Effect sizes for the intervention were less than g = .03 on most outcomes, with small comprehension effects of g = 0.15 and g = 0.19¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Covariate-adjusted effect sizes were negligible (less than g = .03) for word reading, fluency, and vocabulary, and small for the two comprehension measures. → Al Otaiba 2018

Evidence¶

Al Otaiba 2018¶

Al Otaiba, S., Petscher, Y., Wanzek, J., Lan, P., & Rivas, B. (2018). I'm not throwing away my shot: What Alexander Hamilton can tell us about standard reading interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12179

q3 · i0 · causal · r2

Hedge's g values computed from the covariate-adjusted multilevel models following What Works Clearinghouse procedures. The article reports effect sizes "less than g = .03 for all outcomes" except the two comprehension measures (g = 0.15 and g = 0.19).

"Effect size estimates for the outcomes were less than g = .03 for all outcomes, with the exception of WJ-III Passage Comprehension (g = 0.15) and GMRT Reading Comprehension (g = 0.19)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• The MSDS curriculum showed no statistically significant effects on word recognition, spelling, fluency, or comprehension outcomes — related
• Morphological instruction improves word-level literacy outcomes (decoding, spelling, vocabulary, morphological knowledge) but shows no reliable effect on reading comprehension — related