The Effects of an Intensive Shared Book-Reading Intervention for Preschool Children at Risk for Vocabulary Delay
Pollard-Durodola, Sharolyn D.; Gonzalez, Jorge E.; Simmons, Deborah C.; Kwok, Oiman; Taylor, Aaron B.; Davis, Matthew J.; Kim, Minjung; Simmons, Leslie (2011). Exceptional Children, v77 n2 p161-183. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918889
-
examining125Students, gradePK
Shared Book Reading Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2015
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards with 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 Shared Book Reading.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III (PPTV-III) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
84.82 |
84.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabularly Test (EOWPVT) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
Preschool children;
|
80.98 |
80.34 |
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: 53%
Male: 47% -
- 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
Texas
-
Race Asian 8% Black 50% Other or unknown 28% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 28% Not Hispanic or Latino 72%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 18 classrooms from two school districts and one regional Head Start agency in two ethnically diverse cities in south central Texas. In one school district, the study took place in six classrooms in a half-day public preschool center. In the other school district, the study was conducted in nine full-day Head Start classrooms located in five different schools. In the regional Head Start agency, the study took place in three full-day Head Start classrooms located in two different schools. Parents did not have a choice of half-day or full-day setting, but were offered the program available in their district.
Study sample
Schools with a high percentage of children from low socioeconomic backgrounds were selected for the study. The 18 study teachers were randomly assigned to either the Project WORLD intervention condition (11 teachers) or the business-as-usual read-aloud comparison condition (7 teachers). There were 148 children with parental consent who met the eligibility criteria of having well-below-average vocabulary knowledge (indicated by scoring below the 30th percentile on the PPVT-III) and demonstrating English proficiency (as reported by their teacher); of these children, 81 were in intervention classrooms and 67 were in comparison classrooms. The analytic sample consisted of 125 children, with 69 in intervention classrooms and 56 in comparison classrooms. Children ranged in age from 4.0–5.3 years, with a mean age of 4.5 years. The sample of children was 53% female and 47% male, and all of them received free or reduced-price lunch. The racial/ethnic composition was 50% African American, 28% Latino, 14% Caucasian, and 8% Asian American.
Intervention Group
The Project WORLD intervention was implemented for 20 minutes daily for 12 weeks. Teachers conducted the shared book reading sessions with groups of nine or ten children, while the remaining children were engaged in other activities supervised by the classroom paraprofessional. The lessons were organized around two science themes, Nature and Living Things, with each theme being taught for 6 weeks. Each week, the teaching unit focused on one themerelated topic, with two books per topic, one storybook and one informational book. Children were exposed to one book on the first 2 days and the second book on the next 2 days. The fifth day was a review day. Children received instruction on 68 target words taken from the 24 books in order to develop their background knowledge about the specific topics. During and after book reading, the teachers explained and reviewed target vocabulary, asked questions, and led discussions to engage children in the learning process.
Comparison Group
Teachers in the comparison classrooms used their usual style when reading with the whole class, using books they selected from their classrooms or school library. Only three of their selections were the same books used in the intervention classrooms.
Outcome descriptions
Outcomes included two measures in the comprehension domain: the PPVT-III, in which the children hear a word and select the correct answer from four pictures; and the EOWPVT, in which respondents are asked to name the objects or the actions illustrated in pictures. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
Before the intervention, teachers in the intervention group received a half-day professional development session, in which the developers introduced Project WORLD and provided teachers with instructional materials. During the intervention, the teachers also met with the authors three times to report progress and discuss the obstacles they met with during implementation.
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).