Adapted Shared Reading: A Study of Its Effectiveness in Inclusive Preschool Classrooms
Golloher, Andrea (2020). Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, v9 n2. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1264417
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Pathways to Literacy )
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet without reservations or the study does not meet requirements for nonoverlap of all pairs.
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
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
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: 67%
Male: 33% -
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
California
-
Race Asian 33% Other or unknown 33% White 33% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two preschool classrooms in northern California. One of the classrooms was in a private preschool in an urban area, and the other classroom was in a Head Start center in a suburban area. The study took place during "free choice" time.
Study sample
Participants included three students from two preschool classrooms. Two of the students were 4-year-old females and one was a 5-year-old male. One of the students was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one had a visual impairment, and one had both ASD and a visual impairment. One student was White, one was Asian, and the other was described as Mexican-American. The study did not report other demographic information.
Intervention Group
During the intervention phase, the procedures of the Pathways to Literacy reading program were implemented. Each reading session included one student with disabilities and a typically developing peer. Teachers read books that were adapted for the study and adhered to a set of specified steps using systematic instruction to encourage student engagement, listening comprehension, and communication. Adaptations were made based on the needs and challenges of the children with disabilities and included use of shortened books and allowing different modes for responding, such as using a Big Button voice output device. These adaptations reflected the guidance provided in the intervention package. Teachers also used prompting hierarchies to elicit responses from students, including verbal and physical prompts. After giving the focal child an opportunity to respond to questions, the peers were allowed to model a correct response. Across participants, the number of intervention sessions ranged from five to twelve.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During baseline sessions, the teachers read a book to the student and their peer, pausing to allow the target child to respond to prompts. The teacher moved on if there was no response within five seconds. Teachers provided positive verbal feedback for appropriate behavior as they usually would. Across participants, the number of baseline sessions ranged from six to twelve.
Support for implementation
The researcher trained each teacher in a one-on-one setting over the course of three sessions. The first training session covered baseline procedures, the second session was on the use of Pathways to Literacy, and the third session taught teachers to adapt books following the guidelines in the implementation guide.
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).