Cited by 111Reading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention

Burns, Matthew K., Senesac, Barbara V.·2005·Journal of School Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.003

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Central Michigan University (US)
Corresponding author
Burns, Matthew K.
Venue
Journal of School Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-11
Volume
43
Issue
5
Pages
393-406
ISSN
0022-4405 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007915158
Cited by
111
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of School Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
reading disorders, responsiveness to intervention, early identification of learning difficulties, reading difficulties

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review