ArticleExceptional children2019
The Relationship Between Study Quality and the Effects of Supplemental Reading Interventions: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Exceptional children, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association of meteorological factors with allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of the effects of academic interventions on academic and academic anxiety outcomes in secondary students.Journal of school psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Is it really a neuromyth? A meta-analysis of the learning styles matching hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of the effects of academic interventions on academic achievement and academic anxiety outcomes in elementary school children.Journal of school psychology · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of Reading Interventions Implemented for Upper Elementary Struggling Readers: A Look at Recent Research.Reading and writing · 2021Article
- Current State of the Evidence: Examining the Effects of Orton-Gillingham Reading Interventions for Students With or at Risk for Word-Level Reading Disabilities.Exceptional children · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Empirical studies investigating supplemental reading interventions for students with or at-risk for reading disabilities in the early elementary grades have demonstrated a range of effect sizes. Identifying the findings from high quality research can provide greater certainty of findings related to the effectiveness of supplemental reading interventions. This meta-analysis investigated how four variables of study quality (study design, statistical treatment, Type I error, and fidelity of implementation) were related to effect sizes from standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language/comprehension. The results from 88 studies indicated that year of publication was a significant predictor of effect sizes for both standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language/comprehension, with more recent studies demonstrating smaller effect sizes. Results also demonstrated that with the exception of research design predicting effect sizes on foundational reading skills measures, study quality was not related to the effects of supplemental reading interventions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.