WWC review of this study

Enhancing linguistic performance: Parents and teachers as book reading partners for children with language delays.

Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(1), 28-39. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ583795

  • Randomized Controlled Trial
     examining 
    22
     Students
    , grade
    PK
No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards without reservations

Reviewed: April 2010

Communication/ Language outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R)

Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
19 students

74.8

71

No

 
 
13
More Outcomes

Total utterances

Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
19 students

38.7

35.3

No

--

Mean length utterance (MLU)

Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
19 students

2.75

2.7

No

--

Lexical diversity

Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
19 students

49

48.8

No

--

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R)

Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
19 students

61.1

62

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 31%
    Male: 69%
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    West

Setting

The study took place in five classrooms in five schools in three school districts in the Pacific Northwest. Children attended publicly funded preschool programs that provided early intervention for children with special needs.

Study sample

The study began with 37 children. All children were eligible for early childhood special-education services and had mild to moderate language delays. Based on pretest scores, triads of children with similar receptive vocabulary scores were formed within each district. Within each triad, one member was randomly assigned to a parent dialogic reading group, one member was assigned to a staff dialogic reading group, and one was assigned to a control condition. Thirteen children were assigned to the staff-implemented group, which was not included in this review, and five more children did not complete the study, leaving 19 children remaining in the sample. The mean age of all the children who completed the study was 51.6 months (ranging from 39 to 66 months), and 31.3% of these children were female. The mean age of children in the sample included in this review was 50.5 months.

Intervention Group

The study included two intervention groups: one in which program staff implemented dialogic reading, and another in which parents implemented dialogic reading. The comparison between the staff-implemented group and the no-treatment comparison group did not meet evidence standards because of high differential attrition and lack of baseline equivalence and is excluded from this report. Dialogic reading was implemented over an eight-week period, during which staff or parents engaged in book reading with individual children at least four times per week.

Comparison Group

Children in the control group did not participate in dialogic reading. They participated in group story time, which was the standard practice.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome domain was children’s communication and language competencies, measured by three nonstandardized measures and two standardized measures. The nonstandardized measures included mean length of utterances, number of utterances, and number of different words used (lexical diversity). Children’s vocabulary knowledge was measured by two standardized tests: the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised and the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix A2.

Support for implementation

Parents were trained in the dialogic reading program during two 90-minute instructional sessions held four weeks apart. Videotape training, live demonstration, and role-play were used during the training. Handouts summarizing the training components were provided to parents. The researchers modified the parent training program to address the needs of students with language delays by teaching parents to pause and give their children time to respond.

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations

Reviewed: February 2007

Oral language outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
index

Ratio of child participation

Dialogic Reading vs. None

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
22 students

0.3

0.26

No

 
 
16
More Outcomes

Number of child utterances

Dialogic Reading vs. None

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
22 students

43.36

36.43

No

 
 
12

Mean length utterance (MLU)

Dialogic Reading vs. None

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
22 students

3

2.73

No

 
 
11

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R)

Dialogic Reading vs. None

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
22 students

63.7

59.54

No

--

Lexical diversity

Dialogic Reading vs. None

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
22 students

55.29

52.56

No

--

Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R)

Dialogic Reading vs. None

Posttest

3-5 year olds;
22 students

70.12

71.73

No

--

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • Female: 31%
    Male: 69%
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    West

Setting

The study took place in five classrooms in three school districts in the Pacific Northwest.

Study sample

The study began with 37 children with mild to moderate language delays. All children were eligible for early childhood special education services. Five children did not complete the study, leaving 32 children in the sample. The mean age of the remaining children was 51.6 months (range 39 to 66 months) and 31.3% of the remaining sample was female. Results for the 22 children who were randomly assigned to the staff/practice and comparison conditions are included in this report.

Intervention Group

The study included two intervention groups: a staff/practice group and a parent group. The staff/practice group is included in this review; the parent group was not included in the review because it was not center-based. Dialogic Reading occurred over an eight-week period during which staff engaged in book reading with individual children at least four times per week.

Comparison Group

Staff in the comparison group were trained on Dialogic Reading, but children did not participate individually in Dialogic Reading.

Outcome descriptions

The primary outcome domain was children’s oral language use which was measured by four non-standardized measures: mean length of utterances; number of utterances; number of different words used; and ratio of child participation. Children’s vocabulary knowledge was measured by two standardized tests: PPVT-R and the EOWPVT-R (see Appendix A2.1 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).

Support for implementation

Staff were trained on the Dialogic Reading program in two 1.5 hour instructional sessions held four weeks apart. Videotape training, live demonstration, and role-play were used to train teachers to use Dialogic Reading. In addition to learning Dialogic Reading principles, staff were instructed to pause and give children time to respond, and they kept logs of their shared reading activities.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

newsflash icon contact icon facebook icon twitter icon
loading
back to top