A Randomized Controlled Trial of Tutor- and Computer-Delivered Inferential Comprehension Interventions for Middle School Students with Reading Difficulties

Figures & data

Table 1. Participant demographics.

	Overall	BaU	Computer-led	Tutor-led
	(N = 145)	(n = 52)	(n = 49)	(n = 44)
Gender (% female)	53.8	50	55.1	56.8
Race/ethnicity
Black	24.1	26.9	22.4	22.7
Native American	3.4	3.8	2	4.5
White	71	69.2	75.5	68.2
Other	1.4	0	0	4.5
Students in special education	6.9	7.7	10.2	2.3
English Learners	14.5	15.4	14.3	13.6

Table 2. Pretest and posttest means with standard deviations for outcome measures.

	Pretest			Posttest
	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
CIRCA
BaU	50	26.78	7.90	50	27.38	8.07
Computer-led	49	26.57	8.30	46	27.78	8.01
Tutor-led	44	28.98	7.28	41	31.88	6.41
Bridge-It Near
BaU	50	6.36	2.27	50	7.36	2.28
Computer-led	49	6.33	2.27	45	6.93	2.84
Tutor-led	44	6.66	2.27	41	7.85	2.03
Bridge-It Far
BaU	50	3.76	1.66	50	4.02	1.72
Computer-led	49	3.57	1.83	45	4.58	1.82
Tutor-led	44	4.07	1.63	41	4.88	1.89
WIAT – standard score
BaU	52	85.62	7.66	51	91.33	8.03
Computer-led	49	85.84	7.41	45	90.73	9.81
Tutor-led	44	86.70	6.21	41	93.46	6.96
WIAT – inferential prc. correct
BaU	52	0.41	0.14	51	0.52	0.16
Computer-led	49	0.41	0.14	45	0.50	0.18
Tutor-led	44	0.43	0.11	41	0.55	0.13
WIAT literal prc. correct
BaU	52	0.62	0.22	51	0.71	0.21
Computer-led	49	0.65	0.19	45	0.73	0.21
Tutor-led	44	0.65	0.21	41	0.77	0.20
TOWRE BaU	52	91.19	11.06
Computer-led	49	89.59	10.40
Tutor-led	44	91.86	10.60

Note. Prc = percent correct; BaU = Business as usual.

Table 3. Main effects of intervention on student outcomes.

Parameters	Estimate	SE	p -value	FDR adj. p – value	Effect size [95% CI]
CIRCA
Intercept	27.44	1.16	0.00
Pretest	0.77	0.05	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.70	0.93	0.46	0.46	0.09 [−0.14, 0.32]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	2.90	0.97	0.00	0.04	0.40 [0.13, 0.66]
School1	0.01	1.30	0.99
School2	0.82	1.17	0.49
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led^a	2.20	0.97	0.03	0.04	0.30 [0.03, 0.57]
Bridge-It Near
Intercept	6.88	0.46	0.00
Pretest	0.68	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.39	0.38	0.30	0.45	−0.15 [−0.45, 0.14]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.19	0.39	0.63	0.62	0.09 [−0.27, 0.45]
School1	0.39	0.52	0.45
School2	0.76	0.46	0.10
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led^a	0.58	0.4	0.14	0.43	0.24 [−0.08, 0.56]
Bridge-It Far
Intercept	3.34	0.41	0.01
Pretest	0.42	0.08	0.01
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.56	0.34	0.11	0.16	0.32 [−0.07, 0.71]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.62	0.35	0.08	0.16	0.35 [−0.04, 0.74]
School1	1.09	0.46	0.02
School2	0.79	0.41	0.06
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led^a	0.06	0.36	0.86	0.86	0.03 [−0.35, 0.42]
WIAT – standard score
Intercept	88.05	1.48	0.00
Pretest	0.77	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.8	1.22	0.51	0.51	−0.09 [−0.36, 0.18]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	1.2	1.25	0.34	0.51	0.16 [−0.17, 0.49]
School1	4.34	1.66	0.01
School2	4.2	1.49	0.01
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led^a	2.00	1.29	0.12	0.37	0.24 [−0.06, 0.54]
WIAT – inferential prc. correct
Intercept	0.44	0.03	0.00
Pretest	0.64	0.08	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.02	0.03	0.36	0.36	−0.14 [−0.44, 0.16]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.03	0.03	0.32	0.36	0.18 [−0.17, 0.54]
School1	0.10	0.04	0.00
School2	0.10	0.03	0.00
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led^a	0.05	0.03	0.07	0.20	0.32 [−0.02, 0.67]
WIAT Literal prc. correct
Intercept	0.67	0.04	0.00
Pretest	0.64	0.06	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.00	0.03	0.90	0.90	0.02 [−0.29, 0.32]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.03	0.03	0.33	0.61	0.16 [−0.16, 0.48]
School1	0.04	0.04	0.38
School2	0.06	0.04	0.10
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led^a	0.03	0.03	0.41	0.61	0.14 [−0.19, 0.47]

