O'Connor, Rollanda E.; And Others (1993). Exceptional Children, v59 n6 p532-46. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ464005
Reviewed: March 2013
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 Ladders to Literacy.
Reviewed: June 2012
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: Separate sounds |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
4.80 |
0.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Blending: Onset-rime |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
4.70 |
0.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Blending: Continuous phonemes |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
6.60 |
2.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Rhyming: Production |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
2.70 |
1.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyming: Oddity |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
1.90 |
1.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyming: Recognition |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
5.40 |
5.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Segmenting: All sounds |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Segmenting: First sound |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Segmenting: Onset-rime |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
4 to 6 year olds;
|
0.10 |
0.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in six preschool classrooms in the Experimental Education Unit at the University of Washington.
Fifty-five children aged 4–6 with developmental delays were pretested for the study. The authors excluded four children who scored 30% or better on a phonological pretest and one child with autism, who was nonverbal. Children were stratified by class (morning or afternoon), age, and the results of the cognitive ability pretest. Within strata, children were randomly assigned to either one of three phonological awareness training conditions or a comparison group. Only one comparison, phonological awareness training with a blending focus versus the comparison group, meets WWC standards and is included in this report. Twelve children were randomly assigned to the phonological awareness training with a blending focus condition and 13 to the comparison group, but three children left the program before the completion of the study, leaving an analytic sample of 22 children (11 each in the intervention and comparison groups). For the whole sample (including all three phonological awareness training conditions), 80% of the children had significant language delays and some physical handicaps, behavioral disorders, or an intellectual disability.
Children met in groups of three to five for 10-minute sessions, four times a week. Instruction lasted seven weeks. In the first three weeks, children in the blending focused (intervention) condition practiced blending two to three phonemes in elongated words with continuous sounds. For example, “I’ll say words the slow way. You’ll say them fast. Ssseeeeennnn. What word?” (p. 536). At the end of the three weeks, children were tested on the set of phonological skills that was taught and one that was not taught (e.g., blending and segmentation). During the last four weeks, the skills were reviewed and instruction was extended to other tasks. Children were taught to blend words beginning with stop sounds, all sounds separated, and onset-rime.
Children participated in routine preschool activities, such as listening to stories read by the teacher or “circle time” oral language activities. The authors were concerned that children in the intervention group would have more experience with “sounds in isolation” than children in the comparison group, which could result in the outcome measures favoring the intervention groups. To address this, the researchers met with each comparison group child twice during the implementation period to practice the isolated sounds used in training. For example, the researcher would say, “Today we’re going to practice saying sounds. Say this sound.” The researcher would model, and the children would then repeat the sounds.
Nine subtests of auditory phonological skills (three each for rhyming, blending, and segmenting) were developed by the study team. The blending outcomes were continuous phonemes, onset-rime, and separate sounds. The segmenting outcomes were all sounds, onset-rime, and first sound. The rhyming outcomes were production, oddity, and recognition. Children were tested in the week prior to the start of the study and directly after the cessation of instruction for the intervention groups. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
The intervention was conducted by three graduate students, all of whom had teaching experience. Each graduate student teacher led all three interventions to minimize potential teacher effects. Each Monday, the three teachers practiced the formats to be used for the week with the first author. The teachers met daily to discuss and resolve problems. In addition, the teachers were randomly audiotaped to ensure that protocols were being implemented as designed.
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