Literature DB >> 20224749

IQ Is Not Strongly Related to Response to Reading Instruction: A Meta-Analytic Interpretation.

Karla K Stuebing, Amy E Barth, Peter J Molfese, Brandon Weiss, Jack M Fletcher.   

Abstract

A meta-analysis of 22 studies evaluating the relation of different assessments of IQ and intervention response did not support the hypothesis that IQ is an important predictor of response to instruction. We found an R(2) of .03 in models with IQ and the autoregressor as predictors and a unique lower estimated R(2) of .006 and a higher estimated R(2) of .013 in models with IQ, the autoregressor, and additional covariates as predictors. There was no evidence that these aggregated effect sizes were moderated by variables such as the type of IQ measure, outcome, age, or intervention. In simulations of the capacity of variables with effect sizes of .03 and .001 for predicting response to intervention, we found little evidence of practical significance.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 20224749      PMCID: PMC2836021          DOI: 10.1177/001440290907600102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Except Child        ISSN: 0014-4029


  25 in total

1.  Training phonological awareness with and without explicit attention to articulation.

Authors:  B W Wise; J Ring; R K Olson
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1999-04

2.  The concept of specific reading retardation.

Authors:  M Rutter; W Yule
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 8.982

3.  An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia.

Authors:  L S Siegel
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  1992-12

4.  Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy: failure to validate discrepancy method.

Authors:  Scott A Stage; Robert D Abbott; Joseph R Jenkins; Virginia W Berninger
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb

5.  Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading-delay: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter J Hatcher; Charles Hulme; Jeremy N V Miles; Julia M Carroll; Janet Hatcher; Simon Gibbs; Glynnis Smith; Claudine Bowyer-Crane; Margaret J Snowling
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 8.982

6.  Teaching phonological awareness to young children with learning disabilities.

Authors:  R E O'Connor; J R Jenkins; N Leicester; T A Slocum
Journal:  Except Child       Date:  1993-05

7.  Individual difference variables that predict response to training in phonological awareness.

Authors:  J K Torgesen; C Davis
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1996-10

8.  Phonemes, rhymes, and intelligence as predictors of children's responsiveness to remedial reading instruction: evidence from a longitudinal intervention study.

Authors:  P J Hatcher; C Hulme
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1999-02

9.  A comparison of two reading interventions for children with reading disabilities.

Authors:  T E O'Shaughnessy; H L Swanson
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2000 May-Jun

10.  Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions.

Authors:  Frank R Vellutino; Donna M Scanlon; Sheila Small; Diane P Fanuele
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr
View more
  18 in total

1.  The Critical Role of Instructional Response for Identifying Dyslexia and Other Learning Disabilities.

Authors:  Jeremy Miciak; Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2020-02-20

2.  Comparing treatments for children with ADHD and word reading difficulties: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Leanne Tamm; Carolyn A Denton; Jeffery N Epstein; Christopher Schatschneider; Heather Taylor; L Eugene Arnold; Oscar Bukstein; Julia Anixt; Anson Koshy; Nicholas C Newman; Jan Maltinsky; Patricia Brinson; Richard E A Loren; Mary R Prasad; Linda Ewing-Cobbs; Aaron Vaughn
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2017-03-23

3.  Is "Response/No Response" Too Simple a Notion for RTI Frameworks? Exploring Multiple Response Types With Latent Profile Analysis.

Authors:  Peng Peng; Douglas Fuchs; Lynn S Fuchs; Eunsoo Cho; Amy M Elleman; Devin M Kearns; Samuel Patton; Donald L Compton
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2020-07-04

Review 4.  The utility of neuroimaging studies for informing educational practice and policy in reading disorders.

Authors:  Jessica M Black; Chelsea A Myers; Fumiko Hoeft
Journal:  New Dir Child Adolesc Dev       Date:  2015

5.  Examining agreement and longitudinal stability among traditional and RTI-based definitions of reading disability using the affected-status agreement statistic.

Authors:  Jessica S Brown Waesche; Christopher Schatschneider; Jon K Maner; Yusra Ahmed; Richard K Wagner
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2011-01-20

6.  RTI models as alternatives to traditional views of learning disabilities: Response to the commentaries.

Authors:  Jack M Fletcher; Sharon Vaughn
Journal:  Child Dev       Date:  2009-04

7.  Thalamus is a common locus of reading, arithmetic, and IQ: Analysis of local intrinsic functional properties.

Authors:  Maki S Koyama; Peter J Molfese; Michael P Milham; W Einar Mencl; Kenneth R Pugh
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-07-29       Impact factor: 2.381

Review 8.  Dyslexia: The evolution of a scientific concept.

Authors:  Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.892

9.  Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations.

Authors:  W Pat Taylor; Jeremy Miciak; Jack M Fletcher; David J Francis
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2016-08-08

10.  White matter integrity of cerebellar-cortical tracts in reading impaired children: A probabilistic tractography study.

Authors:  Vindia G Fernandez; Jenifer Juranek; Anna Romanowska-Pawliczek; Karla Stuebing; Victoria J Williams; Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 2.381

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.