Understanding the Dynamics of Dosage Response: A Nonlinear Meta-Analysis of Recent Reading Interventions

IF 8.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Garrett J. Roberts, Denis G. Dumas, Daniel M. McNeish, Brooke Coté
{"title":"Understanding the Dynamics of Dosage Response: A Nonlinear Meta-Analysis of Recent Reading Interventions","authors":"Garrett J. Roberts, Denis G. Dumas, Daniel M. McNeish, Brooke Coté","doi":"10.3102/00346543211051423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers have noted a nonlinear association between reading instruction dosage (i.e., hours of instruction) and reading outcomes for Grade K–3 students with reading difficulties (K–3 SWRD). In this article, we propose a nonlinear meta-analysis as a method to identify both the maximum effect size and optimal dosage of reading interventions for K–3 SWRD using 26 peer-reviewed studies including 186 effect sizes. Results suggested the effect sizes followed a concave parabolic shape, such that increasing dosage improved intervention effects until 39.92 hours of instruction (dmax = 0.77), after which the intervention effects declined. Moderator analyses found that maximum intervention effects on fluency outcomes were significantly larger (dmax = 1.34) than the overall maximum effect size. Also, when students received 1:1 instruction, the dosage response curve displayed a different functional form than the concave parabolic shape, showing the effect increased indefinitely after approximately 16.8 hours of instruction. Implications for research and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":21145,"journal":{"name":"Review of Educational Research","volume":"92 1","pages":"209 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211051423","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Researchers have noted a nonlinear association between reading instruction dosage (i.e., hours of instruction) and reading outcomes for Grade K–3 students with reading difficulties (K–3 SWRD). In this article, we propose a nonlinear meta-analysis as a method to identify both the maximum effect size and optimal dosage of reading interventions for K–3 SWRD using 26 peer-reviewed studies including 186 effect sizes. Results suggested the effect sizes followed a concave parabolic shape, such that increasing dosage improved intervention effects until 39.92 hours of instruction (dmax = 0.77), after which the intervention effects declined. Moderator analyses found that maximum intervention effects on fluency outcomes were significantly larger (dmax = 1.34) than the overall maximum effect size. Also, when students received 1:1 instruction, the dosage response curve displayed a different functional form than the concave parabolic shape, showing the effect increased indefinitely after approximately 16.8 hours of instruction. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
理解剂量反应的动力学:最近阅读干预的非线性荟萃分析
研究人员注意到,对于有阅读困难的K-3年级学生(K-3 SWRD),阅读教学剂量(即教学时间)与阅读结果之间存在非线性关系。在这篇文章中,我们提出了一种非线性荟萃分析方法,通过26项同行评审研究,包括186项效果大小,来确定K-3 SWRD阅读干预的最大效果大小和最佳剂量。结果表明,效果大小遵循凹抛物线形状,因此增加剂量可以改善干预效果,直到指导39.92小时(dmax=0.77),之后干预效果下降。主持人分析发现,对流利性结果的最大干预效果显著大于总体最大效果大小(dmax=1.34)。此外,当学生接受1:1的教学时,剂量反应曲线显示出与凹抛物面不同的功能形式,显示出在大约16.8小时的教学后,效果无限期增加。讨论了对研究和实践的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Review of Educational Research
Review of Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
24.10
自引率
2.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Review of Educational Research (RER), a quarterly publication initiated in 1931 with approximately 640 pages per volume year, is dedicated to presenting critical, integrative reviews of research literature relevant to education. These reviews encompass conceptualizations, interpretations, and syntheses of scholarly work across fields broadly pertinent to education and educational research. Welcoming submissions from any discipline, RER encourages research reviews in psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, economics, computer science, statistics, anthropology, and biology, provided the review addresses educational issues. While original empirical research is not published independently, RER incorporates it within broader integrative reviews. The journal may occasionally feature solicited, rigorously refereed analytic reviews of special topics, especially from disciplines underrepresented in educational research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信