Integrating Mathematics and Children's Literature for Young Children with Disabilities
Green, Katherine B.; Gallagher, Peggy A.; Hart, Lynn (2018). Journal of Early Intervention, v40 n1 p3-19. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1168919
-
examining50Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Interactive shared storybook reading including mathematical content - Green et al. (2018))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Test of Early Mathematics ability, Third Edition, (TEMA-3) |
Interactive shared storybook reading including mathematical content - Green et al. (2018) vs. Storybook reading - Green et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
83.20 |
74.97 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Numeracy: Oral Counting (OC) Subtest |
Interactive shared storybook reading including mathematical content - Green et al. (2018) vs. Storybook reading - Green et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.53 |
8.74 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators Early Numeracy: Quantity Comparison (QC) Subtest |
Interactive shared storybook reading including mathematical content - Green et al. (2018) vs. Storybook reading - Green et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.47 |
8.22 |
No |
-- |
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Numeracy: One-to-one Correspondence Counting (OOCC) Subtest |
Interactive shared storybook reading including mathematical content - Green et al. (2018) vs. Storybook reading - Green et al. (2018) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.70 |
6.43 |
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: 22%
Male: 78% -
- 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
Georgia
-
Race Asian 2% Black 26% Other or unknown 4% White 68% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place across 10 self-contained preschool classrooms, each in a different school building within one school district in the southeastern United States. Fifty-five eligible students with disabilities were included in the classrooms at the time of random assignment.
Study sample
The analytic sample included 50 students with disabilities within 10 randomly assigned classrooms. They ranged in age from three to five years old. The sample was 78 percent male, 68 percent White, 26 percent Black, 2 percent Asian, and 4 percent Hispanic/Latino. All students in the analytic sample had significant developmental delays. In addition, 66 percent of the sample had a speech impairment, 20 percent had autism spectrum disorder, 4 percent were hard of hearing, 4 percent had Down syndrome, 4 percent had mild vision impairment, and 2 percent had cerebral palsy.
Intervention Group
The intervention sessions included storybook reading followed by a mathematics activity based on the storybook. The principal investigator or a research assistant led the sessions with groups of two to four students. The intervention covered three books: The Snowy Day, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and The Very Hungry Caterpillar; each book was used for two weeks. During the storybook reading, the principal investigator or research assistant used scripted questions and elaborations which covered comprehension questions about the story content as well as mathematics-related questions. After the storybook reading, the principal investigator or research assistant led an activity that focused on quantity comparison, one-to-one correspondence counting, and oral counting. The activities related to elements of the story, such as counting the number of bears in the story and a felt story board reenactment of the number of fruits eaten by the caterpillar. The storybook reading portion of each session was 5 to 10 minutes in duration, and the mathematics activity portion was 10 to 15 minutes in duration. The sessions occurred three times a week for six weeks.
Comparison Group
The comparison sessions included storybook reading, without any scripted questions or elaborations and without any mathematics activities. The principal investigator or a research assistant led the sessions with groups of two to four students. The intervention covered the same three books as the intervention sessions: The Snowy Day, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and The Very Hungry Caterpillar; each book was used for two weeks. Each session was 10 minutes in duration. The sessions occurred three times a week for six weeks.
Support for implementation
Two individuals delivered the intervention: the principal investigator and a research assistant. Each individual led both intervention and comparison sessions. The principal investigator provided one half-day of training for the research assistant. Fidelity of implementation was assessed for 20 percent of sessions and ranged from 95 to 100 percent.
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).