Home
About Us
UI Blog
Contact Us
Clipboard & History
Search history (0)
Clipboard (0)
searchable interface
Affiliation
All Fields
Author
Author - First
Author - Identifier
Author - Last
Book
Conflict of Interest Statements
Editor
Issue
Journal
Language
MeSH Terms
Pagination
Publication Type
Publication Year
Publisher
Title
Title/Abstract
Transliterated Title
Volume
Find
Please fill out this field.
Display options
Format
Abstract
PubMed
PMID
Save
Email
Cite
Cite
AMA
Swanson H.L., Sachse-Lee C.. A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD. 2000;33:114-136
APA
Swanson H.L., & Sachse-Lee C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
, 33114-136.
MLA
Swanson H.L., and Sachse-Lee C.. "A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD."
Journal of Learning Disabilities
vol. 33 (2000): 114-136.
NLM
Swanson H.L., Sachse-Lee C.. A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD. 2000;33:114-136. UIID-AC: 36.
Copy
Download .nbib
Format:
NLM
AMA
APA
MLA
NLM
Send to
Clipboard
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation Manager
Share it on
Link
Direct link
Direct link
Full text links
2000;33:114-136.
A meta-analysis of single-subject-design intervention research for students with LD.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Swanson H.L.
,
Sachse-Lee C.
UIID-AC: 36
Abstract
This article summarizes single-subject-design intervention studies that include students with learning disabilities. Effect sizes of 85 studies were analyzed across instructional domains (e.g., reading, mathematics); sample characteristics (e.g., age, intelligence); intervention parameters (e.g., number of instructional sessions, instructional components); and methodological procedures (e.g., internal validity, treatment integrity, sample representation). The major findings were as follows: (a) All domain areas except handwriting yielded effect sizes at or above Cohen's .80 threshold for a substantial finding; (b) instructional components related to drill-repetition-practice-review, segmentation, small interactive groups, and the implementation of cues to use strategies contributed significant variance (15%) to estimates of effect size; (c) strategy instruction (SI) models better predicted effect size estimates than direct instruction (DI) models when the results were qualified by the reported intellectual and reading levels of the participants; (d) high-IQ discrepancy groups yielded lower effect sizes compared to low-IQ discrepancy groups in the domain of reading, whereas the reverse effect occurred when treatment outcomes were not reading measures; and (e) the low-IQ discrepancy groups yielded higher effect sizes for a Combined DI and SI Model when compared to competing models. The results are supportive of the pervasive influence of cognitive strategy and direct instruction models across treatment domains and of the notion that variations in sample definition moderate treatment outcomes.
Publication Types
Journal Article
Save results to a file
No records selected. Please select records to continue.
Format
Summary (text)
PubMed
PMID
Abstract (text)
CSV
Email results
Only first 240 records will be saved in your file.
No records selected. Please select records to continue.
Email subject
UIINDEX - UIID-AC: 36
Send email to
Format
Summary
Summary (text)
Abstract
Abstract (text)
Captcha
Citation copied successfully.