Collins, Molly F. (2010). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v25 n1 p84-97. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ864528
Reviewed: June 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Target Vocabulary Test (Collins 2010) |
Rich explanation reading vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample ;
|
26.50 |
18.12 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 4% | |
| White | 96% |
The study took place in six preschool classrooms in two public schools within two school districts in the northeastern United States. One school was an elementary school and the other only included prekindergarten classrooms. The public schools served middle- to low-income families.
Ninety-six percent of the sample were White and 4 percent were Black. About 80 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Children were from Portuguese-speaking families.
Groups of 2–3 children were read to by the researcher in a room outside of their classroom. Each child heard the researcher read 2 books once weekly over a 3-week period (a total of 3 times). The researcher used 4 pairs of books across the children in the sample. The researcher chose 5–9 target vocabulary words to insert into each book. In the intervention condition, the researcher provided rich explanations of the target words. Rich explanations include pointing to the illustration of the target word, providing a general definition of the word, providing a synonym, making a gesture of the word, and using the word in a different context than in the book.
Groups of 2–3 children were read to by the researcher in a room outside of their classroom. Each child heard the researcher read 2 books once weekly over a 3-week period (a total of 3 times). The researcher used 4 pairs of books across the children in the sample. In the comparison condition, the researcher read the books with the target words but did not provide rich explanations of the target words. The researcher used the same four books when reading to the comparison group students.
The author implemented both conditions, so did not require external support. Therefore, no support for implementation was described in the article.
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