Skip Navigation

What Works Clearinghouse


References


Meets WWC evidence standards

Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Enhancing linguistic performance: Parents and teachers as book reading partners for children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(1), 28–39.

Dale, P. S., Crain-Thoreson, C., Notari-Syverson, A., & Cole, K. (1996). Parent-child book reading as an intervention technique for young children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16(2), 213–235.

Studies that fall outside the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Arnold, D., Lonigan, C., Whitehurst, G., & Epstein, J. (1994). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: Replication and extension to a videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 235–243. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Arnold, D. H. (1993). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: Replication and extension to a videotape training format. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(10B). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Arnold, D. S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1994). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A summary of dialogic reading and its effect. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy: Children, families, and schools (pp. 103–128). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Blom-Hoffman, J., O’Neil-Pirozzi, T., Volpe, R., Cutting, J., & Bissinger, E. (2007). Instructing parents to use dialogic reading strategies with preschool children: Impact of a video-based training program on caregiver reading behaviors and children’s related verbalizations. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23(1), 117–131. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Branscum, E. (1998). The effects of the presentation of compound stimuli on language acquisition during dialogic reading sessions. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University–Stanislaus, Turlock, CA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Brickman, S. O. (2002). Effects of a joint book reading strategy on Even Start. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12A). The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.

Briesch, A. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Lebel, T. J., & Blom-Hoffman, J. A. (2008). Impact of videotaped instruction in dialogic reading strategies: An investigation of caregiver implementation integrity. Psychology in the Schools, 45(10), 978–993. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Canning, P. L. (2002). Picture book intervention to facilitate language production in monolingual Spanish-speaking children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

Chambers, B., Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2006). Effective preschool programs for children at risk of school failure: A best-evidence synthesis. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children, 2nd edition (pp. 347–359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Chow, B. W., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Promoting language and literacy development through parent-child reading in Hong Kong preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 14(2), 233–248. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Chow, B. W., McBride-Chang, C., Cheung, H., & Chow, C. S. L. (2008). Dialogic reading and morphology training in Chinese children: Effects on language and literacy. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 233–244. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Chow, W. (2005). Enhancing children’s reading ability and vocabulary growth through dialogic reading and morphology training. Unpublished master’s thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Collins, K. A. (1995). Language development and dialogic reading with at-risk children. Unpublished honors paper, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. This study is ineligible because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Cronan, T. A., Cruz, S. G., Arriaga, R. I., & Sarkin, A. J. (1996). The effects of a community-based literacy program on young children’s language and conceptual development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(2), 251–272. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Cronkleton, R. K. (1997). Dialogic picture book reading: An early intervention strategy for language remediation. Unpublished master’s project, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Davis, S. E. (2004). An enhanced dialogic reading approach to facilitate typically developing pre-school children’s emergent literacy skills. (Master’s thesis, East Tennessee State University, 2004). Masters Abstracts International, 42(05). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Domack, A. M. (2005). The effect of a dialogic reading intervention on the emergent literacy skills of preschool students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Duran, L. K. (2008). An analysis of verbal interactions during dialogic reading with Spanish-speaking children enrolled in a Head Start home visiting program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(01A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Elias, G., Hay, I., Homel, R., & Freiberg, K. (2006). Enhancing parent-child book reading in a disadvantaged community. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), 20–25. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating the literacy development of disadvantaged preschool children: An experimental evaluation of a Head Start emergent literacy curriculum. (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11B). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2002). Developing pre-literacy skills via shared book reading: The assessment of a family intervention program for preschool children at risk of becoming reading disabled. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7(3), 13–19. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2003). Early intervention in the home for children at risk of reading failure. Support for Learning, 18(2), 77–82. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Fries-Dias, C. M. (1993). Picture book reading to enhance vocabulary acquisition. (Master’s thesis, University of the Pacific, 1993). Masters Abstracts International, 32(02). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Fung, P. C., Chow, B. W. Y., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). The impact of a dialogic reading program on deaf and hard-of-hearing kindergarten and early primary school–aged students in Hong Kong. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education, 10(1), 82–95. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Gregory, A. E. (2002). Constructing meaning: Kindergarten children’s textual importations following dialogic reading intervention. (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(07A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hargrave, A. C., & Senechal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 75–90. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.

Huebner, C. E. (2000). Community-based support for preschool readiness among children in poverty. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(3), 291–314. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Huebner, C. E. (2000). Promoting toddlers’ language development through community-based intervention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 513–535. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

Huebner, C. E., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). Intervention to change parent-child reading style: A comparison of instructional methods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(3), 296–313. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

Janson, J. E. (2006). What impact does a collaborative reading comprehension program have on emerging literacy skills of preschool students? Unpublished master’s thesis, Hamline University, Saint Paul, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Jiménez, T. C., Filippini, A. L., & Gerber, M. M. (2006). Shared reading within Latino families: An analysis of reading interactions and language use. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 431–452. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Joye, E. W. (2007). A psychometric examination of the dialogic reading observation form in a sample of English and Spanish speaking caregivers. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Justice, L. M. (2006). Clinical approaches to emergent literacy intervention. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Kelley, C. P. (2003). Dialogic reading: When a picture is worth a thousand words. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bank Street College of Education, New York, NY. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Kirkpatrick, A. (2003). A dialogic reading intervention programme for parents and young children. Sheffield, UK: Sure Start Foxhill & Parson Cross. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Kotaman, H. (2007). Turkish parents’ dialogical storybook reading experiences: A phenomenological study. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(4), 200–206. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Kotaman, H. (2008). Impacts of dialogical storybook reading on young children’s reading attitudes and vocabulary development. Reading Improvement, 45(2), 55–61. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263–290. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects of two shared-reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(4), 306–322. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., de Jong, M. T., & Smeets, D. J. H. (2008). Added value of dialogic parent-child book readings: A meta-analysis. Early Education and Development, 19(1), 7–26. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Murphy, M. M. (2007). Enhancing print knowledge, phonological awareness, and oral language skills with at-risk preschool children in Head Start classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(06A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Needlman, R., & Zuckerman, B. (1993). Pediatric interventions to promote picture book use. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

Park, J. Y. K. (2006). Facilitating young children’s second language development through picture book sharing. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(01A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

Sabbatini, H. L. (2001). The effects of dialogic reading on the early reading abilities of preschoolers. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14(3), 245–302. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Sherman-Brewer, N. (2004). Literacy enrichment and achievement through parental support: The effects of parent-delivered, home-based storybook reading on the early literacy skills of kindergarten children from low-income families who are at-risk of reading difficulties. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(06A). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Sybesma, T. K. (2001). A bridge to literacy: Dialogic storybook reading during dyadic storybook reading episodes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2007). Relative effectiveness of dialogic, interactive, and shared reading interventions. CELLreviews, 1(2), 1–12. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.

Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28(6), 1106–1114. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 243–250. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679–689. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 542–555. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., et al. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552–559. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz, M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261–272. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Wilhjelm, K. N. (2004). Contexts for facilitating emergent literacy in typically developing preschoolers. (Master’s thesis, East Tennessee State University, 2004). Masters Abstracts International, 42(05). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Zevenbergen, A. A., Whitehurst, G. J., & Zevenbergen, J. A. (2003). Effects of a shared-reading intervention on the inclusion of evaluative devices in narratives of children from low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 1–15. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Zevenbergen, A. A., Whitehurst, G. J., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., Hiscott, M. D., Nania, O. C., et al. (1997). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start homes and classrooms. NHSA Research Quarterly, 1(1), 137–147. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.

Top