Dialogic Reading: Language and Preliteracy Outcomes for Young Children With Disabilities
Towson, Jacqueline A.; Gallagher, Peggy A.; Bingham, Gary E. (2016). Journal of Early Intervention, v38 n4 p230-246. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1119619
-
examining42Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Dialogic Reading)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Get Ready to Read!-Revised |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.30 |
12.08 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition (PPVT-IV) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
84.71 |
84.14 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Literacy (myIGDIs-EL): Which One Doesn’t Belong (WODB) subtest |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.26 |
5.65 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Near-transfer expressive vocabulary task: non-target word list (Towson et al., 2016) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
16.01 |
12.99 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Near-transfer receptive vocabulary task: non-target word list (Towson et al., 2016) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
23.81 |
23.76 |
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.
-
81% English language learners -
Female: 21%
Male: 79% -
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
South
-
Race Black 7% Other or unknown 17% Two or more races 2% White 74% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 17% Not Hispanic or Latino 83% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study involved 12 classrooms (five inclusion and seven self-contained) in a large Southeastern suburban school district.
Study sample
The unit of assignment was classrooms, which included both inclusion and self-contained classrooms. Among the inclusion classrooms, 2 were assigned to the intervention and 3 to the comparison group. Among the self-contained classrooms, 4 were assigned to the intervention and 3 to the comparison group. To be eligible for the study, students must be between ages 3 and 5, have an IEP for significant developmental delay, attend preschool for at least 3 hours per day and 3 days per week, speak primarily English, and be verbal. Most of the students (79%) were boys. Approximately 74% of the students were White, 7% were African American, and 2% were biracial. In addition, 17% of students were Latino/Hispanic.
Intervention Group
The study involved dialogic reading implemented over six weeks. Instruction included prompts and three books from the Read Together, Talk Together program kit. Each book was read for 10-15 minutes three times per week for two weeks. The authors scripted the prompts for each lesson using notes taped to book pages. The prompts used CROWD strategies (Completion, Recall, Open-ended questions, Whquestions, Distancing). Each reading involved ten prompts: five of the prompts focused on five target vocabulary words and five focused on general receptive and expressive language skills (the instructor alternated the prompts for general skills). The instructor implemented each prompt using the PEER strategy (Prompt, Evaluate, Expand, Repeat), and prompts were implemented with pauses. Specifically, after each prompt, the instructor waited for five seconds and if no student responded the instructor repeated the prompt. If no student responded to the second prompt within five seconds, the instructor modeled the appropriate response and asked the students to repeat the modeled response.
Comparison Group
Typical storybook reading, without any additional questions, for 10-15 minutes three times per week for six weeks. The comparison condition involved the same three books as the intervention condition.
Support for implementation
The study does not report any implementation support. All classes were taught by the principal investigator working with a research assistant.
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).