|
|
Research
Eight studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects of Dialogic Reading in center-based settings. Four studies (Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel, 1999; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith, & Fischel, 1994) were randomized controlled trials that met WWC evidence standards. One study (Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1999) was a randomized controlled trial that met WWC evidence standards with reservations because of differential attrition. One additional study met the WWC evidence standards (Whitehurst, Epstein, Angell, Payne, Crone, & Fischel, 19945 ) and is included in this report; however, the intervention included a combination of Dialogic Reading and Sound Foundations, which does not allow the effects of Dialogic Reading alone to be determined. Therefore, this study is discussed separately and the findings are not included in the intervention ratings. The remaining two studies did not meet WWC evidence screens.
Met evidence standards
Lonigan et al. (1999) included 95 two- to five-year-old predominantly low-income children from five child care centers in an urban area in Florida. Lonigan et al. compared two interventions—Dialogic Reading and typical shared book reading—to a no-treatment comparison group that participated in the standard preschool curriculum. This report focuses on the comparison of oral language and phonological processing outcomes between the Dialogic Reading group and the no-treatment comparison group6 with a total of 66 children.
Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) included 91 low-income three-to four-year-old children from four child care centers in Nashville, Tennessee. Lonigan and Whitehurst compared three intervention groups—Dialogic Reading at school, Dialogic Reading at home, and Dialogic Reading both at school and at home—to a no-treatment comparison group that did not participate in Dialogic Reading. This report focuses on the comparison of oral language outcomes between the combined school and school plus home group and the no-treatment comparison group7 with a total of 75 children.
Wasik and Bond (2001) included 121 low-income three- to four-year-old children from a Title I early learning center in Baltimore, Maryland. Wasik and Bond compared oral language outcomes for children participating in Dialogic Reading plus reinforcement activities with outcomes for children in a comparison condition who were read the same books by teachers with no training in Dialogic Reading.
Whitehurst, Arnold, et al. (1994) included 67 low-income three-year-old children from five day care centers in Suffolk County, New York. Whitehurst, Arnold, et al. compared two intervention groups—Dialogic Reading at school and Dialogic Reading both at school and at home—to a comparison group who participated in small-group play activities. This report focuses on the comparison of oral language outcomes between the combined school and school plus home group and the comparison group.8
Met evidence standards with reservations
Crain-Thoreson and Dale (1999) included 32 three- to five-year-old children with mild to moderate language delays from five classrooms in three school districts in the Pacific Northwest. Crain-Thoreson and Dale compared two intervention groups—a staff-implemented Dialogic Reading group (staff/practice) and a parent-implemented Dialogic Reading group (parent/practice)—to a comparison group that did not receive one-on-one Dialogic Reading. This report focuses on the comparison of oral language outcomes between the staff/practice group and the comparison group9 with a total of 22 children.
6 The comparison between the typical shared book reading group and the comparison group is included in the WWC Shared Book Reading intervention report.
7 The Dialogic Reading at home group is not included in the review because it is not center-based. The Dialogic Reading at school and the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home groups were combined for this review to reflect analyses conducted by the study authors. However, the data separated for these two groups are included in Appendix A5.The study authors divided centers into high and low compliance centers based on the frequency level (i.e., high and low) of Dialogic Reading sessions. The WWC report includes findings for the high and low compliance centers combined in the overall rating of effectiveness, and describes findings separated by high and low compliance in the findings section and in Appendix A5.
8 The Dialogic Reading at school and the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home groups were combined for this review to reflect analyses conducted by the study authors. However, the data separated for these two groups are described in the findings section and included in Appendix A5.
9 The parent/practice group was not included in the review because it was not center-based.