The Effects of a Multitiered System of Language Support on Kindergarten Oral and Written Language: A Large-Scale Randomized Controlled Trial
Petersen, Douglas B.; Staskowski, Maureen; Spencer, Trina D.; Foster, Matthew E.; Brough, Mollie Paige (2022). Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, v53 n1 p44-68. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1330371
-
examining681Students, gradeK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Story Champs )
- 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 | |||||||||
|
Personal Story Generation (Petersen et al. 2022) |
Story Champs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.56 |
-1.41 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Expository Retell (Petersen et al. 2022) |
Story Champs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.43 |
-0.96 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Narrative Retell Quality (Petersen et al. 2022) |
Story Champs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.98 |
-0.49 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Narrative Writing (Petersen et al. 2022) |
Story Champs vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.64 |
1.55 |
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: 48%
Male: 52% -
- 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 1% Black 5% Other or unknown 6% Pacific Islander 3% White 85% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 31% No FRPL 69%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in 28 kindergarten classrooms from four school districts in the Upper Midwest.
Study sample
There were 686 students in 28 classrooms that were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the comparison group (14 classrooms in each group). About 85% of the children were white and about 5% were African American. Only 4% were Hispanic. Just under one-third (31%) were eligible for a free or reduced-price meal program, and 10% had diagnosed language impairment.
Intervention Group
The intervention is Multitiered System of Language Support (MTSLS), which is like Multitiered Systems of Support (MTSS) with the addition of a focus on support for and promotion of oral language. The program consisted of 14 weeks of oral narrative language instruction using the curriculum Story Champs ®. Classroom teachers delivered Tier 1 (large group) instruction to the whole group for 15-20 minutes per day for 4 weeks, after which SLPs began Tier 2 (small group) instruction with students who had not made adequate progress in the large group instruction format. The Tier 2 treatment group students received the Tier 2 Story Champs intervention twice a week for 20 minutes for 10 weeks in small groups (3 students); the Tier 2 small group instruction was supplemental as students still received Tier 1 instruction with the rest of the class. Students in the Tier 2 condition thus received 70-80 minutes total of explicit narrative instruction each week.
Comparison Group
School districts followed kindergarten reading standards for the state, including 10 essential instructional practices in early literacy and were using MTSS models for teaching students reading decoding skills. In these districts, general educators (teacher, reading specialist, para, or professional interventionists) provided Tier 2 reading decoding interventions. Oral language was not explicitly targeted in the tiered interventions, and the districts did not use growth monitoring.
Support for implementation
Participating speech language pathologists had received training in Story Champs procedures by the study authors the year before the intervention. Two months before the start of the intervention, they participated in a four-hour follow-up training from the study authors. The speech language pathologists also completed an additional four-hour training on how to best support teachers implementing Story Champs before training the kindergarten teachers. Speech language pathologists observed teachers providing Tier 1 instruction and scored them using a fidelity checklist provided in the study appendix. The average fidelity of implementation was nearly 98%, with a range of 91%-100%.
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).