University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
J Learn Disabil. 2011 May-Jun;44(3):283-95. doi: 10.1177/0022219410378447.
This article synthesizes the literature comparing at-risk children designated as responders and low responders to interventions in reading. The central question addressed in this review is whether individual differences in reading-related skills at pretest predict responders at posttest across a variety of interventions and sets of criteria for determining responding and low responding. A total of 13 studies met criteria for the meta-analysis, yielding 107 weighted effect sizes (ESs) at posttest (M = .76, SE = .03, 95% confidence interval [CI] =.71, .81) and 108 weighted ESs at pretest (M = 1.02, SE = .03, CI = 1.02, 1.13). The results showed that the magnitude of ES between responders and low responders increased from pretest to posttest on measures of reading (e.g., real word identification = 1.06 vs. 1.53, word attack = 1.10 vs. 1.28, and passage comprehension, 0.45 vs. 1.43). Hierarchical linear modeling indicated that overall posttest ESs were significantly moderated by pretest scores as well as the type of measure administered, whereas no significant moderating effects were found for number of weeks of intervention, length of sessions, number of sessions, type of intervention (one-to-one vs. small group instruction), and criteria for defining responders (cutoff, scores, discrepancy, benchmark). Overall, the synthesis suggested that regardless of type of treatment and identification criteria, response-to-intervention (RTI) conditions were not effective in mitigating learner characteristics related to pretest conditions.
本文综合了比较有风险的儿童被指定为干预阅读的应答者和低应答者的文献。本综述中要解决的核心问题是，在各种干预措施和确定应答者和低应答者的标准下，在预测试中阅读相关技能的个体差异是否可以预测在测试后的应答者。共有 13 项研究符合荟萃分析的标准，在测试后产生了 107 个加权效应量 (ES) (M =.76, SE =.03, 95%置信区间 [CI] =.71,.81) 和 108 个在预测试中加权的 ES (M = 1.02, SE =.03, CI = 1.02, 1.13)。结果表明，在阅读测试中，从预测试到后测试，应答者和低应答者之间的 ES 大小增加了（例如，真实单词识别 = 1.06 比 1.53，单词攻击 = 1.10 比 1.28，和段落理解，0.45 比 1.43）。分层线性模型表明，后测试的总体 ES 显著受到预测试分数以及所使用的测量类型的调节，而干预的周数、会话的长度、会话的次数、干预的类型（一对一与小组指导）以及定义应答者的标准（临界值、分数、差异、基准）都没有显著的调节作用。总体而言，综合结果表明，无论治疗类型和识别标准如何，干预反应 (RTI) 条件都不能有效减轻与预测试条件相关的学习者特征。
