Claims

Tier-2 intervention closed the target word learning gap between at-risk treatment students and not-at-risk reference students, but not the listening comprehension gap

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · 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 i2 Treatment students outperformed the not-at-risk reference group on target word learning (g = 0.47), but scored lower on listening comprehension (g = –.34), with the comprehension gap depending on initial PPVT scores. → Coyne 2019

Evidence

Coyne 2019

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Ware, S., Austin, C. R., Loftus-Rattan, S. M., & Baker, D. L. (2019). Racing Against the Vocabulary Gap: Matthew Effects in Early Vocabulary Instruction and Intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918789162

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Descriptive comparison of at-risk treatment students with the not-at-risk reference group (n = 741) on experimenter-developed measures. The article reports g = 0.47 favoring treatment on target words and g = –.69 for the lowest-PPVT treatment students on listening comprehension.

"On average, treatment students had listening comprehension scores that were approximately one third of a standard deviation lower than the mean of the reference students (g = –.34). However, at-risk treatment students with initial PPVT scores 5 points above the mean scored comparably to the reference students (g = .05)."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-02
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.