Evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors in literacy resilience is underrecognized while the same evidence is overinterpreted towards protective effects¶

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

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors and overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects. → Appels 2024

Evidence¶

Appels 2024¶

Appels, S., van Viersen, S., van Erp, S., Hornstra, L., & de Bree, E. (2024). A scoping review on word-reading resilience in literacy: Evaluating empirical evidence for protective factors. Learning and Instruction, 93, 101969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101969

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review's interpretive analysis of the 22 included studies reports "underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects". No effect size is printed for this finding.

"Furthermore, findings point towards underrecognition of evidence for promotive and skill-enhancing factors as well as overinterpretation of the same evidence towards protective effects"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Study designs and statistical analyses in literacy resilience research are often insufficient to distinguish promotive, protective, and skill-enhancing factors — related
• Empirical evidence for protective factors in word-reading resilience is sparse and based on only a few studies — related
• Most studies of literacy resilience have (very) small sample sizes and low statistical power to find relevant effects — related
• Emerging reading and math resilience literatures suggest candidate resilience factors across cognitive, emotion/motivation, social/environmental, and neural levels, most not yet classified as promotive or protective — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)