A Picture Book Reading Intervention in Day Care and Home for Children from Low-Income Families.
Whitehurst, Grover J.; And Others (1994). Developmental Psychology, v30 n5 p679-89. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ493520
-
examining67Students, gradePK
Dialogic Reading Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education for Children with Disabilities
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2010
- The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol.
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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Dialogic Reading Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2007
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Small group play activities |
Posttest |
3 year olds;
|
89.89 |
85.18 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Small group play activities |
Posttest |
3 year olds;
|
86.49 |
83.68 |
No |
-- | |
|
Our Word |
Dialogic Reading vs. Small group play activities |
Posttest |
3 year olds;
|
10.18 |
8.91 |
No |
-- | |
|
Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA-VE) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Small group play activities |
Posttest |
3 year olds;
|
100.06 |
100.11 |
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: 45%
Male: 55% -
- 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
New York
-
Race Black 55% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 23% Not Hispanic or Latino 77%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in five day care centers in Suffolk County, New York, which served mainly children of families qualified for public subsidy of day-care costs under Title XX of the Federal Social Security Act.
Study sample
The study began with 73 three-year-old children from low-income families; at immediate posttest 67 children remained in the sample. At entry into the study, the mean age of the children was 3.5 years. Forty-five percent were female, 55% were black, and 23% were Hispanic. The children were randomly assigned within classroom to intervention and comparison conditions.
Intervention Group
The study included two intervention conditions: a Dialogic Reading at school condition and a Dialogic Reading both at school and at home condition. 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 and findings from the combined groups are used to determine the overall rating of effectiveness. However, the WWC reports findings for the two intervention groups versus the comparison group separately in Appendix A5. In the Dialogic Reading at school condition, the teacher or aide conducted the sessions in the classroom in small groups of no more than five children daily for about 10 minutes over a six week period. In the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home condition, children received similar small-group Dialogic Reading sessions at school and a one-on-one daily Dialogic Reading session at home with their parents.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition children participated in play activities in small groups of no more than five children daily for about 10 minutes. The play activities centered on construction toys that were not available in the classrooms before the study.
Outcome descriptions
The primary outcome domain was children’s oral language use. The study used the following standardized measures: the PPVT-R, the EOWPVT-R, and the ITPA-VE. The authors also utilized a researcher-developed measure called “Our Word” (see Appendix A2.1 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Support for implementation
Teachers were trained in Dialogic Reading using a videotape training method, which presented the two phases of Dialogic Reading. During the training, the trainees were presented with a set of guidelines and taped vignettes of adult-child book reading that exemplified or did not follow the guidelines. Trainees critiqued the vignettes and had oneon- one role plays with the trainer. The phase one and phase two training sessions were presented three weeks apart and lasted for 30 and 20 minutes respectively. Parents were trained to use Dialogic Reading at home using the same videotape and similar training procedures that were used for teachers at their child’s day-care centers.
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).