An on-treatment analysis found no significant effect of intervention dosage on reading outcomes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The on-treatment analysis, replacing group allocation with a dosage measure, revealed no significant effect of dosage (p = 0.669). → Styles et al. 2014

Evidence¶

Styles et al. 2014¶

Dr Ben Styles, Rebecca Clarkson, Katherine Fowler. (2014). Rhythm for Reading: Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN10404460/

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Follow-up analysis in which total delivery time per school divided by intervention pupils gave a dosage measure used in place of dichotomous allocation. Intended dosage of 10 was achieved in three schools; the remaining schools had dosage of 1, 17 and 19. The report notes this analysis may be biased due to self-selection to differing levels of exposure.

"The 'on-treatment' analysis revealed no significant effect of dosage (p = 0.669)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Time and Continuity — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• The on-treatment analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between total coaching contact time (dosage) and pupils' reading and writing outcomes — related
• An on-treatment analysis found no significant effect of intervention dosage on reading outcomes — related
• An on-treatment dosage analysis found no significant relationship between number of sessions attended and reading outcomes — related
• Number of treatment sessions received was not associated with end-of-treatment performance — related
• No relationship was found between treatment dosage variables and students' response to the NS1 intervention — related