O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., & Slocum, T. A. (1993a). Exceptional Children, 59 (6), 532–546. (Study: blending intervention versus no-treatment comparison group.).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Blending: Separated sounds |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
5.20 |
0.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Blending: Continuous sounds |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
8.30 |
2.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Blending: Onset-rime |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
5.20 |
0.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Rhyming: Production |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
2.80 |
1.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Segmenting: All sounds |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Segmenting: Onset-rime |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Segmenting: First sound |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyming: Recognition |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
5.20 |
5.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyming: Oddity |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4-6 years old;
|
1.30 |
1.50 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place at the preschool located in the Experimental Education Unit of the University of Washington.
The study began with 55 four- to six-year-old developmentally delayed preschool children. Five children were removed from the study due to high pretest scores or autism, and three children left the preschool, leaving a sample of 47 children. Of these children, 80% had significant language delays and some had additional disabilities (e.g., physical disabilities, mental retardation, or behavior disorders). Children were blocked by mean age and cognitive ability and then randomly assigned to one of four groups: blending, segmenting, rhyming, or a no-treatment comparison. Results for the 22 children who had been randomly assigned to the blending or the comparison conditions are included in this report.
The blending intervention group participated in blending training that took place in two phases. Phase one of the training lasted three weeks, and phase two lasted four weeks. During phase one, the children focused on learning one specific blending task (e.g., blend two to three phonemes when presented as continuous sounds). During phase two, the children reviewed the task learned in phase one and learned about other blending tasks (e.g., blend words with separated sounds and blend onset-rime). The children were taught in groups of three to five and met for 10 minutes four times a week. Results for phase two are not included in this report because the effects of the second condition cannot be separated from the effects of the first condition.
Comparison group children participated in routine preschool activities, such as listening to stories read by their teachers or “circle time” oral language activities. Additionally, the researcher met twice with each child in the comparison group during phase two training to practice isolated sounds used in training.
The primary outcome domain was children’s phonological processing. Nine nonstandardized subtests measured phonological processing skills. There were three blending subtests, three segmenting subtests, and three rhyming subtests. The study also administered a phonological mastery test to the intervention group children to assess how well they learned tasks in the intervention they received, but it is not included in this review because the test was not administered to the comparison group children and was not considered in the impact analyses. (See Appendix A2.2 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Three graduate students with teaching experience provided instruction. The instructors met with the researcher each Monday to practice teaching formats for the week. Instructors were observed during their sessions and received additional training as needed. Instructors alternated teaching the conditions described in O’Connor et al. (1993a, b, c).
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