The Validity of Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing for Screening Students at risk for Writing Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

Manipulatives are widely considered an effective practice and have been recommended as an evidence-based practice for students identified with a learning disability when used within the concrete–representational–abstract instructional framework. The aim of the current study was to evaluate single-case experimental designs that implemented a mathematics intervention using manipulatives on the mathematical outcomes of students at risk or identified with a disability. A total of 53 studies were included in the review. The Tau- U effect size (ES) across studies ranged from 0.34 to 1.00, with an omnibus ES of 0.91 (CI95 = [0.87, 0.95]). The between-case standardized mean difference for individual studies ranged from 0.03 to 18.58. Moderator analyses revealed that out of nine variables analyzed (i.e., study quality, design, age, interventionist, manipulative type, perceptual richness, math concept, dependent variable, and disability category), only disability category served as a moderator. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Download Full-text

How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research.

Journal of Educational Psychology ◽

10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.605 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 92 (4) ◽

pp. 605-619 ◽

Cited By ~ 242

Author(s):

Batya Elbaum ◽

Sharon Vaughn ◽

Marie Tejero Hughes ◽

Sally Watson Moody

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Elementary Students ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intervention Research ◽

Reading Failure ◽

Students At Risk ◽

One To One ◽

Tutoring Programs

Download Full-text

A Comparison of Writing Achievement of Elementary Students at Risk for Writing Disabilities and Typical Students

Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education ◽

10.13000/jfmse.2018.02.30.1.144 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 30 (1) ◽

pp. 144-155 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ju-Young SEO ◽

Ja-Kyoung KIM

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Elementary Students ◽

Writing Achievement ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Writing Disabilities

Download Full-text

Tier 2 Interventions Within the RtI-model for Developing Students’ Word decoding – a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis - PrePrint version 2

10.31234/osf.io/ukfgm ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Camilla Nilvius ◽

Rickard Carlsson ◽

Linda Fälth ◽

Thomas Nordström

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Reading Intervention ◽

Reading Interventions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Tier 2 ◽

Word Decoding ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Decoding Ability

AbstractBackgroundObjectives: This pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer if K-2 students at risk (Population) for reading impairment benefited from a response to tier 2 reading intervention (Intervention) compared to teaching as usual, (Comparator) on word decoding outcomes (Outcome), based on randomized controlled trials (Study type).MethodsEligibility criteria were adequately sized (n> 30 per group) randomized controlled trials of tier 2 reading interventions within response to intervention targeting K-2 at risk students (percentile 40) compared with teaching as usual (TAU). Reading interventions had to be at least 20 sessions and conducted in a school setting with at least 30 students in each group and containing reading activities. TAU could not be another intervention. Only decoding tests from WRMT and TOWRE were included. Information sources: Database search was conducted 190520 in ERIC, PsycINFO, LLBA, WOS and additionally in Google Scholar as well as a hand search in previous reviews and meta-analyses. The searches were updated in 2021-03-21. Risk of bias: Studies were assessed with Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2, R-index and funnel plots. Synthesis of results: A random-effects model was used to analyze the effect sizes (Hedges’ g)ResultsIncluded studies: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria but only four had sufficient data to extract for the meta-analysis.Synthesis of results: The weighted mean effect size across the four included studies was Hedges' g = 0.31 95% CI [0.12, 0.50] which means that the intervention group improved their decoding ability more than students receiving TAU. A Leave-one-out analysis showed that the weighted effect did not depend on a single study. Students at risk of reading difficulties benefit from tier 2 reading intervention conducted within response to intervention regarding a small effect on the students decoding ability. DiscussionLimitations of evidence: Only four studies met inclusion criteria and all studies had at least some risk of bias.Interpretation: Tier 2 reading interventions, conducted in small groups within RtI, can to some extent support decoding development as a part of reading factors. Other:Funding: Thomas Nordström and Rickard Carlsson was supported by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2020-03430). Camilla Nilvius was supported by Swedish National Research School Special Education for Teacher Educators (SET), funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2017-06039).Registration: Available at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/6y4wr

