The impact of repeated reading intervention on reading self-efficacy and fear of negative evaluation in Arabic-speaking students

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Students (not intact classes or schools) were randomly assigned, and the paper does not document class- or school-level randomization.
    • "Sixty second-grade students (ages 14-15) from two preparatory institutes in Gharbia Governorate, Egypt, were randomly assigned to experimental (n=30) or control (n=30) groups." (p. 1)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Sixty second-grade students (ages 14-15) from two preparatory institutes in Gharbia Governorate, Egypt, were randomly assigned to experimental (n=30) or control (n=30) groups." (p. 1) 2) "From this initial sample, 60 second-grade preparatory students were selected and randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 30) or control group (n = 30)." (p. 3) 3) "Participants were randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions using a computer-generated randomization sequence to ensure equal group sizes and minimize selection bias." (p. 4) Detailed Analysis: Criterion C requires randomization at the class level (or stronger at the school level), unless the intervention is clearly a personal tutoring intervention where student-level randomization is acceptable. The paper explicitly states that individual students were "randomly assigned" to experimental vs control groups. It does not state that intact classes were randomized, and it does not state that the two institutes (sites) were randomized as whole units. Although the intervention includes "small-group tutoring formats," the paper does not clearly frame the study as a one-to-one tutoring intervention that would make student-level randomization clearly acceptable under the ERCT exception. Final sentence: Criterion C is not met because randomization was conducted at the student level without documentation of class- or school-level assignment.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes were measured with self-report scales (self-efficacy and fear of negative evaluation), not standardized exam-based academic assessments.
    • "Reading self-efficacy (Kosar et al., 2022) consists of 16 items covering various reading skills." (p. 3)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Reading self-efficacy (Kosar et al., 2022) consists of 16 items covering various reading skills." (p. 3) 2) "Fear of negative evaluation (Carleton et al., 2006) is a 12-item scale that measures individuals’ anxiety about being negatively evaluated by others in social and academic contexts." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion E requires standardized exam-based assessments of educational outcomes (e.g., national/state standardized tests or other widely recognized standardized achievement exams). The paper describes two psychological/self-report instruments: a reading self-efficacy scale and a fear of negative evaluation scale. These are validated scales, but they are not standardized academic exams of reading achievement, and no standardized reading exam is named as an outcome measure. Final sentence: Criterion E is not met because the study uses validated self-report scales rather than standardized exam-based assessments.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • Primary post-intervention outcomes were collected immediately after an eight-week intervention, which is shorter than a full academic term as defined by ERCT.
    • "Post-intervention measurements were collected immediately following the eight-week intervention period for both groups." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The experimental group received the repeated reading intervention over a period of eight weeks, with three 45-minute sessions per week." (p. 4) 2) "Post-intervention measurements were collected immediately following the eight-week intervention period for both groups." (p. 5) 3) "To assess the sustainability of intervention effects, follow-up measurements were conducted four weeks after the completion of the intervention using the same instruments and procedures as the baseline assessment." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion T requires that outcomes be measured at least one full academic term after the intervention begins (typically about 3-4 months), not merely immediately after a short intervention. The paper documents an eight-week intervention, with the post-test collected "immediately" after the eight weeks. While there is also a follow-up four weeks later (about 12 weeks from intervention start), the primary post-intervention measurement occurs at eight weeks, which is clearly under a typical 3-4 month term duration. The paper also does not define the local academic "term" length in this context. Final sentence: Criterion T is not met because the main outcome measurement point occurs immediately after an eight-week intervention rather than at least one full term after the start.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The control group condition and timing are described, and baseline measurements were collected for both groups.
