Table 3.
Study Quality.
| Study | Design | Comparison group | Implementation fidelity | M rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bisplinghoff (2015) | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Christodoulou et al. (2017) | ❍ | • | • | 0.67 |
| Dooley (1994) a | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Fritts (2016) | ⦿ | ❍ | ⦿ | 1.33 |
| Giess (2005) b | • | • | ⦿ | 0.33 |
| Gunn (1996) | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Hook et al. (2001) a,b | • | ❍ | • | 0.33 |
| Kutrumbros (1993) | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Kuveke (1996) b | • | • | • | 0.00 |
| Laub (1997) | ⦿ | • | • | 0.33 |
| Litcher and Roberge (1979) a | ⦿ | • | • | 0.33 |
| Oakland et al. (1998) a,b | ⦿ | • | • | 0.33 |
| Rauch (2017) | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Reed (2013) | ⦿ | • | • | 0.33 |
| Reuter (2006) | ❍ | ⦿ | • | 1.00 |
| Simpson et al. (1992) a,b | ⦿ | • | • | 0.33 |
| Stewart (2011) | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Torgesen et al. (1999) | ||||
| OG vs. no intervention | ❍ | • | • | 0.67 |
| OG vs. regular classroom support | ❍ | ❍ | • | 1.33 |
| Torgesen et al. (2007) | ❍ | ❍ | ❍ | 2.00 |
| Wade (1993) b | • | • | • | 0.00 |
| Wanzek and Roberts (2012) | ❍ | • | ⦿ | 1.00 |
| Westrich-Bond (1993) a | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Wille (1993) b | • | • | • | 0.00 |
| Young (2001) b | ⦿ | ❍ | • | 1.00 |
| Average score by indicator | 0.95 | 1.00 | 0.17 | 0.76 |
Note. M rating for each study provided on a scale of 0 to 2. ❍ = exemplary (2); ⦿ = acceptable (1); • = unacceptable (0); OG = Orton-Gillingham; BAU = business as usual.
a.
Study included in Ritchey and Goeke (2006).
b.
Study not included in the meta-analysis.