The CCT treatment effect on comprehension was statistically significant only for students with pretest ORF up to 0.20 SD above the sample mean (64.0% of the sample), and not for higher-fluency students¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · 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 i? Regions-of-significance analysis showed the treatment effect was significant for students from the bottom of the ORF distribution through 0.20 SD above the mean (64.0% of the sample) and not significant for students 0.20 to 2.68 SD above the mean (36.0%). → Nathan H. Clemens 2019
Evidence¶
Nathan H. Clemens 2019¶
Nathan H. Clemens, Eric Oslund, Oi-man Kwok, Melissa Fogarty, Deborah Simmons, and John L. Davis. (2019). Skill Moderators of the Effects of a Reading Comprehension Intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918787339
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Regions-of-significance procedures in Mplus conditioned the treatment effect on the continuous ORF moderator. For students 0.20 through 2.68 SD above the mean (36.0% of the sample), "there was no statistically significant effect of the CCT treatment".
"for students with pretest ORF scores from the bottom of the dis- tribution through 0.20 standard deviations above the mean of the sample (64.0% of the sample), students in the CCT intervention out- performed students in the comparison condi- tion on posttest comprehension on a statistically significant basis"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The CCT intervention produced statistically significant main effects favoring CCT on reading comprehension (ES = 0.14), TOSREC (ES = 0.28), and taught vocabulary (ES = 0.43), but not on SWE or ORF — related
- In the year 3 longitudinal comparison, the CCT effect was not significant with pretest controlled (ES = 0.13) but significant without it (ES = 0.19) — related
- Pretest oral reading fluency moderated the effects of the CCT intervention on reading comprehension, with greater benefits for students with lower pretest fluency — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- The CCT intervention showed no statistically significant effect on posttest oral reading fluency, including within the low-fluency region of significance — related
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.