Lonigan, Christopher J.; Anthony, Jason L.; Bloomfield, Brenlee G.; Dyer, Sarah M.; Samwel, Corine S. (1999). Journal of Early Intervention, v22 n4 p306-22. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ599243
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.
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. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
45.46 |
40.81 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Woodcock-Johnson (WJ): Literacy Comprehension |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
8.51 |
7.29 |
No |
-- | |
|
Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
88.51 |
87.97 |
No |
-- | |
|
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Revised (PPVT-R) |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
84.40 |
85.19 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Alliteration oddity detection |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
3.93 |
2.28 |
No |
-- | |
|
Sound blending |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
2.37 |
2.83 |
No |
-- | |
|
Rhyme oddity detection |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
3.74 |
3.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Sound Elision |
Dialogic Reading vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
2-5 year olds;
|
2.85 |
3.55 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 77% |
The study took place in five child care centers in an urban area in Florida. Four centers served primarily children of families eligible for subsidized child care. The fifth center was affiliated with a church and approximately 25% of families served by the church center received a state child care subsidy.
The study began with 110 children; 15 children left the child care centers, leaving a sample of 95 children. Most of the children were from low-income families. The mean age of the child participants was 45.1 months (range 25 to 64 months). Forty-six percent were female and 77% were African-American. Results for the 66 children who had been randomly assigned within center to the Dialogic Reading and no-treatment comparison conditions are included in this report.
The study included two intervention groups: Dialogic Reading and typical shared book reading. The Dialogic Reading intervention is included in this review; results involving typical shared book reading are included in the WWC Shared Book Reading report. In the Dialogic Reading condition, trained undergraduate volunteers engaged in Dialogic Reading intervention sessions for 10 to 15 minutes each day across a six-week period. Children were read to in small groups of three to five children in a location outside the classroom.
Children in the no-treatment comparison group engaged in their standard preschool curriculum.
The primary outcome domains were children’s oral language and phonological processing. The study used the following standardized measures: the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (EOWPVT-R), the Verbal Expression subscale of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA-VE), and the Listening Comprehension subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (WJ-LC). The study also utilized four measures of phonological processing: rhyme oddity detection, alliteration oddity detection, sound blending, and sound elision (see Appendices A2.1 and 2.3 for more detailed descriptions of outcome measures).
Undergraduate volunteer readers were trained in Dialogic Reading style 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 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