Pretest word identification efficiency (SWE) and vocabulary knowledge did not moderate the intervention's effects on reading comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Pretest SWE and vocabulary were not significant predictors of posttest comprehension and showed no significant interaction with condition (SWE interaction β = −0.055, p = .45; vocabulary interaction β = 0.061, p = .65). → Nathan H. Clemens 2019

Evidence¶

Nathan H. Clemens 2019¶

Nathan H. Clemens, Eric Oslund, Oi-man Kwok, Melissa Fogarty, Deborah Simmons, and John L. Davis. (2019). Skill Moderators of the Effects of a Reading Comprehension Intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918787339

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Separate moderation models were run for each pretest moderator with the same base model and covariates. Table 2 reports the Condition × Pretest SWE interaction at p = .45 and Condition × Pretest Vocabulary at p = .65; no effect sizes were printed, so the null findings are untested for equivalence.

"Pretest SWE and vocabulary were not statistically significant predictors of posttest comprehension and did not demonstrate statistically significant interaction effects with intervention condition"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it
• Vocabulary — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• The CCT intervention produced statistically significant main effects favoring CCT on reading comprehension (ES = 0.14), TOSREC (ES = 0.28), and taught vocabulary (ES = 0.43), but not on SWE or ORF — related
• Study performance moderated the training effect: high-achieving students benefited at posttest, low performers did not — related