Elleman, A. M. (2017)
Examining the impact of inference instruction on the literal and inferential comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers: A meta-analytic review
Journal of Educational Psychology 109(6), 761-781 · 10.1037/edu0000180
25-study meta-analysis of K-12 inference instruction finds it raises general comprehension by d=0.58 -- a content-general intervention improving general comprehension, offered as a direct empirical counterexample to 'no general reading-comprehension skill'; whether the gain shows on standardized measures specifically is unverified.
Used in Dossier 1
This critic is attached to the exact objection and inference it challenges, not merely to the topic.
D1 · O5 — Strategy effects are non-zero but measurement-sensitive · targets A6 A7 I5 I6
Source provenance
abstract onlyThe publisher abstract and bibliographic record were reviewed; the restricted full article was not read, so measure-specific interpretation remains explicitly unverified.
abstract onlyThe bibliographic record and abstract were reviewed; no claim is presented as a full-text quotation from this companion article.
Primary targets: P01
Availability: closed / restricted · abstract only
The publisher abstract and bibliographic record were reviewed; the restricted full article was not read, so measure-specific interpretation remains explicitly unverified.
Registry verification: yes
Availability: closed / restricted · abstract only
The publisher abstract and bibliographic record were reviewed; the restricted full article was not read, so measure-specific interpretation remains explicitly unverified.
Registry verification: yes
Positions (2)
A content-general intervention (25 K-12 inference-instruction studies) raised general comprehension by d=0.58, inferential comprehension by d=0.68, and literal comprehension by d=0.28 -- a direct empirical counterexample to 'no general reading-comprehension skill'.
“inference instruction was effective for increasing students' general comprehension, d = 0.58, inferential comprehension, d = 0.68, and literal comprehension, d = 0.28”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books
Less-skilled readers benefited far more on literal-comprehension outcomes than more-skilled readers (d=0.97 vs d=0.06), and Elleman & Oslund (2019) fully concede the knowledge half while defending a both/and position.
“less skilled readers benefiting more on literal outcomes (d = 0.97 vs 0.06)”
Hirsch's response — not found
none found in ten books