Content uploaded by Carl Dunst
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carl Dunst on Mar 28, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
2007 Volume 1 Number 2
CELL
reviews
Center for Early Literacy Learning
CELLreviews is a publication of the Center for Early
Literacy Learning (CELL) funded by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (Grant #H326B060010). CELL is a collabo-
ration among the Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute,
the American Institutes for Research, PACER Center,
and the A.J. Pappanikou Center for Developmental
Disabilities at the University of Connecticut Health
Center. Copyright © 2007. Orelena Hawks Puckett
Institute. All rights reserved.
Carol M. Trivette
Carl J. Dunst
Relative Effectiveness of Dialogic, Interactive,
and Shared Reading Interventions
is CELLreview includes a secondary analysis of three research syntheses produced by the What Works
Clearinghouse on the eff ectiveness of reading instruction with preschoolers. e three methods were dialogic
reading, interactive shared book reading, and shared book reading. Individual studies were coded according to
the degree of child participation in the reading instruction episodes and variations in participation were related
to variations in study outcomes. Results showed that child participation was one factor associated with reading-
related outcomes. Implications for practice are described.
The primary purpose of this practice-based research
synthesis was to determine the relative effectiveness of
three different approaches to teaching beginning reading.
The three reading interventions constituting the focus of
analysis were dialogic reading (Zevenbergen & Whitehu-
rst, 2003), interactive shared book reading (Wasik & Bond,
2001), and shared book reading (Button & Johnson, 1997).
We were specifi cally interested in testing the hypothesis
that active child involvement in learning to read would be a
factor contributing to the benefi ts of the interventions. e
purpose was accomplished by a secondary analysis of three
research syntheses produced by the What Works Clearing-
house (2006a, 2006b, 2007).
e conduct of the research synthesis was guided by
a characteristics and consequences framework (Dunst,
Trivette, & Cutspec, 2002) that focuses on the identifi ca-
tion of those intervention-related factors that are associated
with variations in one or more outcomes. More specifi cally,
we examined diff erent characteristics and features of the
three approaches to teaching reading to identify those prac-
tice characteristics that are associated with diff erent read-
ing-related outcomes.
BACKGROUND
Learning to read is one of if not the most important
literacy skill young children master. e process of under-
standing written language encompasses alphabet awareness,
print awareness, and text comprehension (Dunst, Trivette,
Masiello, Roper, & Robyak, 2006). According to Snow,
Burns, and Griffi n (1998), the foundations for learning to
read include a variety of language and literacy-related expe-
riences and skills that contribute to a child’s awareness of
the meaning of text and the ability to “cipher” printed or
written material and engage in conventional reading. e
characteristics of this type of skilled reading include, but
are not limited to, word identifi cation, an understanding
of sentence structure, and oral and text comprehension.
Description of the Practices
Many diff erent approaches have been used to teach
preschoolers to read (e.g., Gunn, Simmons, & Kameenui,
1998; McGuinness, 2004; Stein, Johnson, & Gutlohn,
1999). e three methods examined in this CELLreview
were dialogic reading, interactive shared book reading, and
shared book reading. Table 1 shows the defi nitions of the
practices included in the three What Works Clearinghouse
2 CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2
Table 1
Defi nitions of the ree Reading Instruction Practices
Reading Instruction Practice Defi nition
Dialogic Reading During the shared reading practice, the adult and the child switch roles so that the
child learns to become the storyteller with the assistance of the adult who functions
as an active listener and questioner.
Interactive Shared Book Reading Interactive shared book reading involves an adult reading a book to a child or a small
group of children and using a variety of techniques to engage the children in the text.
Shared Book Reading Shared book reading involves an adult reading a book to one child or a small group
of children without requiring extensive interactions from them.
Sources: What Works Clearinghouse (2006a; 2006b; 2007).
reports that were the sources of information for our sec-
ondary analysis. All three practices are used to enhance
young children’s language and literacy skills in the context
of book-reading interventions.
Dialogic reading involves fi ve types of prompts to
elicit child responses to diff erent questions and queries
(e.g., Wh____ questions) where a child’s response to the
adult is used to further prompt for elaborations and ex-
pansions. Interactive shared book reading involves a host
of techniques used before, during, and after book reading
to ask the child for answers to questions, provide expla-
nations, attempt to read, point to pictures or words, etc.
Shared book reading involves an adult reading a story to a
child or group of children, often rereading the story, and
providing the child or group of children the opportunity to
retell the story.
e three practices diff er, in part, according to the
children’s involvement in the reading experiences, with dia-
logic reading requiring the most involvement and shared
book reading including the least or minimal amount of
involvement. We coded the studies included in the three
syntheses according to the degree of child involvement in
the reading interventions on a continuum from passive to
active participation for purposes of this secondary synthesis
where we expected more active child participation to be re-
lated to more positive study outcomes. e hypothesis that
active participation would be a factor infl uencing study
outcomes is based on life-span research demonstrating that
many diff erent areas of human functioning are positively
aff ected by the amount of active participation in learn-
ing episodes (e.g., Chaiklin, Hedegaard, & Jensen, 1999;
Karuza, Zevon, Gleason, Karuza, & Nash, 1990; Rogoff ,
Paradise, Arauz, Correa-Chávez, & Angelillo, 2003).
