Systematic Review on Quality Indicators of Randomised Controlled Trial Reading Intervention Studies for Students in Years 7–12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A number of studies have examined the effects of reading interventions for younger readers; however, there does not appear to be any existing syntheses examining the effect of reading interventions on students in Years 7–12. The purpose of this study was to establish whether such a synthesis is feasible by reviewing the methodological quality of randomised controlled trial studies examining the effect of reading interventions for secondary students, using the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards. A total of 17 studies were identified and reviewed. Overall, only two studies met all eight CEC quality indicators. All studies met the quality indicators for intervention agent, and context and settings. Findings, limitations and recommendations for future directions of study are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.261 | 0.598 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".