Efficacy of a Technology-Based Early Language Comprehension Intervention: A Randomized Control Trial
Kristen L. McMaster; Panayiota Kendeou; Jasmine Kim; Reese Butterfuss (2024). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v57 n3 p139-152. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1422511
-
examining126Students, grades1-2
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2025
- Practice Guide (findings for Technology-Based Early Language Comprehension Intervention (TeLCI))
- 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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CELF-5 Understanding Spoken Paragraphs |
Technology-Based Early Language Comprehension Intervention (TeLCI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Minnesota Inference Assessment |
Technology-Based Early Language Comprehension Intervention (TeLCI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.25 |
N/A |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
Suburban
-
- 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 Asian 10% Black 24% Native American 4% Other or unknown 48% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 48% Not Hispanic or Latino 52% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 78% No FRPL 22%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in first- and second-grade classrooms in two elementary schools located in a suburban school district in the Midwest.
Study sample
The assigned sample (N=129) was 48% Hispanic. The students were 24% Black, 14% White, 10% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 4% American Indian/Alaskan. Most (78%) were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 15% were receiving special education services.
Intervention Group
Technology-Based Early Language Comprehension Intervention (TeLCI) is an eight-week intervention consisting of 24 independent web-based modules (three per week) and eight teacher-led small-group read-aloud sessions (one per week). In both components, after hearing a story, students answer a series of open-ended inferential questions.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business-as-usual (BAU) instruction. Students engaged in a variety of activities, including teacher-led read-aloud, independent reading, coloring, and online educational games. For the main curriculum, teachers used the Lucy Calkins Units of Study in Reading curriculum, and no teachers covered inferencing skills specifically in the main curriculum during the study period.
Support for implementation
Teachers attended a 4-hr workshop that included a general overview of the study, a hands-on demonstration, and a question/answer session. Teachers were also taught about the read-aloud component, observed a recorded model less, and received basic training on read-aloud 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, 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).