At pretest the control group scored significantly higher than the treatment group on the TLC-Main Idea subtest¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2019: local conditions change quickly
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? Before the intervention, the control group performed significantly higher than the treatment group on the TLC-Main Idea subtest. → Amy E. Barth 2016
Evidence¶
Amy E. Barth 2016¶
Amy E. Barth, Sharon Vaughn, Philip Capin, Eunsoo Cho, Stephanie Stillman-Spisak, Leticia Martinez, and Heather Kincaid. (2016). Effects of a Text-processing Comprehension Intervention on Struggling Middle School Readers. Top Lang Disord. 2016; 36(4): 368–389. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000101
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Pretest comparison between randomized groups on the TLC-2 Main Idea subtest, reported as F (1,126) = 6.923, p =.01 in the preliminary analyses. The article reports the control group mean of 107.18 (SD = 11.51) versus treatment 100.71 (SD = 14.64).
"On the TLC-Main Idea, the control group (Mean = 107.18, SD = 11.51) performed significantly higher than the treatment group (Mean = 100.71, SD = 14.64)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
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.