    • "The control group continued with standard Arabic reading instruction during the same time period, following the regular curriculum without specific repeated reading interventions." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Sixty second-grade students (ages 14-15) from two preparatory institutes in Gharbia Governorate, Egypt, were randomly assigned to experimental (n=30) or control (n=30) groups." (p. 1) 2) "Following institutional approval and informed consent from participants and their guardians, baseline measurements were collected for both groups on reading self-efficacy and fear of negative evaluation." (p. 4) 3) "The control group continued with standard Arabic reading instruction during the same time period, following the regular curriculum without specific repeated reading interventions." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion D requires that the control group be documented well enough to understand what it received and to support meaningful comparison (including baseline measurement collection). The paper clearly reports a control group of size n = 30, states the control condition ("standard Arabic reading instruction" and "regular curriculum"), and states that baseline measurements were collected for both groups on the measured outcomes. Final sentence: Criterion D is met because the paper documents the control condition, control group size, and baseline measurement collection.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • The paper describes two institutes as study sites but does not document randomization of institutes/schools to conditions.
    • "The study was conducted at two preparatory secondary institutes for boys and girls in Qutour, Gharbia Governorate, Egypt." (p. 3)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The study was conducted at two preparatory secondary institutes for boys and girls in Qutour, Gharbia Governorate, Egypt." (p. 3) 2) "From this initial sample, 60 second-grade preparatory students were selected and randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 30) or control group (n = 30)." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion S requires randomization at the school (or equivalent site) level. Although the setting includes two institutes, the random assignment described is at the student level (students were "selected and randomly assigned"). The paper does not state that institutes (or schools) were randomly assigned to intervention vs control. Final sentence: Criterion S is not met because school/institute- level randomization is not documented.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The paper does not document an independent external evaluation team for implementation, measurement, or analysis.
    • "Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest." (p. 8)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Sessions began with the instructor modeling fluent reading of Arabic texts appropriate for the students’ level, followed by students engaging in repeated reading of the same passages until reaching predetermined fluency criteria." (p. 4) 2) "Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 27.0 with repeated measures ANOVA to examine changes in reading self-efficacy and fear of negative evaluation across the three time points." (p. 5) 3) "Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest." (p. 8) Detailed Analysis: Criterion I requires that the study be conducted independently from the intervention designers/providers (e.g., explicitly stated external evaluator, independent data collectors, or independent analysts), to reduce bias. The paper describes an instructor delivering the intervention and describes in-paper analysis procedures, but it does not identify an external evaluation organization, independent assessors, or independent analysts. The conflict-of-interest statement is not the same as documenting independent conduct. Final sentence: Criterion I is not met because independence of the trial’s conduct is not documented.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • Outcomes were tracked only through an eight-week intervention and a four-week follow-up, far less than 75% of an academic year.
    • "To assess the sustainability of intervention effects, follow-up measurements were conducted four weeks after the completion of the intervention..." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The experimental group received the repeated reading intervention over a period of eight weeks, with three 45-minute sessions per week." (p. 4) 2) "To assess the sustainability of intervention effects, follow-up measurements were conducted four weeks after the completion of the intervention using the same instruments and procedures as the baseline assessment." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion Y requires outcome measurement at least 75% of an academic year after the intervention begins. The paper documents an 8-week intervention plus a follow-up 4 weeks later, totaling about 12 weeks from start to follow-up. This is substantially shorter than a typical academic year, and the paper does not provide any alternative year definition that would make ~12 weeks equal to 75% of a year. Final sentence: Criterion Y is not met because the study tracks outcomes for about 12 weeks from intervention start.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • The paper explicitly states equivalent instructional time and access to materials for both groups, and the extra instructional structure appears integral to the intervention being tested.
