalent in vocabulary before the glossing treatment — related
• Read, Write & Type!™ shows no discernible effects on reading comprehension or vocabulary for beginning readers — related
• Reading Apprenticeship® showed no statistically significant effects on most GRADE outcomes: Cohort 1 comprehension and vocabulary, and Cohort 2 vocabulary — related