Note. ^a = All of the models included the Computer-led and Tutor-led interventions as dummy variables with BaU was the reference category. The difference between the Tutor-led and Computer-led intervention was estimated in a follow-up analysis using the emmeans package (Lenth & Lenth, 2018) in R.

Table 4. Main effect of intervention on CIRCA inference types.

Parameters	Estimate	SE	p-value	FDR adj. p-value	Effect size
Pronoun
Intercept	6.69	0.46	0.00
Pretest	0.51	0.06	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.65	0.38	0.09	0.13	0.24 [−0.03, 0.52]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.97	0.39	0.01	0.04	0.41 [0.08, 0.74]
School1	1.07	0.52	0.04
School2	1.50	0.47	0.00
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	0.32	0.40	0.42	0.42	0.16 [−0.23, 0.56]
Text-connecting
Intercept	7.82	0.43	0.00
Pretest	0.48	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.01	0.35	0.97	0.97	−0.01 [−0.35, 0.34]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.27	0.36	0.46	0.68	0.14 [−0.23, 0.54]
School1	0.03	0.48	0.96
School2	0.14	0.43	0.75
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	0.28	0.36	0.44	0.68	0.16 [−0.24, 0.56]
Vocabulary
Intercept	6.41	0.43	0.00
Pretest	0.69	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.20	0.36	0.58	0.58	−0.09 [−0.40, 0.23]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.91	0.37	0.01	0.02	0.41 [0.08, 0.74]
School1	−0.38	0.49	0.44
School2	−0.28	0.44	0.53
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	1.11	0.37	0.00	0.01	0.48 [0.16, 0.80]
Knowledge-based
Intercept	5.29	0.54	0.00
Pretest	0.55	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.19	0.44	0.66	0.66	0.07 [−0.25, 0.39]
Tutor-led vs. BaU	1.16	0.45	0.01	0.04	0.46 [0.10, 0.83]
School1	0.57	0.61	0.35
School2	0.73	0.55	0.19
Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	0.97	0.46	0.04	0.05	0.37 [0.02, 0.71]

Table 5. Results for word reading efficiency as a moderator of intervention effects.

