Small Groups, Big Gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 Phonological Awareness Intervention with Preschoolers with Early Literacy Deficits
Kruse, Lydia G.; Spencer, Trina D.; Olszewski, Arnold; Goldstein, Howard (2015). American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology v24 p189-205. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577029
-
examining5Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Tier 2 phonological awareness intervention - Kruse et al. (2015))
- 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.
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: 80%
Male: 20% -
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
Midwest
-
Race Black 80% Other or unknown 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 20% Not Hispanic or Latino 80% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three urban Head Start preschools in the Midwest region of the US.
Study sample
The five preschool students included in this review were between four and five years old. Four of the students were female and one was male. Four of the students were Black and one was Latino. All students had vision and hearing within the typical limits and had regular attendance at their Head Start program. They demonstrated deficits in language fluency skills and required Tier 2 phonological awareness intervention.
Intervention Group
This study evaluated a phonological awareness (PA) intervention designed for Tier 2 instruction delivered to small groups of preschoolers. Delivered by trained interventionists 3–4 times per week, the intervention consisted of brief scripted lessons lasting about 10 minutes each. Lessons targeted three core PA skills—blending, segmenting, and first sound identification—alongside alphabet knowledge, following a developmentally sequenced curriculum. The intervention was structured in two main phases to mirror typical PA development, moving from larger components of words (e.g., syllables) to smaller components (e.g., phonemes). The intervention had 12 units, each focusing on a topic such as blending compound words and two syllable words and identifying the first part of two syllable words. There were at least two lessons per unit; if students demonstrated mastery of the topic, they moved on to the next unit. If they needed more instruction on the topic, the interventionist would present a third lesson in the unit. If students continued to not display consistent mastery, the interventionist would repeat the first lesson within a unit at the end of the lesson sequence for that unit. Instruction incorporated visual aids, interactive games, and frequent opportunities for children to respond, with contingent feedback provided to the group. The intervention was embedded within a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework. The intervention lasted 10-15 weeks and lessons were only conducted when at least 2 out of the 3 students in the triad were present.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During baseline sessions, students received typical classroom instruction and did not receive any intervention materials on phonological awareness.
Support for implementation
Interventionists were provided with scripted lessons. They also received corrective feedback based on videotaped observations of their implementation of the intervention.
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).