Students with disabilities benefited similarly from PACT but remained about 1 standard deviation behind nondisabled peers at posttest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Students with disabilities in PACT classes gained approximately 4.5 correct questions on ASK content acquisition versus about 2.5 for those in typical instruction, but remained approximately 1 standard deviation behind nondisabled peers at posttest. → Jeanne Wanzek 2019

Evidence¶

Jeanne Wanzek 2019¶

Jeanne Wanzek, Greg Roberts, Sharon Vaughn, Elizabeth Swanson, and Katherine Sargent. (2019). Examining the Role of Pre-Instruction Academic Performance Within A Text-based Approach to Improving Student Content Knowledge and Understanding. Exceptional Children, 85(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918783187

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Descriptive subgroup comparison reported in the discussion of the class-randomized trial, where about 8% of students were identified with a disability. Students with disabilities gained "approximately 4.5 correct questions" in PACT versus about 2.5 in typical instruction; no inferential test or effect size is printed for this contrast.

"Students with disabilities receiving the PACT treatment gained approximately 4.5 correct questions on aver- age on the ASK content acquisition compared to about seven correct questions gained by students without disabilities receiving the PACT treatment."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Learning Disabilities and Developmental Differences — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Despite an average of 94 well-implemented intervention sessions, students remained about one standard deviation below national norms in reading comprehension with low vocabulary — related
• Students with a learning disability started about one standard deviation lower in reading comprehension and did not catch up to typically developing peers by fourth grade, which the authors interpret as a developmental deficit — related
• Vocabulary development was broadly similar for students with and without a learning disability, while reading comprehension gains decelerated for both groups yet the LD group started over a standard deviation lower — related