Students with reading difficulties were more likely assigned to the Attention Control profile, while typically developing students were more likely assigned to the Decoding/Cognitive profile¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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.
q2 i? Cross-tabulation of profile membership against RD status showed students with RD more often fell into Profile 2 and typical readers more often into Profile 1 (odds of a typical student in Profile 1 vs 2 = 1.95; discussion reports OR = 2.80 for RD students in Profile 2). → 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
Validation cross-tabulation before mixed modeling: 39 (66%) typical students were assigned to Profile 1 versus 20 (34%) to Profile 2, with odds of 1.95; 71 students with RD were assigned to Profile 1 and 198 to Profile 2. Profiles were unrelated to treatment assignment (odds 0.35 for both conditions).
"Overall, students with RD were more likely to fall to Profile 2 and typically developing students had a higher chance of being assigned to Profile 1."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Attention — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- Elementary students with reading difficulties constitute two distinct latent profiles: one with higher basic language and cognitive skills and lower attention, the other with stronger attention and lower basic language and cognitive skills — related
- The multivariate omnibus test shows significant cognitive profile differences across the four reader groups — related
- Latent profile analysis of kindergarten pre-reading measures yields six distinct performance profiles, including PA risk, RAN risk, and double-deficit risk groups — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
rd-students-assigned-attention-profile |
title |
Students with reading difficulties were more likely assigned to the Attention Control profile, while typically developing students were more likely assigned to the Decoding/Cognitive profile |
description |
Students with reading difficulties were more likely assigned to the Attention Control profile, while typically developing students were more likely assigned to the Decoding/Cognitive profile |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — kulesz-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.