Longitudinal outcomes of an individualized and intensive reading intervention for third grade students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early intervention is known to reduce reading disabilities; however, treatment response is variable, and some students have persistent deficits that require intensive supports. This study examined the immediate and 1-year outcomes of an individualized and intensive reading program for third grade students, which was delivered throughout the school day for an average of 189 hr of instruction over 3 months. These students' performances were compared with two comparison groups, including poor readers who received small group supports and good readers who did not have additional reading instruction. The intensive group showed an improvement in word recognition and decoding fluency immediately after the program and 1 year later, and there was a decrease in significant reading impairments from 62% before intervention to 35% at follow-up. Furthermore, baseline reading, spelling, phonological awareness, and rapid naming skills were predictive of persistent reading deficits at a later time point. Although improvements in reading skills were shown, a significant gap between poor and good readers persisted in the third and fourth grades. This study illustrates the importance of a tertiary intensive reading program, but also the need for continuing supports.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it