Definition x Treatment Interactions for Students with Learning Disabilities
Abstract
This article investigates whether intervention outcomes for students with learning disabilities (LD) vary as a function of IQ and/or reading level. Effect sizes for 180 intervention studies were analyzed across instructional domains (e.g., reading, mathematics), and sample characteristics (e.g., intelligence, reading). The important findings were (a) a significant intelligence x reading level interaction emerges related to the magnitude of treatment outcomes indicating that studies which produced the highest effect sizes reported the smallest discrepancy between intelligence and reading (intelligence scores between 84 and 91 and reading scores between 84 and 91) when compared to other studies; (b) effect sizes were higher for strategy instruction and direct instruction-only models when studies met cut-off score criteria (study samples report standardized IQ scores at or above 85 and reading scores at or below the 25th percentile) when compared to other studies; and (c) effect sizes were more positive for a Combined Strategy and Direct Instruction model when compared to competing instructional models, but the difference in magnitude was weakened when compared to competing models when samples were defined as meeting cut-off score criteria. Overall, the results support the notion that variations in how LD samples are defined are related to the magnitude of treatment outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The finding that direct instruction is effective is in line with many studies and other meta-analyses.
“This is in line with many studies that have examined the effects of direct instruction (Carnine, 1997) and with other meta-analyses (e.g., Swanson & Carson, 1996; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1999).”
From Mathematics Interventions for Children with Special Educational Needs: A Meta-Analysis (2003) · cites this paper as Swanson & Hoskyn, 1999
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 28 · Cited by 23
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- 10.1002/9781118619179 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-1-4612-3268-1_13 · DOI
- 10.1177/002246699002400206 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15326985ep2303_3 · DOI
- Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
- Cronbach L. J., 1977, Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions.
- Engelmann S., 1982, Theory of instruction: Principles and applications.
- 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.6 · DOI
- Gleser L. J., 1994, The handbook of research synthesis, 339
- Graham S., 1996, The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 347
- Hedges L. V., 1985, Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
- Hunter J. E., 1990, Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.
- 10.1080/1057356950110102 · DOI
- 10.1080/00461520.1986.9653021 · DOI
- 10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.805 · DOI
- 10.2307/1511208 · DOI
- Morrison S. R., 1991, Neurological foundations of learning disabilities, 79
- 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_3 · DOI
- 10.1080/00220671.1995.9941309 · DOI
- Rosenthal R., 1994, The handbook of research synthesis, 231
- 10.1177/002221949202501001 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15326985ep2202_2 · DOI
- Smith M. L., 1980, The benefits of psychotherapy.
- Snow R. E., 1994, Mind in context: Interactionist perspective on human intelligence, 3
- 10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.003055 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.24 · DOI
- 10.1207/sldrp1403_1 · DOI
- 10.2307/1510661 · DOI
- Swanson H. L., 1996, School Psychology Review, 25, 370, 10.1080/02796015.1996.12085826 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/1170599 · DOI
- Swanson H. L., 1997, A comprehensive synthesis of intervention research in the field of learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Report submitted
- Tobias S., 1981, Psychology and education: The state of the union, 40
- Authors
- Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Riverside (US)
- Corresponding author
- Swanson, H. Lee
- Venue
- School Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-12-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 644-658
- ISSN
- 0279-6015 (ISSN-L)
- 2372-966X
- OpenAlex
- W2436731426
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- School Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Keywords
- learning disabilities, IQ-achievement discrepancy, reading level, effect size, intervention outcomes, strategy instruction, direct instruction, sample selection criteria, reading instruction, mathematics education
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