Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A. R., Kaderavek, J. N., & Dynia, J. M. (2015). Exceptional Children, 81(3), 292-311. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1055246
Reviewed: May 2021
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Composite Measure of Print Knowledge |
Teacher Read-Alouds (TRA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
PF/PF vs. RR/RR;
|
1.74 |
1.41 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Composite Measure of Print Knowledge |
Teacher Read-Alouds (TRA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
PF/RR vs. RR/RR;
|
2.08 |
1.41 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Upper/Lowercase Letter Knowledge |
Teacher Read-Alouds (TRA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
PF/PF vs. RR/RR;
|
0.82 |
0.55 |
No |
-- | ||
|
PALS-PreK - name writing subtest |
Teacher Read-Alouds (TRA) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
PF/PF vs. RR/RR;
|
0.46 |
0.46 |
-- |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 13% | |
| Other or unknown | 15% | |
| White | 73% |
| Hispanic | 3% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 97% |
The study took place in early childhood special education programs in one midwestern state (p. 294). The article mentions working through districts to recruit the programs, so it is assumed they are school-based programs and not private centers (p. 294). The programs were located near one of two universities and were predominately in urban and suburban locales. Only about 10% of the programs were located in rural areas (p. 295). Greater than 90% of the programs were part-day programs that offered inclusive programs. That is, they served both children with disabilities and children without disabilities (p. 295).
In the regular reading/regular reading (RR/RR) comparison condition, the mean age was 52 months; 30% of the children were female, and 98% spoke English as their first language. The racial/ethnic breakdown for this group was as follows: 74% white, non-Hispanic; 11% African American; 8% other; and 7% missing. Maternal education for this group was as follows: 8% no high school diploma, 15% high school diploma, 29% some college, 10% associate's degree, 13% bachelor's degree, and 23% graduate degree. Family income for this group was as follows: 14% $15,000 or less, 13% $15,001-30,000, 16% $30,001-45,000, 12% $45,001-60,000, and 45% $60,000 or more. In the print-focused/regular reading (PF/RR) intervention condition, the mean age was 51 months; 26% of the children were female, and 100% spoke English as their first language. The racial/ethnic breakdown for this group was as follows: 68% white, non-Hispanic; 11% African American; 7% other; and 14% missing. Maternal education for this group was as follows: 13% no high school diploma, 12% high school diploma, 17% some college, 11% associate's degree, 20% bachelor's degree, and 27% graduate degree. Family income for this group was as follows: 12% $15,000 or less, 11% $15,001-30,000, 10% $30,001-45,000, 13% $45,001-60,000, and 55% $60,000 or more. In the print-focused/print-focused (PF/PF) intervention condition, the mean age was 51 months; 23% of the children were female, and 98% spoke English as their first language. The racial/ethnic breakdown for this group was as follows: 75% white, non-Hispanic; 16% African American; 8% other; and 6% missing (note that these percentages do not sum to 100 as they did for the other two groups). Maternal education for this group was as follows: 7% no high school diploma, 16% high school diploma, 28% some college, 3% associate's degree, 22% bachelor's degree, and 24% graduate degree. Family income for this group was as follows: 14% $15,000 or less, 16% $15,001-30,000, 13% $30,001-45,000, 12% $45,001-60,000, and 43% $60,000 or more.
The intervention is print-focused read-alouds, implemented by early childhood special education teachers alone or in conjunction with caregivers. In the study, all teachers and caregivers were given a set of 30 commercial storybooks, reading one target book per week. Teachers read the target book aloud four times per week and caregivers read the target book aloud two times per week. In the print-focused/regular reading (PF/RR) intervention group, teachers read the program storybooks using print-focused strategies that were specified by a scope and sequence provided by the researchers to integrate discussion about specific print-related targets into their read-alouds. During the book readings, teachers engaged in discussion related to 15 objectives (e.g., understanding that letters are a symbol used in written language and that letters are different from words) in four broad categories: book and print organization, print meaning, letters, and words. In this condition, caregivers read the storybooks using their normal reading style. In the print-focused/print-focused (PF/PF) group, both teachers and caregivers used the same print-focused strategies described above.
The comparison condition, regular reading/regular reading (RR/RR), was implemented by early childhood special education teachers in conjunction with caregivers. Teachers and caregivers were given the same set of 30 commercial storybooks, reading one target book per week. Teachers read the target book aloud four times per week and caregivers read the target book aloud two times per week. Both teachers and caregivers read the storybooks using their normal reading style.
Teachers in the treatment group were provided with a two-page insert for each book that gave examples of how to implement the print-focused discussions with that particular book (p. 299). They also participated in a 1-day training in the fall and a 3-hour refresher training in the winter. The training content included the rationale for the intervention and opportunities to practice all 15 objectives. Teachers also received feedback on their performance (based on the ongoing assessments of fidelity; p. 299). Caregivers were instructed on how to implement the print-focused reading style during a 2-hour training that took place in the fall. They were provided with a DVD that included videos of caregivers reading with a print-focused style that they could review as needed. The books that were provided to caregivers also included inserts with examples. These were similar to the inserts provided to teachers, but written in a more caregiver-friendly style. Each caregiver was visited in their home during the winter. During the visit, they read a book to their child and the home visitor provided feedback on their implementation. Finally, researchers called caregivers five times during the study. During these calls, researchers provided suggestions for implementation of the print-focused reading style.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Pelatti, Christina Yeager; Dynia, Jaclyn M.; Logan, Jessica A.; Justice, Laura M.; Kaderavek, Joan. (2016). Examining Quality in Two Preschool Settings: Publicly Funded Early Childhood Education and Inclusive Early Childhood Education Classrooms. Child & Youth Care Forum, v45 n6 p829-849.
Kaderavek, Joan N., Pentimonti, Jill M., Justice, Laura M. (2014). Children with Communication Impairments: Caregivers' and Teachers' Shared Book-Reading Quality and Children's Level of Engagement. Child Language Teaching and Therapy v30 n3 p289-302.
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