Parameters	Estimate	SE	p-value	FDR adjusted p-value
Proximal Inference
Intercept	26.83	1.23	0.00
Pretest	0.72	0.06	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.91	0.94	0.33
Tutor-led vs. BaU	3.03	0.97	0.00
School1	0.54	1.35	0.69
School2	1.44	1.26	0.26
Word Reading	0.09	0.06	0.12
Word Reading*Computer vs BaU	0.00	0.09	0.99	0.99
Word Reading*Tutor vs BaU	−0.07	0.09	0.46	0.72
Word Reading*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	−0.07	0.09	0.48	0.72
Bridge-it near
Intercept	6.67	0.48	0.00
Pretest	0.63	0.08	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.39	0.38	0.31
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.17	0.39	0.66
School1	0.59	0.54	0.27
School2	1.01	0.48	0.04
Word Reading	0.01	0.02	0.75
Word Reading*Computer vs BaU	−0.01	0.04	0.80	0.80
Word Reading*Tutor vs BaU	0.05	0.04	0.21	0.31
Word Reading*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	0.05	0.04	0.15	0.31
Bridge-it far
Intercept	3.12	0.41	0.00
Pretest	0.39	0.08	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.61	0.34	0.07
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.60	0.35	0.09
School1	1.25	0.46	0.01
School2	1.06	0.42	0.01
Word Reading	0.02	0.02	0.32
Word Reading*Computer vs BaU	0.00	0.03	0.94	0.94
Word Reading*Tutor vs BaU	0.04	0.03	0.23	0.44
Word Reading*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	0.04	0.03	0.29	0.44
WIAT – SS
Intercept	87.78	1.48	0.00
Pretest	0.79	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−1.23	1.19	0.30
Tutor-led vs. BaU	1.03	1.21	0.40
School1	4.70	1.65	0.01
School2	4.54	1.5	0.00
Word Reading	−0.05	0.08	0.56
Word Reading*Computer vs BaU	−0.19	0.11	0.10	0.10
Word Reading*Tutor vs BaU	0.20	0.11	0.07	0.10
Word Reading*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	0.39	0.12	0.00	0.01
WIAT – inferential
Intercept	0.43	0.03	0.00
Pretest	0.65	0.08	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.03	0.03	0.24
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.02	0.03	0.36
School1	0.11	0.04	0.00
School2	0.10	0.03	0.00
Word Reading	0.00	0.00	0.87
Word Reading*Computer vs BaU	0.00	0.00	0.17	0.17
Word Reading*Tutor vs BaU	0.00	0.00	0.17	0.17
Word Reading*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.03
WIAT Literal
Intercept	0.66	0.04	0.00
Pretest	0.63	0.06	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.00	0.03	0.98
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.03	0.03	0.37
School1	0.05	0.04	0.25
School2	0.08	0.04	0.05
Word Reading	0.00	0.00	0.83
Word Reading*Computer vs BaU	0.00	0.00	0.36	0.35
Word Reading*Tutor vs BaU	0.00	0.00	0.20	0.30
Word Reading*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	−0.01	0.00	0.04	0.12

Table 6. Results for reading comprehension as a moderator of intervention effects.

Parameters	Estimate	SE	p-value	FDR adjusted p-value
Proximal Inference
Intercept	27.28	1.13	0.00
Pretest	0.68	0.06	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.47	0.9	0.60
Tutor-led vs. BaU	2.82	0.94	0.00
School1	0.38	1.27	0.77
School2	1.2	1.15	0.30
Reading comprehension	0.28	0.09	0.00
Reading comprehension*Computer-led vs BaU	−0.13	0.12	0.27	0.41
Reading comprehension*Tutor-led vs BaU	−0.24	0.14	0.08	0.24
Reading comprehension*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	−0.11	0.14	0.43	0.43
Bridge-it near
Intercept	6.89	0.46	0.00
Pretest	0.62	0.08	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.4	0.38	0.29
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.17	0.39	0.67
School1	0.39	0.52	0.45
School2	0.75	0.46	0.11
Reading comprehension	0.02	0.04	0.58
Reading comprehension*Computer vs BaU	0.02	0.05	0.65	0.82
Reading comprehension*Tutor vs BaU	0.04	0.06	0.53	0.82
Reading comprehension*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	0.01	0.06	0.82	0.82
Bridge-it far
Intercept	3.36	0.41	0.00
Pretest	0.40	0.09	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.57	0.34	0.10
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.62	0.36	0.09
School1	1.03	0.47	0.03
School2	0.76	0.42	0.07
Reading comprehension	−0.02	0.03	0.47
Reading comprehension*Computer vs BaU	0.04	0.05	0.35	0.53
Reading comprehension*Tutor vs BaU	0.07	0.05	0.20	0.53
Reading comprehension*Tutor-led vs Computer-led	0.02	0.05	0.64	0.64

FIGURE 1. Visualization of word reading as a moderator of intervention effect between the computer-led and tutor-led interventions on WIAT reading comprehension standard scores at posttest.

