Intervention effects were moderated by cohort and baseline performance, with some substantively important subgroup differences favoring stand-alone¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 A significant Baseline × Cohort × Treatment interaction on kindergarten SESAT word reading yielded substantively important advantages for stand-alone at high baseline in Cohort 1 (g = .37) and low baseline in Cohort 2 (g = .28). → Foorman 2018 q3 i1 A significant Cohort × Treatment interaction on grade 1 FRA word reading was followed by a substantively important 22-point difference favoring the embedded intervention in Cohort 1 (g = .29). → Foorman 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Foorman 2018¶

Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., & Dombek, J. (2018). The relative impact of aligning Tier 2 intervention materials with classroom core reading materials in grades K–2. The Elementary School Journal, 118(3). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/esj

q3 · i1 · causal · r3

Three-level HLM subgroup analysis probing the three-way interaction at ±1 SD of the sentence-comprehension baseline grand mean; no comparison was significant, but the article prints effect sizes of g = .37 (Cohort 1 high baseline) and g = .28 (Cohort 2 low baseline) favoring stand-alone, which it calls substantively important.

"In kindergarten, a significant FRA sentence comprehension Baseline # Cohort # Treatment interaction was observed on the SESAT word reading outcome, g102 p –.098, t(1,038) p –2.16, p p .03."

Foorman 2018 (2)¶

Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., & Dombek, J. (2018). The relative impact of aligning Tier 2 intervention materials with classroom core reading materials in grades K–2. The Elementary School Journal, 118(3). https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/esj

q3 · i1 · causal · r3

HLM subgroup analysis of the grade 1 word reading outcome following a significant Cohort × Treatment interaction; probing within cohorts showed no significant comparison but a printed effect size of g = .29, a "22-point difference on the FRA word reading outcome in favor of the embedded intervention in Cohort 1".

"Results from this investigation did not show any significant comparisons; however, a substantively important 22-point difference on the FRA word reading outcome in favor of the embedded intervention in Cohort 1 (g p .29) was observed."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Relative effects of the standalone versus embedded intervention were inconsistent across cohorts and baseline scores, favoring first one intervention and then the other — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Stand-alone and embedded interventions produced nonsignificant differences on all other reading and language outcomes in grades K–2 — related