Small-Group, Emergent Literacy Intervention under Two Implementation Models: Intent-to-Treat and Dosage Effects for Preschoolers at Risk for Reading Difficulties
Piasta, Shayne B.; Logan, Jessica A. R.; Zettler-Greeley, Cynthia M.; Bailet, Laura L.; Lewis, Kandia; Thomas, Leiah J. G. (2023). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v56 n3 p225-240 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1375470
-
examining180Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Narrative Assessment Protocol |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.73 |
19.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Get Ready to Read!-Revised |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.33 |
13.68 |
No |
-- |
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy-Print Knowledge |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.38 |
16.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan et al., 2007): Phonological awareness subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.20 |
11.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Quick Letter Name Knowledge Assessment |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
21.14 |
20.62 |
No |
-- |
|
Letter Sound Short Forms |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.87 |
6.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Literacy: Alliteration Subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.34 |
7.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Literacy: Rhyme Awareness subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.16 |
4.58 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson, 3rd Edition (WJ-III) Oral Comprehension Subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
443.14 |
444.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators: Picture Naming subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.32 |
6.14 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter Writing |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.31 |
2.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Name Writing |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.08 |
2.86 |
No |
-- |
|
Invented Spelling |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.41 |
1.41 |
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: 48%
Male: 52% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Black 49% Other or unknown 28% White 23% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 10% Other or unknown 90% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 65 preschool classrooms in one Midwestern state with most classes located in early childhood centers and a small proportion located in schools.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 34 classrooms (community aides and their 94 eligible students) to the Nemours BrightStart! community aide-implemented intervention group and 31 classrooms (teachers and their 86 eligible students) to the comparison group. A total of 180 preschool students were included in the study. Approximately 48% of the students were female, 49% were Black, 23% were White, 28% did not report race, and 10% were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
Nemours BrightStart! is a small-group supplemental emergent literacy intervention for preschool children identified as at-risk for later difficulties with reading. The curriculum includes 20 lessons consisting of read alouds, emergent writing activities, opportunities for linguistic exchanges between adults and children, and explicit, systematic print and phonological awareness instruction. In the study, some children did not receive any lessons, while others received all 20. On average, children received 12 lessons.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction.
Support for implementation
Community aides received the intervention materials and a 2-day training prior to implementing Nemours BrightStart! with students. The training included an overview of Nemours BrightStart!, instructions for implementing lesson components, demonstrations and exemplars, and time for practice.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Shayne B. Piasta; Alida Hudson; Robin Sayers; Jessica A. R. Logan; Kandia Lewis; Cynthia M. Zettler-Greeley; Laura L. Bailet. (2023). Small-Group Emergent Literacy Intervention Dosage in Preschool: Patterns and Predictors.
-
Thomas, Leiah J. G.; Piasta, Shayne B.; Bailet, Laura L.; Zettler-Greeley, Cynthia M.; Lewis, Kandia. (2023). Promoting Meaning-Focused Skills: Creating a Foundation for Comprehension in Early Childhood Classrooms. Reading Teacher, v76 n4 p421-428.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Narrative Assessment Protocol |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.31 |
19.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan et al., 2007): Phonological awareness subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.62 |
11.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Get Ready to Read!-Revised |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.02 |
13.68 |
No |
-- |
|
Letter Sound Short Forms |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.28 |
6.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Literacy: Alliteration Subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.94 |
7.48 |
No |
-- |
|
Test of Preschool Early Literacy-Print Knowledge |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.40 |
16.33 |
No |
-- |
|
Quick Letter Name Knowledge Assessment |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.06 |
20.62 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Literacy: Rhyme Awareness subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.42 |
4.58 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock Johnson, 3rd Edition (WJ-III) Oral Comprehension Subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
442.23 |
444.70 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators: Picture Naming subtest |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.99 |
6.14 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Letter Writing |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.05 |
2.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Invented Spelling |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.31 |
1.41 |
No |
-- |
|
Name Writing |
Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.57 |
2.86 |
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: 47%
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
Midwest
-
Race Black 56% Other or unknown 26% White 18% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 15% Other or unknown 85% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 64 preschool classrooms in one Midwestern state with most classes located in early childhood centers and a small proportion located in schools.
Study sample
The researchers randomly assigned 33 classrooms (teachers and their 101 eligible students) to the Nemours BrightStart! teacher-implemented intervention group and 31 classrooms (teachers and their 86 eligible students) to the comparison group. A total of 187 preschool students were included in the study. Approximately 47% of the students were female, 56% were Black, 18% were White, 26% did not report race, and 15% were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
Nemours BrightStart! is a small-group supplemental emergent literacy intervention for preschool children identified as at-risk for later difficulties with reading. The curriculum includes 20 lessons consisting of read alouds, emergent writing activities, opportunities for linguistic exchanges between adults and children, and explicit, systematic print and phonological awareness instruction. In the study, some children did not receive any lessons, while others received all 20. On average, children received 12 lessons.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction.
Support for implementation
Intervention teachers received the intervention materials and a 2-day training prior to offering Nemours BrightStart! in their classrooms. The training included an overview of Nemours BrightStart!, instructions for implementing lesson components, demonstrations and exemplars, and time for practice.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Shayne B. Piasta; Alida Hudson; Robin Sayers; Jessica A. R. Logan; Kandia Lewis; Cynthia M. Zettler-Greeley; Laura L. Bailet. (2023). Small-Group Emergent Literacy Intervention Dosage in Preschool: Patterns and Predictors.
-
Thomas, Leiah J. G.; Piasta, Shayne B.; Bailet, Laura L.; Zettler-Greeley, Cynthia M.; Lewis, Kandia. (2023). Promoting Meaning-Focused Skills: Creating a Foundation for Comprehension in Early Childhood Classrooms. Reading Teacher, v76 n4 p421-428.
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).