{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03865979381443299, 'fraction_numerical': 0.029639175257731958, 'mean_word_length': 5.475, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Counter-Interpretation of Early Intervention Effects: A Response to Casto and Mastropieri

In several recent articles, Casto and his colleagues (Casto & Lewis, 1984; Casto & Mastropieri, 1986; Casto, White, & Taylor, 1983; White, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1984) have reported on their use of meta-analytic techniques to review the early intervention literature. In the most recent presentation of results that appeared in Exceptional Children, Casto and Mastropieri (1986) make several assertions about the early intervention literature that we see as artifacts of their review method (meta-analysis) and data interpretation and that could lead the field 180 degrees away from accuracy. We take strong issue with several interpretations of the data and two specific conclusions: