A few XBA inclusionary criteria modestly predict word reading only, with very small eta squared values (η2 range .008 to .018)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2016 · 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 i1 For word reading, XBA normal-ability status and deficits in crystallized intelligence and short-term memory were significant predictors, with η2 range .008 to .018; no criterion predicted fluency or comprehension. → Miciak Jeremy 2016
Evidence¶
Miciak Jeremy 2016¶
Miciak Jeremy, Williams Jacob L., Taylor W. Pat, Cirino Paul T., Fletcher Jack M., Vaughn Sharon. (2016). Do Processing Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Predict Differential Treatment Response? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000096
q3 · i1 · associational · r2
Dichotomized status on each inclusionary criterion entered into ANCOVAs with pretest covariate for 206 fourth graders. The article prints an effect size of "η2 range .008 to .018" for these word-reading predictors; elsewhere it states "The largest eta squared was .018 for crystallized intelligence deficits predicting word reading", versus 68.5% of variance explained by pretest.
"For the XBA, “normal” ability status was a significant predictor after accounting for pretest performance. Deficits in crystallized intelligence and short-term memory were also significant predictors (η2 range .008 to .018)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- For the C/DM, only short-term memory deficit status significantly predicted posttest word reading — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- XBA LD status does not predict posttest reading outcomes beyond pretest performance in decoding, fluency, or comprehension — related
- C/DM LD status likewise does not predict posttest reading outcomes beyond pretest performance — related
- The XBA and C/DM PSW methods show chance-level agreement (kappa = -.10) in identifying LD among fourth graders with reading comprehension deficits — related
- Simulation evidence cited in the article indicates PSW methods have consistently low positive predictive values despite high negative predictive values — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
psw-inclusionary-criteria-word-reading-small-effects |
title |
A few XBA inclusionary criteria modestly predict word reading only, with very small eta squared values (η2 range .008 to .018) |
description |
A few XBA inclusionary criteria modestly predict word reading only, with very small eta squared values (η2 range .008 to .018) |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-25 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — miciak-jeremy-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.