Supporting Vocabulary Development within a Multitiered System of Support: Evaluating the Efficacy of Supplementary Kindergarten Vocabulary Intervention
Coyne, Michael D.; McCoach, D. Betsy; Ware, Sharon M.; Loftus-Rattan, Susan M.; Baker, Doris Luft; Santoro, Lana Edwards; Oldham, Ashley C. (2022). Journal of Educational Psychology, v114 n6 p1225-1241. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1372751
-
examining817Students, gradeK
Publication
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Publication (findings for Early Vocabulary Intervention (EVI))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Listening Comprehension Measure |
Early Vocabulary Intervention (EVI) vs. Elements of Reading Vocabulary |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
35.07 |
26.62 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive Vocabulary Test - Second Edition |
Early Vocabulary Intervention (EVI) vs. Elements of Reading Vocabulary |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
92.85 |
92.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition (PPVT-IV) |
Early Vocabulary Intervention (EVI) vs. Elements of Reading Vocabulary |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
91.16 |
91.05 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Receptive Measure of Target Words |
Early Vocabulary Intervention (EVI) vs. Elements of Reading Vocabulary |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.53 |
9.75 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Expressive Measure of Target Words |
Early Vocabulary Intervention (EVI) vs. Elements of Reading Vocabulary |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.62 |
8.78 |
Yes |
|
||
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.
-
41% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 53% -
Rural, Suburban, Urban
-
- 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
Northeast, West
-
Race Black 22% Other or unknown 60% White 19% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 40% Not Hispanic or Latino 60% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 48 elementary schools in New England and the Pacific Northwest.
Study sample
At random assignment, there were 468 students in the intervention group and 451 students in the comparison group. The analytic samples for all outcomes except for the Listening Comprehension Measure included between 408 and 413 students in the intervention group and between 399 and 404 students in the comparison group. The Listening Comprehension Measure had 310 students in the intervention group and 311 students in the comparison group. The sample of students in the intervention and comparison groups was 48 percent female, 22 percent Black, 19 percent White, and 40 percent Latinx. Moreover, 41 percent of students were dual language learners.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group received Early Vocabulary Intervention (EVI), a supplemental, small-group vocabulary intervention designed to reinforce content taught in core classroom instruction implemented within an MTSS framework. EVI instruction included pictures representing examples and nonexamples of vocabulary words, examples of words used in different sentences and contexts, and opportunities for students to engage in targeted discussions with peers about the target words. Students received the EVI in groups of three to four students outside of the classroom for 30 minutes per day for 23 weeks between November and May of the school year. The EVI was designed to reinforce Tier 1 instruction and provided students additional interactive opportunities to use and discuss vocabulary. Students were taught three vocabulary words that were taught in class during the same week. Target words were reviewed through specially written stories and interactive activities. Small groups met at different times during the school day based on individual school schedules. Schools designated one or more interventionists from their staff to teach the small groups.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received regular Tier 1 classroom instruction. To ensure a common, consistent approach to core classroom vocabulary instruction, participating kindergarten teachers implemented a published vocabulary program with all their students during whole-class instruction for 15 to 20 minutes per day over the course of the year. Although some participating schools had small-group intervention options for kindergarten students, no schools included vocabulary instruction in any existing interventions.
Support for implementation
At the start of the school year, all teachers in participating schools attended a full day of professional development led by the EVI research team, as well as interventionists who provided the EVI to small groups of students. In the morning the two groups learned about vocabulary development and reviewed the current research on the most effective practices for teaching vocabulary to young children. In the afternoon the groups separated—classroom teachers to learn the Tier 1 ERV curriculum and interventionists to learn the Tier 2 EVI.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).