Slocum, Timothy A.; And Others (1993). Journal of Educational Psychology, v85 n4 p618-30. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ476873
Reviewed: December 2006
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Phonological Awareness Training.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Onset-rime blending |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Word manipulation |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
4.87 |
0.86 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Onset-rime segmenting |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Word manipulation |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
0.00 |
1.14 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 14% | |
| Black | 77% | |
| White | 9% |
The study took place in four Head Start preschool classrooms in an urban area of the Pacific Northwest.
Slocum et al. (1993a, b). The study began with 48 low-income preschool children randomly assigned to two intervention and two comparison conditions. Thirteen children left the preschools over the course of the study, leaving a sample of 35 children in the four groups. Children in special education were excluded from the study sample. The mean age of the child participants was 5.2 years. Fifty-seven percent were female, 77% were Black, 14% were Asian, and 9% were Caucasian. Slocum et al. (1993a). Results for the 16 children who had been randomly assigned to the blend-then-segment intervention group and the word manipulation-then-segment comparison group are included in this report.
The study included two phases. The children in the blend-then-segment intervention group were taught blending during phase one and segmenting during phase two. Children were taught how to blend using auditory blending instruction. Children were taught how to segment using onset-rime segmentation instruction. Instruction was one-on-one, lasted about 10 minutes per session, and continued until the child achieved mastery, which was defined as responding correctly to four of five items in a set of items for two days in a row. The WWC only includes the results from the phase one instructional period in this report because there was no appropriate comparison condition to estimate effects of training at the completion of phase two training.
Children in the word manipulation-then-segment comparison group were taught word manipulation in phase one and segmenting in phase two. Comparison group children were randomly matched with intervention group children, and they participated in word manipulation activities until their intervention group counterpart achieved mastery in his or her first instructional phase. Instruction was one-on-one and lasted about 10 minutes per session.
The primary outcome domain was children’s phonological processing, which was assessed with two nonstandardized measures of onset-rime blending and onset-rime segmenting. (See Appendix A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
The intervention was implemented by six graduate students in education. They were trained in the instructional procedures until they could deliver the instruction to adults with 100% accuracy. After training, they practiced with nonstudy children until they reached 100% accuracy.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube