Intervention effects ran in opposite directions by profile: Profile 1 control students outperformed Profile 1 treatment students, while Profile 2 treatment students outperformed Profile 2 control students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? For Profile 1 students, control-condition students (M = 98.03) outperformed treatment-condition students (M = 94.82; p = 0.041) on the Gates post-test. → Kulesz 2024 q2 i? For Profile 2 students, treatment-condition students (M = 88.37) performed better than control-condition students (M = 86.25; p = 0.043). → Kulesz 2024

Evidence¶

Kulesz 2024¶

Kulesz, P. A., Roberts, G. J., Francis, D. J., Cirino, P., Walczak, M., & Vaughn, S. (2024). Latent profiles as predictors of response to instruction for students with reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000832

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Examination of mean Gates post-test values for treatment and control within each profile in the conditional mixed model. Both within-profile contrasts were statistically significant (p = 0.041 and p = 0.043) with printed means and SEs; no effect size was reported for these contrasts.

"For Profile 1 students, students assigned to the control condition (M = 98.03, SE = 2.13) outperformed students assigned to the treatment condition (M = 94.82, SE = 2.20; p = 0.041), while for Profile 2 students, students assigned to the treatment condition (M = 88.37, SE = 1.65) performed better than students assigned to the control condition (M = 86.25, SE = 1.66; p = 0.043)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Processing Speed — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Latent profiles moderated the effect of reading comprehension intervention: the Treatment by Profile interaction was statistically significant — a broader claim this one bears on