{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038288288288288286, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02252252252252252, 'mean_word_length': 5.304964539007092, '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 Critique of the Utah State University Early Intervention Meta-Analysis Research

First, we want to make it explicitly clear that we are firmly committed to the belief that the proper test of any intervention is the empirical validation of the efficacy of the treatment, and we applaud any effort toward this end. However, we are deeply concerned about the recent series of meta-analytic reports from the Utah State University Early Intervention Research Institute (EIRI) which claim to be empirical investigations of the efficacy of early intervention with handicapped and at-risk infants and young children (e.g., Casto & Lewis, 1984; Casto & Mastropieri, 1986; White, 1984; White & Casto, 1985; White, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1984). These studies are so fraught with conceptual, methodological, statistical, and procedural problems that they yield fundamentally uninterpretable results.