In a recently published meta-analysis, Tran, Sanchez, Arellano, and Swanson (2011) synthesized 13 studies that permitted assessment of characteristics of children who were adequate and inadequate responders to instruction. The authors indicated that "[t]he central question addressed in this review is whether individual differences in reading-related skills at pretest predict responders at posttest across a variety of interventions and sets of criteria for determining responding and low responding." Their analyses lead them to conclude that the validity of response to intervention (RTI) procedures, particularly in comparison to other assessment approaches, has not been adequately established in the present synthesis of the literature. The current synthesis suggests that RTI procedures do improve performance as reflected in gain scores, however, the differences (achievement gap) between responding and low responding children were maintained across pretest and posttest conditions. In terms of individual predictors, they further concluded that they did not find that phonological awareness (PA) was a significant moderator of effect size (ES) at posttest when all other measures were entered into the hierarchical linear model. In this article, the authors consider the following questions: (a) Is the analytic framework in Tran et al. (2011) using pretest ESs to predict posttest ESs appropriate for their research question? (b) Are the Cohen guidelines for the use and interpretation of ES "d" meaningful in the context of this meta-analysis, that is, should "d" values from studies where groups are formed by dichotomization be compared to the Cohen benchmarks or to "d" values from experimental studies? (c) Have Tran et al. demonstrated that PA is not a good predictor of response? and (d) Does their analysis and interpretation of these results support the conclusion that RTI does not reduce the postintervention achievement gap? (Contains 2 figures and 1 note.)