Improving Oral and Written Narration and Reading Comprehension of Children At-Risk for Language and Literacy Difficulties: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial
Gillam, Sandra Laing; Vaughn, Sharon; Roberts, Greg; Capin, Philip; Fall, Anna-Maria; Israelsen-Augenstein, Megan; Holbrook, Sarai; Wada, Rebekah; Hancock, Allison; Fox, Carly; Dille, Jordan; Magimairaj, Beula M.; Gillam, Ronald B. (2023). Journal of Educational Psychology, v115 n1 p99-117. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1372932
-
examining357Students, grades1-4
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 | |||||||||
|
Monitoring Indicators of Scholarly Language (MISL) - Oral narrative |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
16.09 |
12.04 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Monitoring Indicators of Scholarly Language (MISL) - Oral narrative |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.17 |
11.04 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Test of Narrative Language (TNL) Production |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.12 |
7.24 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Test of Narrative Language (TNL) Production |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
8.16 |
7.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.53 |
86.34 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (GMRT): Comprehension subtest |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
85.53 |
84.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Test of Narrative Language (TNL) Comprehension |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.84 |
7.41 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Test of Narrative Language (TNL) Comprehension |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
8.38 |
8.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Monitoring Indicators of Scholarly Language (MISL) - Written Narrative |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Full sample;
|
11.48 |
9.47 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Monitoring Indicators of Scholarly Language (MISL) - Written Narrative |
Supporting Knowledge of Language and Literacy (SKILL) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.76 |
8.70 |
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: 46%
Male: 54% -
- 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, Utah
-
Race Asian 1% Black 5% Other or unknown 62% White 32% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 57% Not Hispanic or Latino 43% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in 133 elementary school classrooms in 14 schools in Texas and Utah.
Study sample
The majority of the students were Latino, and slightly more than half were male. While all students had language and literacy difficulties according to a pretest, about a third were in special education. Almost half of the students were from low socioeconomic households: for example, at posttest 44% of those in SKILL had low socioeconomic status and 45% of those in the business-as-usual control group had low socioeconomic status. More specifically, 54% of the sample was male; 57% were Latino; 32% were White; 4.5% were African-American; 41% were from bilingual backgrounds; 37% were receiving special education services.
Intervention Group
SKILL was delivered in three phases to small groups of students in grades 1 through 4. The first phase, Teaching Story Structure and Causal Language, includes 20 lessons about story structure and organization. The second phase, Teaching Strategies for Creating a Situation Model, contains 18 lessons on organizing the story into smaller segments. The third phase, Teaching Strategies for integration into Long-Term Memory, includes 12 lessons on critically evaluating stories.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received business-as-usual instruction.
Support for implementation
Over the course of three years, the tutors who provided SKILL had ongoing training from the lead author. This training consisted of 8 hours of professional development about implementing the manualized SKILL program and was conducted at all sites annually before intervention began.
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).