    • "Both groups received equivalent instructional time and access to reading materials to control for exposure effects." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "The experimental group received the repeated reading intervention over a period of eight weeks, with three 45-minute sessions per week." (p. 4) 2) "The control group continued with standard Arabic reading instruction during the same time period, following the regular curriculum without specific repeated reading interventions." (p. 5) 3) "Both groups received equivalent instructional time and access to reading materials to control for exposure effects." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion B evaluates whether the control group provides a comparable substitute for the intervention’s time and resource inputs, unless the difference is explicitly the treatment variable or is integral to the treatment package being tested. Extra resources are plausibly present in the intervention condition because the intervention includes structured repeated reading, modeling, feedback, progress monitoring, and "small-group tutoring formats" (i.e., potentially more structured adult support). However, the paper explicitly addresses the key B concern about dosage and materials by stating both groups received "equivalent instructional time" and "access to reading materials." The remaining differences (modeling/feedback/tutoring format) are best interpreted as integral components of the instructional approach being tested (the repeated reading intervention package), rather than separable add-on resources that should have been duplicated in the control. Final sentence: Criterion B is met because the paper explicitly documents equivalent instructional time and materials, and the additional instructional structure appears integral to the intervention definition.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • No independent peer-reviewed replication of this specific RCT was found in searches, and the paper frames its findings as "first evidence."
    • "These findings provide the first evidence that repeated reading interventions can simultaneously enhance reading self-efficacy and reduce FNE in Arabic-speaking students..." (p. 1)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "These findings provide the first evidence that repeated reading interventions can simultaneously enhance reading self-efficacy and reduce FNE in Arabic-speaking students, suggesting that such interventions address both cognitive and psychological dimensions of reading difficulties with sustained benefits." (p. 1) Detailed Analysis: Criterion R requires an independent replication of this specific study (same intervention claim in a clearly comparable design), conducted by other authors, and published in a peer-reviewed outlet. The paper itself frames the contribution as "first evidence," and it does not cite any independent replication of this specific RCT. Additionally, internet searches using the paper’s DOI and full title (including searches intended to locate citing/replicating papers) did not identify an independent, peer-reviewed replication of this exact study as of the ERCT check date. Final sentence: Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific RCT was found or documented.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Criterion E is not met (no standardized exam outcomes), therefore criterion A is also not met.
    • "Reading self-efficacy (Kosar et al., 2022) consists of 16 items covering various reading skills." (p. 3)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Reading self-efficacy (Kosar et al., 2022) consists of 16 items covering various reading skills." (p. 3) 2) "Fear of negative evaluation (Carleton et al., 2006) is a 12-item scale that measures individuals’ anxiety about being negatively evaluated by others in social and academic contexts." (p. 3) Detailed Analysis: Criterion A requires all-subject outcomes measured via standardized exams and depends on criterion E: if E is not met, A is not met. Since the paper’s outcomes are self-report scales rather than standardized exam-based assessments, criterion E is not met, and criterion A must be not met as well. Independently, the study also does not assess "all main subjects" using standardized exams. Final sentence: Criterion A is not met because the study does not use standardized exams, so E fails and A cannot be satisfied.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • The study does not track students until graduation, and criterion G is also automatically not met because criterion Y is not met.
    • "To assess the sustainability of intervention effects, follow-up measurements were conducted four weeks after the completion of the intervention..." (p. 5)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "To assess the sustainability of intervention effects, follow-up measurements were conducted four weeks after the completion of the intervention using the same instruments and procedures as the baseline assessment." (p. 5) Detailed Analysis: Criterion G requires tracking participants until graduation. Additionally, ERCT rules specify: if criterion Y (Year Duration) is not met, then criterion G is not met. The paper documents only a four-week follow-up after an eight-week intervention and provides no description of tracking students to graduation from preparatory education. Internet searching for follow-up publications by the same author team tracking this cohort to graduation (using author names, DOI, and title-based searches) did not identify any such graduation-tracking paper as of the ERCT check date. Final sentence: Criterion G is not met because participants were not tracked to graduation and Y is not met.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • The paper does not mention a registry, registration ID, or a pre-registered protocol prior to data collection.
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) None found in the paper indicating pre-registration, a registry platform, or a registration identifier/date. Detailed Analysis: Criterion P requires quoted evidence that the full study protocol was publicly pre-registered before data collection began (including where it was registered and when). The paper includes article history dates and methodological detail, but it does not mention any trial registration, OSF entry, registry identifier, or protocol pre-registration date. Final sentence: Criterion P is not met because no pre-registration information is reported in the paper.