Are Child Cognitive Characteristics Strong Predictors of Responses to Intervention? A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis of 28 studies comprising 39 samples to ask the question, “What is the magnitude of the association between various baseline child cognitive characteristics and response to reading intervention?” Studies were located via literature searches, contact with researchers in the field, and review of references from the National Reading Panel Report. Eligible participant populations included at-risk elementary school children enrolled in the third grade or below. Effects were analyzed using a shifting unit of analysis approach within three statistical models: cognitive characteristics predicting growth curve slope (Model 1, mean r = .31), gain (Model 2, mean r = .21), or postintervention reading controlling for preintervention reading (Model 3, mean r = .15). Effects were homogeneous within each model when effects were aggregated within study. The small size of the effects calls into question the practical significance and utility of using cognitive characteristics for prediction of response when baseline reading is available.

Can Intelligence Testing Inform Educational Intervention for Children with Reading Disability?

“…The additional contribution provided by the cognitive measures did not appear to justify the costs involved. Recent studies [42,45,73] have similarly concluded that there is minimal value in assessing cognitive characteristics for the purpose of predicting how children will respond to intervention. Put simply, the additional information such assessments can provide, above and beyond that yielded by baseline academic assessment or curriculum based or embedded measures [74] appears not to be worth the investment of resources that is required.…”

“…Put simply, the additional information such assessments can provide, above and beyond that yielded by baseline academic assessment or curriculum based or embedded measures [74] appears not to be worth the investment of resources that is required. Stuebing et al (2015) [73] undertook a meta-analysis of 28 studies of young children (third grade and younger) in order to answer the question: What is the magnitude between various baseline child cognitive characteristics and responses to reading intervention? Their conclusions were that effect sizes were small and not able to improve prediction in a clinically meaningful way.…”

A Cognitive and Linguistic Approach to Predicting and Remediating Word Reading Difficulties in Young Readers

“…In contrast, in a recent meta-analysis, Stuebing et al ( 2014 ) examined the magnitude of the relationship between individual cognitive differences and response to intervention within different analytic models. Results showed that adding cognitive individual differences did not improve the prediction of responses to intervention.…”

“…However, there are inconsistent fi ndings regarding the exact language skills and tasks (Stuebing et al, 2014 ). For example, Fletcher et al ( 2011 ) compared adequate and inadequate responders to Response to Intervention (RTI) reading intervention in the fi rst grade.…”

“…Understanding the role of specifi c cognitive skills in reading, may possibly improve prediction of the risk status of individuals and form the basis of a tailored intervention (Stuebing et al, 2014 ). Response to Intervention (RTI) is a method for preventing, as well as helping identify, children who may be at risk for academic diffi culties.…”