Heterogeneity in Reading Achievement and Mindset of Readers with Reading Difficulties.

Recent research has focused on evaluating the relation between mindset and reading achievement. We used exploratory factor mixture models (E-FMMs) to examine the heterogeneity in reading achievement and mindset of 650 fourth graders with reading difficulties. To build E-FMMs, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to examine the factor structure of scores of (a) mindset, (b) reading, and (c) mindset/reading combined. Our results indicated (a) a 2-factor model for mindset (General Mindset vs. Reading Mindset), (b) a 2-factor model for reading (Word Reading vs. Comprehension; four covariances), and (c) a combined model with significant correlations across mindset and reading factors. We ran E-FMMs on the combined model. Overall, we found three classes of students. We situate these results within the existing literature and discuss implications for practice and research.

Comparing the Effects of Reading Intervention Versus Reading and Mindset Intervention for Upper Elementary Students With Reading Difficulties.

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of providing mindset intervention in addition to reading intervention compared with only reading intervention for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Reading intervention was provided daily in 45 min sessions throughout the school year. Mindset intervention occurred in small groups for 24-30 min lessons. Multilevel structural equation modeling (SEM) via n-level SEM was used to account for the latent variable representation of constructs, and the complex nesting and cross-classification structure of the data. Students in the reading intervention plus mindset condition significantly outperformed the business as usual condition on nonword reading (d = 0.35) as did students in the reading intervention condition (d = 0.20), who also outperformed the business as usual condition on phonological processing (d = 0.28). There were no significant differences among students in the three conditions on nonword reading, word reading, phonological processing, reading comprehension, or growth mindset. Initial reading achievement, mindset, and problem behavior did not generally moderate these findings.

A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Professional Development on Teachers' Knowledge, Skill, and Self-Efficacy in Data-Based Decision-Making.

The purpose of this review was to synthesize research on the effect of professional development (PD) targeting data-based decision-making processes on teachers' knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy related to curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and data-based decision-making (DBDM). To be eligible for this review, studies had to (a) be published in English, (b) include in-service or pre-service K-12 teachers as participants, (c) use an empirical group design, and (d) include sufficient data to calculate an effect size for teacher outcome variables. The mean effect of DBDM PD on teacher outcomes was g = 0.57 (p < .001). This effect was not moderated by study quality. These results must be viewed through the lens of significant heterogeneity in effects across included studies, which could not be explained by follow-up sensitivity analyses. In addition, the experimental studies included in this review occurred under ideal, researcher-supported conditions, which impacts the generalizability of the effects of DBDM PD in practice. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

The Relationship Between Study Quality and the Effects of Supplemental Reading Interventions: A Meta-Analysis.

Empirical studies investigating supplemental reading interventions for students with or at-risk for reading disabilities in the early elementary grades have demonstrated a range of effect sizes. Identifying the findings from high quality research can provide greater certainty of findings related to the effectiveness of supplemental reading interventions. This meta-analysis investigated how four variables of study quality (study design, statistical treatment, Type I error, and fidelity of implementation) were related to effect sizes from standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language/comprehension. The results from 88 studies indicated that year of publication was a significant predictor of effect sizes for both standardized measures of foundational reading skills and language/comprehension, with more recent studies demonstrating smaller effect sizes. Results also demonstrated that with the exception of research design predicting effect sizes on foundational reading skills measures, study quality was not related to the effects of supplemental reading interventions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.