In SCED studies, family-implemented interventions significantly improve text reading outcomes (g = 1.80) but show a positive, non-significant effect on decoding/word reading outcomes (g = 0.86)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The mean effect for text reading outcomes in SCED studies was positive and significant (g = 1.80; p = 0.01; k = 8; m = 8), while the mean effect for decoding/word reading outcomes was positive but non-significant (g = 0.86; p = 0.45; k = 3; m = 2). → Dahl-Leonard 2025

Evidence¶

Dahl-Leonard 2025¶

Dahl-Leonard, K., Hall, C., Cho, E., Capin, P., Roberts, G. J., Kehoe, K. F., Haring, C., Peacott, D., & Demchak, A. (2025). Examining the Effects of Family-Implemented Literacy Interventions for School-Aged Children: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09985-3

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Outcome-type analysis within the SCED meta-analysis (11 BC-SMD effect sizes from 10 studies). Text reading effects were significant across 8 studies; decoding/word reading effects were not, which the authors attribute to only two studies examining that outcome. No standardized effect-size benchmark printed.

"The mean effect for decoding/word reading outcomes was positive, but non-significant (g = 0.86; p = 0.45; k = 3; m = 2), which is not unexpected given that only two SCED studies examined decoding/word reading outcomes. The mean effect for text reading outcomes was positive and significant (g = 1.80; p = 0.01; k = 8; m = 8)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Decoding — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Family-implemented literacy interventions produce a positive, significant average effect on combined literacy outcomes in single-case experimental design studies (g = 1.50), specific to students with or at risk for reading difficulties — related
• Publication bias analyses suggest possible small-sample bias for SCED studies, with trim-and-fill reducing the adjusted mean effect to 1.01 — related