↓ Skip to main content

The Effectiveness of a 2‐year Supplementary Tutor‐assisted Computerized Intervention on the Reading Development of Beginning Readers at Risk for Reading Difficulties: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Dyslexia (10769242), January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 136)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Effectiveness of a 2‐year Supplementary Tutor‐assisted Computerized Intervention on the Reading Development of Beginning Readers at Risk for Reading Difficulties: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Dyslexia (10769242), January 2013
DOI 10.1002/dys.1465
Pubmed ID
Authors

Regtvoort, Anne, Zijlstra, Haytske, Leij, Aryan

Abstract

Children with low (pre-)literacy skills may benefit from individual tutoring during the early phases of learning to read. Dutch at-risk students from 13 schools received in first and second grade a computerized reading intervention, delivered by non-professional tutors at school. Digital logs indicated that treatment integrity was lower than intended; therefore, the intervention group was subdivided using a completion criterion. Third grade assessments revealed that the subgroup that had finished the program successfully (IF, N = 40) was able to read as fluent as the average reader, outperforming the subgroup that had not completely finished the program (InF, N = 31) as well as the group that had not worked with the program (controls, N = 66) on all reading measures. This study demonstrates that a well-implemented tutoring model can serve as a (cost-)effective complement to the classroom practice for beginning readers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 4%
Denmark 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 38%
Social Sciences 12 23%
Unspecified 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Other 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2014.
All research outputs
#2,383,817
of 6,691,767 outputs
Outputs from Dyslexia (10769242)
#45
of 136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,219
of 141,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dyslexia (10769242)
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,691,767 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 63rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 136 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 141,015 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.