Pietrangelo, D. J. (1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (4), 1014A. (UMI No. 9927614).
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 plus Letter Knowledge Training.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Word memory |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
4.37 |
3.98 |
No |
-- | |
|
Sentence memory |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
10.24 |
10.11 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Invented spelling |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
0.45 |
0.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
Word Identification |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
0.63 |
0.69 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPVT-III) |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
93.78 |
92.50 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Phoneme blending |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
6.56 |
5.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Alliteration |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
5.02 |
4.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyming |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
7.10 |
5.94 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Print conventions |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
5.96 |
5.45 |
No |
-- | |
|
Alphabet knowledge |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
24.29 |
23.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter identification |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
12.25 |
11.45 |
No |
-- | |
|
Letter-sound correspondence |
Phonological Awareness Training plus Letter Knowledge Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 year olds;
|
1.97 |
1.61 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 7% | |
| Black | 29% | |
| White | 42% |
| Hispanic | 22% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 88% |
The study took place in a Head Start program in upstate New York.
The study began with 139 four-year-old low-income children. During the course of the study, 10 children left the study, resulting in a final sample of 129 children from 10 classes. Eighty-three percent of the treatment and comparison children came from English-speaking families, and 17% of the children resided with non-English-speaking families. Twenty-nine percent of the children were black, 22% were Hispanic or Latino, 42% were white, and 7% were Asian (primarily Afghan). Forty-eight percent of the children were female. Classrooms were first matched on half-day or full-day status, and nine of the classrooms were randomly assigned to either the intervention or comparison conditions. The 10th classroom was placed in the comparison group because the intervention materials were not accessible to the teacher. Because the 10th classroom was assigned by convenience, the design for this study is quasi-experimental.
The children in the intervention group participated in 14 weeks of early literacy instruction designed to supplement the existing Head Start curriculum. The early literacy instruction focused on teaching phonological awareness skills and letter knowledge, such as letter names, letter sounds, and phonemic composition of words. Twenty pre-school books were introduced in large and small groups (about six children per small group), and children were encouraged to participate in discussions and to read. Children were also exposed to explicit instruction in letter names and letter sounds, and each lesson plan included phoneme awareness training using game-like activities.
The children in the comparison group participated in their regular Head Start curriculum that consisted of few emergent literacy activities and varied book reading activities.
The primary outcome domains assessed were oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, early reading/writing, and cognition. Oral language was measured with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-III), a standardized measure. Print knowledge was assessed with four nonstandardized measures—alphabet knowledge, letter identification, letter-sound correspondence, and print conventions. Phonological processing was assessed with three nonstandardized measures—alliteration, rhyming, and phoneme blending. Early reading/writing was assessed with two nonstandardized measures—invented spelling and word identification. The cognition domain was assessed with two nonstandardized measures—sentence memory and word memory. (See Appendices A2.1–A2.5 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures.)
Teachers received an orientation packet, participated in one session of training prior to the intervention, and received weekly training once the intervention began. During the weekly training, teachers reviewed lesson plans, and trainers addressed teacher concerns and suggestions and answered teacher questions. Because teachers implemented the intervention in their respective program and groups, they were familiar with the children in the intervention and comparison conditions.
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