Phillips, Beth M.; Tabulda, Galiya; Ingrole, Smriti A.; Webb Burris, Pam; Sedgwick, T. Kayla; Chen, Shiyi (2016). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, v59 n6 p1409-1420. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1124170
Reviewed: December 2018
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OWLS-Listening Comprehension Scale |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
30.33 |
27.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Woodcock Johnson III - Picture Vocabulary Subtest |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.06 |
14.45 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CELF-P2 Sentence Structure Subtest |
IES Funded Studies (NCER) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
13.66 |
13.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 74% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 18% |
| Hispanic | 9% |
Seven Title I prekindergarten programs were targeted for this intervention. These schools were economically disadvantaged with rates of eligibility for free or reduced price lunch ranging from 77% to 100%. Students were randomly assigned from five of these seven schools because two schools had fewer than six eligible students and were therefore excluded from the study.
Children were selected based on performance below 35th percentile on either the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL)'s Syntax Construction test and/or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool-2 (CELP-PS), Concepts and Following Directions test. Although the study authors selected the sample to have low achievement, they note that students might not qualify for language interventions. All children were in prekindergarten. The final sample characteristics are: 55% male, 54.3 months old, 18.3% White, 74.4% African American, 2.4% Asian, 6.1% race not reported, and 8.5% Hispanic.
The intervention includes well-defined content and components aimed to improve literate language skills of prekindergarten students. The intervention was implemented by trained para-professionals who pulled small groups of three to four children from their regularly scheduled classrooms for 20 minute sessions. Manuals with specific content were provided, and sessions were conducted four times a week for 12 weeks, with Fridays used as a "make-up day" for absent students. All interventionists were female and ranged in age from mid-20s to mid-50s. Not all had a teaching certificate, but had a BA at minimum, and each were assigned between 1-3 small groups for the full 12 weeks. The intervention consisted of four 3-week units that covered (1) prepositional phrases, (2) coordinating conjunctions, (3) adverbial phrases, and (4) negation.
Comparison children attended their classes as usual.
Interventionists were trained in person over 1 full-day workshop and 1 half-day booster session. These trainings included a review of lesson plans, materials, and implementation procedures, with observations and discussions. Details of the intervention were available in a manual to support high fidelity and standardization. Each interventionist was observed a minimum of once per unit, with time to discuss the observation at the completion of the session. Professional development through one-on-one consultation with the developer and guides for implementation before each of the four units was also 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