Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28529386›Full record

ArticleReview of educational research2016

A Century of Progress: Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4-12, 1914-2014.

Nancy K Scammacca, Garrett J Roberts, Eunsoo Cho, Kelly J Williams, Greg Roberts, Sharon R Vaughn, Megan Carroll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Review of educational research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Neuropsychology of Learning Disabilities: The Past and the Future.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2017
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nancy K ScammaccaThe Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin.
Garrett J RobertsThe University of Denver.
Eunsoo ChoMichigan State University.
Kelly J WilliamsThe Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin.
Greg RobertsThe Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin.
Sharon R VaughnThe Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin.
Megan CarrollThe Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin.

Funding

Texas Center for Learning DisabilitiesP50HD052117 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON · PI FLETCHER, JACK M · 2006 to 2023
$26.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD052117
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The history of research on interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4 through 12 dates back to 19th-century case studies of seemingly intelligent children who were unable to learn to read. Physicians, psychologists, educators, and others were determined to help them. In the process, they launched a century of research on a wide variety of approaches to reading intervention. As shown in this systematic narrative review, much has changed over time in the conceptualization of reading interventions and the methods used to determine their efficacy in improving outcomes for struggling readers. Building on the knowledge gathered over the past 100 years, researchers and practitioners are well-poised to continue to make progress in developing and testing reading interventions over the next 100 years.

Indexed as

history of reading interventionsreading disabilitiesstruggling readers

Identifiers

PMID28529386
PMCPMC5436613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.