Download Full-text

Writing-Reading Relationship of Elementary Students at Risk for Writing Disabilities

Korean Journal of Special Education ◽

10.15861/kjse.2015.50.1.99 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 50 (1) ◽

pp. 99-109 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ju Young Seo

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Elementary Students ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Writing Disabilities ◽

Relationship Of

Download Full-text

Tier 2 interventions within the RtI-model for developing students’ word decoding – a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.31234/osf.io/eu85d ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Camilla Nilvius ◽

Rickard Carlsson ◽

Linda Fälth ◽

Thomas Nordström

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

At Risk ◽

Reading Interventions ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Tier 2 ◽

Word Decoding ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Rti Model

AbstractObjectives: This PRISMA pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine if K–2 students at-risk for reading impairment benefited from tier 2 reading intervention compared to teaching as usual (TAU) on word decoding outcomes.Eligibility criteria: Adequately sized randomized controlled trials of tier 2 reading interventions within the Response to Intervention (RtI) model were included. Trials targeted K–2 at-risk students compared with TAU controls, for at least 20 sessions of intervention in school with more than 30 students per group. Information sources: A database search of ERIC, PsycINFO, LLBA, Web of Science and Google Scholar took place, followed by hand searches of reviews and meta-analyses. Risk of bias: Studies were assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool (Rob 2), R-index and funnel plots. Included studies: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria but only four had sufficient data to extract for the meta-analysis.Synthesis of results: The weighted mean effect size across the four included studies was Hedges’ g = 0.31 95% CI [0.12, 0.50] which means that the intervention group improved their decoding more than students receiving TAU. Leave-one-out analysis showed that the weighted effect was not dependent on a single study. Description of the effect: Students at-risk of reading difficulties benefit from tier 2 reading interventions as evidenced by a small effect on decoding ability. Strengths and limitations of evidence: This systematic review used the PRISMA gold standard but only four studies met inclusion criteria.Interpretation: Tier 2 reading interventions, conducted in small groups within RtI, can support decoding development.

Download Full-text

Discriminant Validation of the Test of Reading Performance (TORP) for Identifying Children at Risk of Reading Difficulties

European Journal of Psychological Assessment ◽

10.1027//1015-5759.16.2.139 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. 139-146 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Padeliadu Susana ◽

Georgios D. Sideridis

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Elementary School Students ◽

Reading Difficulties ◽

Reading Performance ◽

Low Achievers ◽

Children At Risk ◽

School Students ◽

Students At Risk ◽

Group A ◽

The Mean

Abstract This study investigated the discriminant validation of the Test of Reading Performance (TORP), a new scale designed to evaluate the reading performance of elementary-school students. The sample consisted of 181 elementary-school students drawn from public elementary schools in northern Greece using stratified random procedures. The TORP was hypothesized to measure six constructs, namely: “letter knowledge,” “phoneme blending,” “word identification,” “syntax,” “morphology,” and “passage comprehension.” Using standard deviations (SD) from the mean, three groups of students were formed as follows: A group of low achievers in reading (N = 9) including students who scored between -1 and -1.5 SD from the mean of the group. A group of students at risk of reading difficulties (N = 6) including students who scored between -1.5 and -2 SDs below the mean of the group. A group of students at risk of serious reading difficulties (N = 6) including students who scored -2 or more SDs below the mean of the group. The rest of the students (no risk, N = 122) comprised the fourth group. Using discriminant analyses it was evaluated how well the linear combination of the 15 variables that comprised the TORP could discriminate students of different reading ability. Results indicated that correct classification rates for low achievers, those at risk for reading problems, those at risk of serious reading problems, and the no-risk group were 89%, 100%, 83%, and 97%, respectively. Evidence for partial validation of the TORP was provided through the use of confirmatory factor analysis and indices of sensitivity and specificity. It is concluded that the TORP can be ut ilized for the identification of children at risk for low achievement in reading. Analysis of the misclassified cases indicated that increased variability might have been responsible for the existing misclassification. More research is needed to determine the discriminant validation of TORP with samples of children with specific reading disabilities.

Download Full-text