Trial reportPloS one2021
Planned missing data in early literacy interventions: A replication study with an additional gold standard.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effect of a mindfulness-based cognitive behavior therapy intervention on occupational burnout among school teachers.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn a digital early literacy intervention RCT, children born late preterm fell behind peers when in a control condition, but outperformed them when assigned to the intervention. Results did however not replicate previous findings. Replication is often complicated by resource quality. Gold Standard measures are generally time-intensive and costly, while they closely align with, and are more sensitive to changes in, early literacy and language performance. A planned missing data approach, leaving these gold standard measures incomplete, might aid in addressing the origin(s) of non-replication.
methodsParticipants after consent were 695 p Dutch primary school pupils of normal and late preterm birth. The high-quality measures, in additional to simpler but complete measures, were intentionally administered to a random subsample of children. Five definitions of gold standard alignment were evaluated.
resultsTwo out of five gold standard levels improved precision compared to the original results. The lowest gold standard level did not lead to improvement: precision was actually diminished. In two gold standard definitions, an alphabetical factor and a writing-only factor the model estimates were comparable to the original results. Only the most precise definition of the gold standard level replicated the original results.
conclusionGold standard measures could only be used to improve model efficiency in RCT-designs under sufficiently high convergent validity.
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.