METAANALYSIS 
CITATIONS 

BenefitCost Summary Statistics Per Participant  

Benefits to:  
Taxpayers  $2,204  Benefits minus costs  $9,256  
Participants  $5,178  Benefit to cost ratio  $17.18  
Others  $2,731  Chance the program will produce  
Indirect  ($286)  benefits greater than the costs  78 %  
Total benefits  $9,828  
Net program cost  ($572)  
Benefits minus cost  $9,256  
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant  
Benefits from changes to:^{1}  Benefits to:  

Taxpayers  Participants  Others^{2}  Indirect^{3}  Total 

Labor market earnings associated with test scores  $2,204  $5,178  $2,731  $0  $10,113 
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program  $0  $0  $0  ($286)  ($286) 
Totals  $2,204  $5,178  $2,731  ($286)  $9,828 
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant  
Annual cost  Year dollars  Summary  

Program costs  $536  2013  Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)  ($572) 
Comparison costs  $0  2013  Cost range (+ or )  10 % 
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (NonDiscounted Dollars) 
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits perparticipant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in nondiscounted dollars to simplify the “breakeven” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment. 
MetaAnalysis of Program Effects  
Outcomes measured  Treatment age  No. of effect sizes  Treatment N  Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit  cost analysis  Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)  

First time ES is estimated  Second time ES is estimated  
ES  SE  Age  ES  SE  Age  ES  pvalue  
Test scores^{}  7  9  611  0.126  0.063  7  0.059  0.069  17  0.318  0.001 
Case, L.P., Speece, D.L., Silverman, R., Ritchey, K.D., Schatschneider, C., Cooper, D.H., . . . Jacobs, D. (2010). Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for firstgrade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 5.
Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J.D., & Hamlett, C.L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493513.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Craddock, C., Hollenbeck, K.N., Hamlett, C.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2008). Effects of smallgroup tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on atrisk students' math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 491509.
Gilbert, J.K., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L.A., & Cho, E. (2013). Efficacy of a firstgrade responsivenesstointervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(20, 135154.
Gottshall, D.L. (2007). Gottshall early reading intervention: A phonics based approach to enhance the achievement of low performing, rural, first grade boys (Doctoral dissertation). Denton, TX: University of North Texas.
Jordan, N.C., Glutting, J., Dyson, N., HassingerDas, B., & Irwin, C. (2012). Building kindergartners' number sense: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 647660.
Ritchey, K.D., Silverman, R.D., Montanaro, E.A., Speece, D.L., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Effects of a tier 2 supplemental reading intervention for atrisk fourthgrade students. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 318334.
Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2008). Repeated reading intervention: Outcomes and interactions with readers' skills and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 272290.