Lonigan, Christopher J.; Whitehurst, Grover J. (1998). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, v13 n2 p263-90. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ574139
Reviewed: April 2010
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Dialogic Reading.
Reviewed: February 2007
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Dialogic Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA-VE) |
Dialogic Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
3-4 year olds;
|
109.09 |
102.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R) |
Dialogic Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
3-4 year olds;
|
87.37 |
86.92 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R): Form M |
Dialogic Reading vs. None |
Posttest |
3-4 year olds;
|
80.95 |
81.80 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 91% |
The study took place in four child care centers in Nashville, Tennessee that served primarily children of families eligible for subsidized child care.
The study began with 114 children from low-income households; 23 of these children left the child care center they were attending prior to the posttest, leaving 91 children in the sample. These 91 children were between 33 and 60 months of age at the time of pretest. Fifty-four percent were female and 91% were African-American and all children were from English-speaking homes. The children were randomly assigned within classroom to the intervention and comparison conditions.1 Results for the 75 children who had been randomly assigned to the Dialogic Reading at school, Dialogic Reading both at school and at home, and comparison groups are included in this report.
The study included three intervention groups: Dialogic Reading at school, Dialogic Reading at home, and Dialogic Reading both at school and at home. The Dialogic Reading at home group is not included in this review because it is not center-based. The Dialogic Reading at school and the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home groups were combined for this review to reflect analyses conducted by the study authors and findings from the combined groups are used to determine the overall rating of effectiveness. Dialogic Reading was implemented over a six-week period. Teachers or aids conducted Dialogic Reading sessions with children in small groups of less than six children. Sessions were planned to take place every day for about 10 minutes. The study authors divided centers into low and high compliance centers based on the frequency level (i.e., high and low) of Dialogic Reading sessions. The WWC uses the findings for the low and high compliance centers combined to determine the overall rating of effectiveness; however, the WWC reports findings for the low and high compliance centers separately in Appendix A5.
Children in the no-treatment comparison group did not participate in Dialogic Reading at home or at school.
The primary outcome domain was children’s oral language use. Standardized tests included the PPVT-R, the EOWPVT-R, and the ITPA-VE. Lonigan and Whitehurst also included measures of verbal production (MLU, speech production, diversity, and semantic diversity) which are not included in this review because of attrition (see Appendix A2.1 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Teachers were trained in Dialogic Reading using a videotape training method which covered the two phases of Dialogic Reading. During the training, the trainees were presented with Dialogic Reading guidelines and watched vignettes of adult-child shared book reading on tape that followed or did not follow the guidelines. Trainees analyzed the vignettes and had one-on-one role plays with the trainer. The phase one and phase two training sessions lasted for 30 and 20 minutes respectively.
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, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, 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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube