No moderator variable (intervention type, group size, grade level, implementer, hours of intervention) significantly explained variance in intervention effects, though moderator analyses were underpowered.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Intervention effectiveness did not significantly differ by intervention type, size of instructional group, grade level, implementer, or number of hours of intervention. → Wanzek 2016

Evidence¶

Wanzek 2016¶

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551-576. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED579894

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analyses (mixed-effects models) across the meta-analyses comparing intervention type, group size (1:1, 2-3, 4-5), grade level, implementer, and hours categories. The article reports "no statistically significant differences were found between groups based on any moderator variable."

"No statistically significant differences were found between groups based on any moderator variable, meaning there was no evidence that intervention effectiveness differed by intervention type, size of instructional group, grade level, implementer, or the number of hours of intervention."

Wanzek 2016 (2)¶

Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551-576. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED579894

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Authors' own limitation on the null moderator findings in the Discussion section: "Statistical power was below .90 for many of the moderator analyses," so null results may reflect insufficient power rather than true equivalence.

"Statistical power was below .90 for many of the moderator analyses. Therefore, our discussion of the implications of the moderator findings should be considered in light of the related limitations within the available research, including insufficient power."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No instruction characteristic (dosage, program availability, literacy domain) significantly moderated effects, though phonics and spelling instruction approached significance descriptively favoring treatments that included them — related
• Most study, measurement, and intervention moderators did not explain significant variance in SRL intervention effect sizes — related
• Writing intervention effects for US ELL students do not vary significantly by study quality indicators, participant characteristics, or intervention characteristics — related
• No significant moderators of effects among research design features or intervention characteristics — related
• Class size, course level, and discipline did not explain significant variation in how achievement gaps changed under active learning — related
• Dosage significantly predicts intervention effects in a linear model (β = 0.03 per hour), but the dosage main effect is no longer significant after controlling for moderators — reports the opposite
• No study or participant characteristic (publication type, research design, sample size, grade level, reading difficulties) significantly moderated effects of technology-delivered literacy instruction — related
• Grade level, number of sessions, group size, and study quality did not significantly predict intervention effectiveness in this corpus — related
• Number of treatment sessions received was not associated with end-of-treatment performance — related