ArticleCoDAS2024
Response to intervention as an identification strategy of the risk for dyslexia.
Article in CoDAS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Differential profiles of reading development in neurodevelopmental disorders under an adapted tier 2 response to Intervention protocol.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop on intervention process to identify children at risk of dyslexia, based on the Response to Intervention model. Specifically, to identify the pattern of changes in post-intervention performance in tasks of phonological awareness, working memory, lexical access, reading and writing; and to analyze which cognitive functions had a significant effect on the discriminating students at risk of dyslexia.
methodSample of 30 participants with Reading and writing difficulties, aged 8-11, from public/private schools, students from 3rd to 5th grade. Participants were submitted to a battery of cognitive-linguistic tests, before and after 12 intervention sessions. To monitor their performance, five reading and writing lists of words and pseudowords were applied. We qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed the differences in pre- and post-intervention performance of each participant; and among participants in the post-assessment, to understand the patterns of dyslexia vs non-dyslexia groups.
resultsThere were statistically significant changes in: rapid automatized naming, narrative text comprehension, phonological awareness, rate and typology of hits/misses in reading and writing, and reading speed. Being the last three variables the most sensitive to discriminate the two groups, all with less post-intervention gains for the dyslexia group.
conclusionsThe intervention focused on the stimulation of phonological skills and explicit and systematic teaching of graphophonemic correspondences contributed positively to the evolution of the group's participants. The intervention response approach favored the identification of children with a profile at risk for dyslexia, as distinct from children with other learning difficulties.
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.