At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
For:
-
Practice Guide (findings for Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks)
Rating:
-
Meets WWC standards without reservations
because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Reading & Literacy Related outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme blending
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
39 students
|
5.43
|
2.80
|
Yes
|
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - first phoneme isolating subtest
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
39 students
|
9.03
|
7.00
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme segmenting subtest
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
39 students
|
1.40
|
0.30
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme blending
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Weeks
|
(SP) vs. (FP);
27 students
|
5.70
|
2.80
|
Yes
|
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - partial phoneme segmenting
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
(SP) vs. (FP);
27 students
|
8.30
|
3.10
|
Yes
|
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - first phoneme isolating subtest
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
(MP) vs. (FP);
24 students
|
9.20
|
7.00
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme segmenting subtest
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
(MP) vs. (FP);
24 students
|
1.90
|
0.30
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme blending
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
(MP) vs. (FP);
24 students
|
5.10
|
2.80
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - phoneme segmenting subtest
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
(SP) vs. (FP);
27 students
|
1.00
|
0.30
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - partial phoneme segmenting
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
Aggregated sample: (SP+MP) vs. (FP);
39 students
|
8.08
|
3.10
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - first phoneme isolating subtest
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
(SP) vs. (FP);
27 students
|
8.90
|
7.00
|
No
|
--
|
|
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT) - partial phoneme segmenting
|
Syllable tasks or multiple phoneme tasks vs.
Intervention
|
0 Days
|
(MP) vs. (FP);
24 students
|
7.80
|
3.10
|
No
|
--
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 51%
Male: 49%
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Wyoming
Setting
The study took place in two childcare centers in Laramie, Wyoming. The two centers served a middle-class neighborhood and that each had an enrollment of 100 infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.
Study sample
According to the study authors, no demographic data were collected. However, the research team observed that most of the participating children were White with English as a first language. The mean age of participants was five years one month and ranged from four years to five years eleven months.
Intervention Group
The intervention condition in this review is an aggregation of the author-reported syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition and the multiple phoneme tasks without syllables (MP) condition. Intervention sessions were twenty-five to thirty minutes, twice per week. Students in the syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition received two weeks of syllable tasks followed by four weeks of multiple phoneme tasks, whereas students in the multiple phoneme tasks without syllables (MP) condition received only four weeks of multiple phoneme tasks. Specifically, syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition students were taught syllable blending and segmenting for two weeks (four sessions) prior to receiving phoneme awareness instruction.
Any child who scored less than five out of ten at midpoint on a criterion probe were given additional instruction. Children who scored seven out of ten or less at the final session of the initial four sessions did not proceed into the phoneme phase of instruction.
For the four weeks of phoneme instruction for both syllable plus multiple phoneme tasks (SP) condition and multiple phoneme tasks without syllables (MP) condition students, instruction addressed phoneme isolating, blending, and segmenting.
Comparison Group
The first phoneme tasks only (FP) condition serves as the comparison condition which addressed only first phoneme tasks (e.g., generating, isolating, and matching). Sessions were twenty-five to thirty minutes twice per week for four weeks. At the two-week mark, students who met criterion (i.e., a score of ten out of ten on first phoneme isolating) graduated from treatment and waited two weeks for post-testing. Children in the Syllable plus Multiple Phoneme (SP) condition and Multiple Phoneme condition (MP) also participated in the first phoneme tasks.
Support for implementation
Three instructors provided instruction (the second, third, and fourth authors of the study) and the first author trained the other authors. Training included observing demonstrations, viewing videotapes, role-playing, and teaching pilot children from the university preschool.
Instruction sessions were conducted in isolated areas of the childcare centers.