SKILL does not improve standardized reading comprehension overall, with a small low-average effect at follow-up¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q4
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i? GMRT reading comprehension scores did not differ between groups at posttest (g = -.02) or at follow-up (g = .16). → Gillam 2022

Evidence¶

Gillam 2022¶

Gillam, S. L., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Fall, A.-M., Israelsen-Augenstein, M., Holbrook, S., Wada, R., Hancock, A., Fox, C., Dille, J., Magimairaj, B. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2022). Improving Oral and Written Narration and Reading Comprehension of Children at-Risk for Language and Literacy Difficulties: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000766

q4 · i? · causal · r3

GMRT-4 reading comprehension subtest in the RCT showed "did not differ between groups" at posttest and follow-up; the follow-up "Hedges’g = .16" was descriptive, not a significant difference.

"Scores on the norm-referenced measure of reading comprehension (see Table 5 ) did not differ between groups at posttest (Hedges’ g = /C0 .02) or at follow-up, although the effect size (Hedges’g = .16) was in the low-average range."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Grade level moderates the SKILL effect on reading comprehension, benefiting Grades 3–4 but not Grades 1–2, while oral and written language effects do not vary by grade — related
• Oral narration gains generalize to written narration at posttest and are maintained at follow-up — related
• Quantile regression revealed larger intervention effects on GMRT reading comprehension at the .25–.30 quantiles (g = .35, ~9 points) and the .50 quantile (g = 0.22, ~5 points), but not at other quantiles or on WJ-III Passage Comprehension — related
• Linguistic comprehension instruction shows a small immediate effect on generalized linguistic comprehension outcomes — a broader claim this one bears on