Table 7. Results for sex as a moderator of intervention effects.

Parameters	Estimate	SE	p-value	FDR adjusted p-value
Proximal Inference
Intercept	27.72	1.42	0.00
Pretest	0.77	0.05	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.19	1.42	0.90
Tutor-led vs. BaU	2.50	1.48	0.09
School1	0.01	1.32	0.99
School2	0.81	1.19	0.50
Gender	−0.50	1.35	0.71
Sex*Computer-led vs. BaU	0.93	1.90	0.63	0.92
Sex*Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.72	1.96	0.71	0.92
Sex*Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	−0.21	1.99	0.92	0.92
Bridge-it near
Intercept	6.79	0.55	0.00
Pretest	0.7	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−1.39	0.55	0.01
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.46	0.57	0.42
School1	0.46	0.50	0.36
School2	0.83	0.45	0.07
Sex	0.06	0.52	0.91
Sex*Computer-led vs. BaU	1.73	0.74	0.02	0.03
Sex*Tutor-led vs. BaU	−0.49	0.76	0.52	0.52
Sex*Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	−2.21	0.77	0.00	0.01
Bridge-it far
Intercept	3.12	0.51	0.00
Pretest	0.42	0.08	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.54	0.52	0.31
Tutor-led vs. BaU	1.05	0.54	0.05
School1	1.13	0.47	0.02
School2	0.83	0.42	0.05
Sex	0.36	0.49	0.47
Sex*Computer-led vs. BaU	0.01	0.70	0.98	0.98
Sex*Tutor-led vs. BaU	−0.76	0.72	0.29	0.44
Sex*Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	−0.78	0.73	0.29	0.44
WIAT – SS
Intercept	90.99	1.73	0.00
Pretest	0.75	0.07	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−4.23	1.75	0.02
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.9	1.8	0.62
School1	3.77	1.62	0.02
School2	3.54	1.45	0.02
Sex	−4.73	1.63	0.00
Sex*Computer-led vs. BaU	6.49	2.36	0.01	0.02
Sex*Tutor-led vs. BaU	1.18	2.43	0.63	0.63
Sex*Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	−5.31	2.51	0.04	0.05
WIAT – inferential
Intercept	0.53	0.04	0.00
Pretest	0.62	0.08	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.11	0.04	0.00
Tutor-led vs. BaU	−0.01	0.04	0.81
School1	0.09	0.03	0.01
School2	0.08	0.03	0.01
Sex	−0.14	0.03	0.00
Sex*Computer-led vs. BaU	0.17	0.05	0.00	0.00
Sex*Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.08	0.05	0.11	0.11
Sex*Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	−0.09	0.05	0.08	0.11
WIAT Literal
Intercept	0.67	0.05	0.00
Pretest	0.64	0.06	0.00
Computer-led vs. BaU	0.01	0.05	0.82
Tutor-led vs. BaU	0.08	0.05	0.12
School1	0.03	0.04	0.44
School2	0.06	0.04	0.12
Sex	0.01	0.04	0.87
Sex*Computer-led vs. BaU	−0.01	0.06	0.84	0.84
Sex*Tutor-led vs. BaU	−0.08	0.07	0.25	0.53
Sex*Tutor-led vs. Computer-led	−0.06	0.07	0.36	0.53

Lenth, R., & Lenth, M. R.(2018). Package ‘lsmeans’. American Statistician, 34(4), 216–221.

 Google Scholar