Parent-Child Book Reading as an Intervention Technique for Young Children with Language Delays.
Dale, Philip S.; And Others (1996). Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, v16 n2 p213-35. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ527651
-
examining33Students, gradePK
Dialogic Reading Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education for Children with Disabilities
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2010
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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 Dialogic Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total utterances: Book reading |
Dialogic Reading vs. Conversational Language Training Program |
Posttest |
3-6 year olds;
|
63.80 |
40.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Lexical diversity- play |
Dialogic Reading vs. Conversational Language Training Program |
Posttest |
3-6 year olds;
|
75.00 |
54.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Mean length utterance (MLU): Play |
Dialogic Reading vs. Conversational Language Training Program |
Posttest |
3-6 year olds;
|
3.08 |
2.98 |
No |
-- | |
|
Mean length utterance (MLU): Book reading |
Dialogic Reading vs. Conversational Language Training Program |
Posttest |
3-6 year olds;
|
2.82 |
2.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Total utterances: Play |
Dialogic Reading vs. Conversational Language Training Program |
Posttest |
3-6 year olds;
|
94.50 |
92.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Lexical diversity- book reading |
Dialogic Reading vs. Conversational Language Training Program |
Posttest |
3-6 year olds;
|
14.60 |
14.60 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 27%
Male: 73% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Washington
-
Race Black 18% Other or unknown 15% White 67%
Study Details
Setting
Study participants were recruited from programs at the Experimental Education Unit at the University of Washington. Parent training sessions were conducted in small groups in therapy/lab rooms.
Study sample
Thirty-three mother-child dyads were recruited over a two-year period from an early childhood education center. The children were ages three to six and had mild to moderate language delays, functioning at the two- to four-year-old level; 27% of the sample was female. Average baseline test scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised were more than 2 standard deviations below the normed mean. English was the primary language for all dyads. The dyads were assigned randomly either to dialogic reading or to the comparison condition, the Conversational Language Training Program.
Intervention Group
Parents attended two training sessions with their children, where they viewed a videotaped presentation of effective ways of facilitating language development through reading and then had a brief group discussion. Modules helped facilitate appropriate parental feedback to children during book reading. The intervention included handouts that summarized each of the modules and included examples. Parents were asked to implement the intervention at home over a six- to eight-week period. Books and handouts were given to parents to take home with them. Researchers were unable to assess the consistency of parental implementation of this program.
Comparison Group
The comparison program, the Conversational Language Training Program, was designed to be comparable both in presentation and in general nature to the intervention but did not include books. Both the intervention and the comparison program emphasized an interactive, responsive style of communication with children. Parents in the comparison group attended two training sessions in which they viewed videotapes, received handouts, were given one of two toys, and were asked to implement the comparison program at home over a six- to eight-week period.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domain was children’s communication and language competencies. The study used three nonstandardized measures of communication and language competencies: mean length utterance, number of different words used (lexical diversity), and total number of utterances. The study used these measures for two types of activities: book reading and play. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.
Support for implementation
Parents were trained in dialogic reading in two sessions. Training included a videotaped presentation, group discussion, and handouts summarizing program components.
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).