Farver, Jo Ann M.; Lonigan, Christopher J.; Eppe, Stefanie (2009). Child Development, v80 n3 p703-719. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ840084
Reviewed: July 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Definitional Vocabulary subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
52.28 |
41.23 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Receptive Vocabulary |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
31.79 |
28.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Receptive Vocabulary Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
27.03 |
23.79 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Definitional Vocabulary Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
32.66 |
25.74 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Print Knowledge subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
23.90 |
16.61 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Elision subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
8.04 |
6.37 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Blending subtest |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
14.43 |
12.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Elision Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
7.40 |
5.52 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Blending Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
12.71 |
10.59 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (P–CTOPPP) Print Knowledge Subtest (Spanish) |
Literacy Express in English and Spanish vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
English/Spanish condition versus comparison;
|
16.54 |
12.83 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Hispanic | 100% |
The study was conducted in 10 classes in a Head Start preschool program located in a Los Angeles neighborhood. The intervention was delivered in separate classrooms near the children's regular classrooms and was delivered in small groups. The comparison students received instruction in their regular classrooms.
The characteristics of the sample pertain to the overall sample of children that was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (this review focused on only the 31 children who were assigned to the English/Spanish version of the intervention and the 32 children who were assigned to the comparison condition). The sample included 43 girls and 51 boys and all of students were Spanish speaking. The authors report that all of the children's parents had Mexican or Central American ancestry but does not provide racial or ethnic breakdowns for students. The authors also report the mother’s educational levels which ranged from less than 6th grade to college degree.
The intervention was taught for approximately 20 minutes a day, 4 times a week for roughly 21 weeks. The authors created parallel Spanish-language versions of the core small-group activities and materials from the Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum. Instruction started in Spanish; during week 9, instruction was transitioned from Spanish to English instruction over 3–4 weeks (12–16 training sessions). During the transition, the instructors reviewed each of the lessons that had been previously given in Spanish, and delivered them in English. Beginning around week 14, all lessons were delivered in English. During the reading activities, the instructors used scaffolding techniques (such as asking specific types of ‘‘Wh-’’ and open-ended questions, modeling, using expansions and repetitions) to encourage children to discuss the pictures in the book and the narrative. The scaffolding shifted from simple to more complex over time. The phonological awareness activities involved word games that used picture-puzzles and other manipulatives, and followed the developmental sequence of phonological awareness. The print knowledge activities involved pictures, letters, and writing to teach the alphabet (letter names and letter sounds), and later included the sounds associated with letters. Aside from these pullout sessions, the children were instructed using High/Scope.
The students in the comparison condition received their business as usual High/Scope Curriculum in their regular classrooms.
Over 2 months, one of the authors trained four bilingual graduate research assistants to implement the intervention. The instructors also received a curriculum guide.
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