Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41595027›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Replication of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction in a Nationwide Randomized Controlled Trial.

Kimberly Wolbers, Hannah M Dostal, Lee Branum-Martin, Steve Graham, Jennifer Renée Kilpatrick, Thomas Allen, Rachel Saulsburry, Leala Holcomb, Kelsey Spurgin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Kimberly WolbersTheory and Practice in Teacher Education, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4992-0508
Hannah M DostalDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3430-3141
Lee Branum-MartinDepartment of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0389-5121
Steve GrahamMary Lou Fulton College for Teaching and Learning Innovation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
Jennifer Renée KilpatrickTeaching, Learning, and Curriculum, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA.
Thomas AllenGallaudet University, Washington, DC 20002, USA.
Rachel SaulsburryAiken County Public School District, Aiken, SC 29803, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6427-763X
Leala HolcombTheory and Practice in Teacher Education, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
Kelsey SpurginDepartment of Special Education, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8527-5967

Funding

Institute of Education Sciences R324A170086
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study reports findings from a nationwide replication and the second randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI), a linguistically responsive framework for teaching writing to deaf students. A total of 50 teachers and their 294 students in grades 3-6 were randomly assigned to either SIWI or business-as-usual (BAU) instruction. Writing outcomes were assessed with trait-based rubrics and the Structured Analysis of Written Language (SAWL) in two genres (recount and information report), along with the Woodcock-Johnson IV broad written language composite and genre-specific motivation surveys administered at the beginning and end of the school year. Students receiving SIWI outperformed peers in the BAU group on writing traits across both genres, with effect sizes ranging from moderately large (d = 0.70) for informational reports to very large (d = 1.11) for recounts. On the SAWL, SIWI students demonstrated significantly greater gains in grammatical clarity on recount writing, as measured by the word efficiency ratio, with a moderate effect size (d = 0.64), although this effect was not observed for information reports. Students in the treatment group also reported significantly higher motivation for both genres. Unlike the prior RCT, no statistically significant differences emerged on the broad written language measure (d = 0.27). This may reflect spurious findings in the previous study or limitations in this study caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the effect size observed suggests some practical importance that warrants further investigation. Findings provide robust evidence that SIWI positively impacts deaf elementary students' writing development and motivation, particularly for recount genres, while underscoring the importance of replication for understanding the generalizability of intervention effects.

Indexed as

deafefficacy studyelementaryinteractivemetalinguisticrandomized controlled trialstrategicwriting instruction

Identifiers

PMID41595027
PMCPMC12837566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.