XBA LD status does not predict posttest reading outcomes beyond pretest performance in decoding, fluency, or comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? XBA LD status was not a significant predictor of posttest performance in decoding (F = .03), fluency (F = .47), or reading comprehension (F = .57), all eta squared = .00. → Miciak Jeremy 2016

Evidence¶

Miciak Jeremy 2016¶

Miciak Jeremy, Williams Jacob L., Taylor W. Pat, Cirino Paul T., Fletcher Jack M., Vaughn Sharon. (2016). Do Processing Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Predict Differential Treatment Response? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000096

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Six ANCOVAs (growth conditioned on initial status; Stuebing et al. approach) with posttest reading outcomes and pretest as covariate, in a randomized treatment group of 206 fourth graders. Pretest predicted posttest (eta squared .52-.69); XBA LD status added nothing.

"XBA LD status was not a significant predictor of posttest performance in decoding, F (1, 205) = .03, p > .05, η2 = .00, reading fluency F (1, 205) = .47, p > .05, η2 = .00, or reading comprehension F (1, 205) = .57, p > .05, η2 = .00."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• C/DM LD status likewise does not predict posttest reading outcomes beyond pretest performance — related
• A few XBA inclusionary criteria modestly predict word reading only, with very small eta squared values (η2 range .008 to .018) — related
• The XBA and C/DM PSW methods show chance-level agreement (kappa = -.10) in identifying LD among fourth graders with reading comprehension deficits — related
• For the C/DM, only short-term memory deficit status significantly predicted posttest word reading — related
• Simulations indicate PSW cognitive assessment would improve classification of response by only about 5-10 students per 1,000 in the best case — related