The Effects of Morphological Awareness Training on Reading, Spelling, and Vocabulary Skills
Good, Joy E.; Lance, Dee M.; Rainey, Jacquie (2015). Communication Disorders Quarterly, v36 n3 p142-151. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1057872
-
examining16Students, grade3
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Morphological awareness instruction – Good et al. (2015))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because at least one supplemental finding is rated meets WWC standards without reservations but the study does not have main findings.
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 | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed spelling measure |
Morphological awareness instruction – Good et al. (2015) vs. Word search and spelling instruction – Good et al. (2015) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.25 |
13.25 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Researcher-developed vocabulary measure |
Morphological awareness instruction – Good et al. (2015) vs. Word search and spelling instruction – Good et al. (2015) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
35.13 |
24.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Researcher-designed reading measure. |
Morphological awareness instruction – Good et al. (2015) vs. Word search and spelling instruction – Good et al. (2015) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
88.50 |
78.88 |
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.
-
Female: 63%
Male: 37% -
- 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
Arkansas
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study included 16 students in Grade 3 in one city in Arkansas. Students from several schools were referred for participation in the study by their classroom teachers for a specific language impairment. The intervention was delivered in a classroom in small groups in students' schools.
Study sample
Ten of the 16 students in the analytic sample were female and six were male. All 16 participants met specific criteria for language impairment. No participant had sensory, neurological, or motor impairment based on school records. All students spoke English as their primary language. No information was provided on other demographic characteristics.
Intervention Group
The eight students in the intervention condition were offered 20 lessons (two per week) over 10 weeks by a speech language pathologist. These were delivered to small groups of two to four students for 30 minutes. The lessons focused on morphological awareness, or the understanding of how words are made up of smaller parts, and each lesson targeted the use of specific prefixes or suffixes (together, affixes). The use of morphological awareness was emphasized as a strategy for discovering a word's meaning. The goal was to help students learn to identify common patterns and meanings associated with affixes.
Comparison Group
The eight students in the comparison condition were offered a similar intervention, in the same length and intensity as the intervention group. The comparison intervention did not include a similar focus on helping students to identify common patterns and meanings associated with affixes. Comparison lessons included a word search, spelling instruction, and a review of affixes.
Support for implementation
The first author delivered all lessons and no other support for implementation was reported.
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).