Claims

Tier 2 dosage and scheduling findings are mixed: more frequent kindergarten sessions helped, but first-grade studies found no outcome differences across 16-hour and 32-hour schedules

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2–r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · 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.

q2 i? Al Otaiba et al. (2005) found kindergartners receiving small-group intervention four times per week significantly outperformed controls in word reading and comprehension with large effect sizes, while the twice-per-week condition outperformed controls on only one phonemic awareness measure. → Denton Carolyn A 2012 q2 i? Denton et al. (2011) found no differences in reading outcomes among first graders randomized to 30-min sessions four times per week for 16 weeks, four times per week for 8 weeks, or two times per week for 16 weeks. → Denton Carolyn A 2012 (2)

Evidence

Denton Carolyn A 2012

Denton Carolyn A. (2012). Response to Intervention for Reading Difficulties in the Primary Grades: Some Answers and Lingering Questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442155

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review reports this randomized kindergarten dosage study; the more frequent condition "significantly outperformed controls in word reading and comprehension, with large effect sizes." The review prints no numeric effect size values.

"Al Otaiba, Schatschneider, & Silverman, (2005) randomly assigned kindergarten students to receive the same small-group intervention two or four times per week or to a control condition, finding that those who received intervention more frequently significantly outperformed controls in word reading and comprehension, with large effect sizes, whereas those in the twice per week condition performed significantly better than controls only on one phonemic awareness measure."

Denton Carolyn A 2012 (2)

Denton Carolyn A. (2012). Response to Intervention for Reading Difficulties in the Primary Grades: Some Answers and Lingering Questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442155

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review reports this randomized first-grade scheduling study comparing three dosage schedules; "no differences in reading outcomes" were found, and adequate-response rates across all groups were smaller than often reported for more extensive first-grade interventions. Hatcher et al. (2006) similarly found no differential outcomes for 33 hr versus 16.5 hr.

"In contrast, Denton et al. (2011) found no differences in reading outcomes when first grade students at risk for reading difficulties were randomized to receive small group Tier 2 intervention in 30-min sessions (a) four times per week for 16 weeks (32 hr), (b) four times per week for 8 weeks (16 hr), or (c) two times per week for 16 weeks (16 hr)."

Discussion

Learner Variables

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id tier2-dosage-scheduling-mixed-findings
title Tier 2 dosage and scheduling findings are mixed: more frequent kindergarten sessions helped, but first-grade studies found no outcome differences across 16-hour and 32-hour schedules
description Tier 2 dosage and scheduling findings are mixed: more frequent kindergarten sessions helped, but first-grade studies found no outcome differences across 16-hour and 32-hour schedules
status review
evidence_strength mixed
newest_evidence 2012
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — denton-carolyn-a-2012, denton-carolyn-a-2012-2

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