Shared text reading benefits students with intellectual disability whether or not they need augmentative and alternative communication systems¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i? A moderator analysis found no significant difference in the intervention's effect size between participants who could not communicate effectively verbally and those who could. → Rachel Sermier Dessemontet 2024
Evidence¶
Rachel Sermier Dessemontet 2024¶
Rachel Sermier Dessemontet, Megan Geyer, Anne-Laure Linder, Myrto Atzemian, Catherine Martinet, Natalina Meuli, Catherine Audrin, Anne-Françoise de Chambrier. (2024). Effects of shared text reading for students with intellectual disability: A meta-analytical review of instructional strategies. Educational Research Review, 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2024.100615
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Moderator analysis within the multilevel meta-analysis comparing effect sizes of participants with complex communication needs against verbally communicating participants; no significant difference was detected (equivalence was not tested).
"We found no significant difference in the intervention's effect size between participants who could not communicate effectively verbally and those who could (t(9.8) = 1.01, p = .992)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Learning Disabilities and Developmental Differences — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
Related Claims¶
- No single instructional strategy is a significant moderator of shared text reading effects on listening comprehension — related
- Effect sizes across shared text reading studies show substantial true heterogeneity (I2 = 80.09) — related
- Technology use (read-aloud, response mode, or interactive instruction) does not significantly moderate shared text reading effects — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
shared-reading-effective-regardless-aac-status |
title |
Shared text reading benefits students with intellectual disability whether or not they need augmentative and alternative communication systems |
description |
Shared text reading benefits students with intellectual disability whether or not they need augmentative and alternative communication systems |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
source_checked |
2026-10-21 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — rachel-sermier-dessemontet-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.