An on-treatment analysis found no significant effect of intervention dosage on reading outcomes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2014 · 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? Using teacher-log delivery time as a dosage measure in place of group allocation revealed no significant effect of dosage (p=0.38). → Styles 2014
Evidence¶
Styles 2014¶
Styles, B., Stevens, E., Bradshaw, S., & Clarkson, R. (2014). Vocabulary Enrichment Intervention Programme Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN67513320/
q2 · i? · causal · r3
On-treatment analysis using total delivery time from teacher logs as the dosage measure, replacing dichotomous group allocation. Dosage was "highly variable, ranging from 33 to 85 hours with a median dosage of 53 hours". No significant dosage effect was found.
"The ‘on-treatment’ analysis, taking into account the extent of delivery and those that switched groups, revealed no significant effect of dosage (p=0.38)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Time and Continuity — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related 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 — related
- 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
- Too few studies exist to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors (age, gender, screen size, dosage, SAMR-based activities) or on whether benefits persist beyond the post-test — related
- An on-treatment dosage analysis found no significant relationship between number of sessions attended and reading outcomes — related
- The on-treatment analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between total coaching contact time (dosage) and pupils' reading and writing outcomes — related
- An on-treatment analysis found no significant effect of intervention dosage on reading outcomes — related
- No relationship was found between treatment dosage variables and students' response to the NS1 intervention — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.