Lamb, H. A. (1986). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 8616894).
Reviewed: April 2015
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 Shared Book Reading.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Concepts About Print Test |
Shared Book Reading vs. Interaction without reading |
Posttest |
Reading and interaction;
|
3.60 |
2.33 |
No |
-- | |
|
Concepts About Print Test |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Reading and interaction;
|
3.60 |
4.22 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Interaction without reading |
Posttest |
Reading and interaction;
|
27.30 |
23.88 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Reading and interaction;
|
27.30 |
27.44 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Record of Oral Language |
Shared Book Reading vs. Interaction without reading |
Posttest |
Reading and interaction;
|
8.75 |
9.44 |
No |
-- | |
|
Record of Oral Language |
Shared Book Reading vs. Reading without interaction |
Posttest |
Reading and interaction;
|
8.75 |
13.88 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in one day care center in Tallahassee, Florida.
The day care center served primarily minority and low socioeconomic status (SES) families. The children in the study were aged 3–5 years, from a minority racial group, and mostly from low SES families. The 36 children were randomly assigned to either the intervention group—read-aloud with structured language interaction (10 children)—or one of three comparison groups: read-aloud with no interaction (9 children); interaction with no read-aloud (9 children); and no contact (8 children).
The read-aloud with structured language interaction condition involved the study author reading a preselected book with a small group of children, using verbal and nonverbal interactions before, during, and after the reading that focused on the book, story, and children’s related experiences. The author met with the intervention group on a daily basis for 10 weeks to deliver the intervention.
There were three comparison conditions. The read-aloud with no interaction condition involved the author reading to a small group of children using the same books as in the intervention condition with no interaction initiated by the author. The interaction-only condition involved no read-aloud activities; the author engaged a small group of children in art activities, providing comments and discussing the activities. The author met with each of these comparison groups on a daily basis for 10 weeks. The third comparison group condition was business-asusual classroom instruction, in which children had no contact with the author. The businessas-usual general classroom instruction condition was excluded from this intervention report because contrasts against this group do not meet WWC standards.
In the comprehension domain, the author used the PPVT-R, which measures receptive vocabulary. In the alphabetics domain, the author used the Concepts About Print Test (Clay, 1979), which measures knowledge about book orientation, print convention, concepts of words and punctuation, and relationship between print and meaning. In the language development domain, the author used the Record of Oral Language (Clay et al., 1983), in which children repeat carefully constructed sentences. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
The author implemented the intervention and two of the comparison conditions. No support or training was provided.
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