SEARCH STRATEGY
e standard What Works Clearinghouse (2006c)
search procedures were used to identify relevant studies.
is included electronic database searches, hand searches
of core journals, Web site searches, conference proceedings,
submissions by researchers and other individuals, and out-
reach to topic experts and relevant organizations. All ob-
tained studies were screened for relevance and to determine
if the studies met threshold relevancy and methodological
rigor.
Selection Criteria
Studies were included if they met the What Works
Clearinghouse (2006c) standards for type of research de-
sign and associated experimental controls. e studies had
to be implemented in English in center-based programs
with 3- to 5-year-old children in order to be included in
the three What Works Clearinghouse syntheses.
SEARCH RESULTS
Participants
irteen studies were included in the three syntheses
that involved reading instruction with 729 children. Table
2 lists the studies and the background characteristics of the
study participants. e largest majority of the children, on
average, were between 48 and 52 months of age. Fifty-four
percent of the children were male and 46% were female.
Ethnicity was reported in 11 studies. Sixty percent
were African American, 24% were Caucasian, 5% were La-
tino, and 2% were Asian American. e largest majority of
the children were from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
Two studies (Crain- oreson & Dale, 1999; Mautte,
1991) included children with identifi ed developmental de-
lays or children eligible for preschool special education.
Study Characteristics
Table 3 shows the study designs, the settings in which
the interventions were conducted, and the length and ses-
sion duration of the interventions. All but one study used a
randomized design. All of the studies were implemented in
a preschool setting or a center-based program. All but one
study involved group instruction. Two studies included
CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2 3
both group and individual instruction. A single study used
just individual instruction. e length of interventions
ranged from 6 to 64 days, with most lasting 30 days or
more. e session duration per day ranged from 10 min-
utes to 35 minutes. e length of individual sessions was
not included for fi ve studies.
Interventions
Additional information about the characteristics of
the reading interventions is included in Table 4. Six stud-
ies investigated dialogic reading, four studies investigated
interactive shared reading, and three studies investigated
shared reading. e comparison groups against which the
reading interventions were compared are also shown.
e interventions constituting the focus of investiga-
tion were coded according to type of reading instruction
and degree of child participation in the reading episodes
for the purpose of isolating practices that contributed to
the study outcomes. Type of intervention was coded ac-
cording to the three approaches to reading constituting the
focus of the What Works Clearinghouse syntheses. Degree
of child participation was coded on a 7-point continuum
from passive to active child involvement in the reading in-
struction episodes (Table 4). For purposes of this second-
ary synthesis, child participation scores that were less than
fi ve were coded as passive participation and scores of fi ve
or higher were coded as active participation. In addition
to the two reading practices characteristics, we examined
the infl uences of child age, length of reading session, and
length of intervention as factors infl uencing study out-
comes.
Outcomes
Table 5 lists the outcome domains and measures that
were used to evaluate the eff ectiveness of the interventions.
Oral language outcomes were included in 11 studies, print
knowledge outcomes were included in 5 studies, phono-
logical processing outcomes were included in 3 studies,
and early reading/writing were included in 2 studies. e
outcome measures included a mix of standardized instru-
ments (e.g., Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised and
Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery) and inves-
tigator developed measures. For purposes of this secondary
synthesis, the two print-related outcomes (print knowledge
and early reading/writing) and the two linguistic process-
ing skills (oral language and phonological processing) were
combined for evaluating the relative eff ectiveness of the
three approaches to reading.
Effectiveness
All three What Works Clearinghouse reports included
Hedges’s g eff ect sizes as the index for judging the eff ec-
tiveness of the interventions. We weighted the eff ect sizes
(Shadish & Haddock, 1994) for the secondary analysis be-
cause the sample sizes in the diff erent studies varied (Table
2). e Z test was used to ascertain if the practice-related
characteristics were related to variations in the outcomes
(Hedges, 1994).
SYNTHESIS FINDINGS
e individual nonweighted eff ect sizes for the 57 out-
come measures included in the three What Works Clearing-
house reports are shown in Table 5. e average weighted
eff ect size for all studies and all measures combined was
.34 (95% Confi dence Interval = .27 to .41), Z = 9.00, p <
.0001. e weighted eff ect sizes and confi dence intervals
for the linguistic processing and print-related outcomes
were .28 (95% CI = .19 to .36) and .53 (95% CI = .38
to .68) with Zs of 6.41 and 6.92, ps < .0001, respectively.
ese fi ndings, taken together, indicate that the covariation
between reading methods and the outcomes were statisti-
cally greater than zero, demonstrating that the interven-
tions as a whole were eff ective.
e average weighted eff ect sizes according to inter-
ventions, study characteristics, and outcomes are shown in
Table 6. Twenty-two of the 29 Z statistic results (76%),
including at least three eff ect sizes, were statistically greater
than zero. is shows that the largest majority of the prac-
tice-related factors and characteristics were associated with
more positive study outcomes. ere were, however, within
practice characteristics diff erences for a number of com-
parisons.
For all outcome measures combined, the Zs for di-
alogic and interactive shared book reading were signifi -
cantly diff erent than zero, indicating that the use of the
practices was associated with more positive eff ects com-
pared to the control or contrast groups. Dialogic read-
ing was signifi cantly related to the linguistic processing
outcomes, and interactive shared reading was signifi cantly
related to the print-related outcomes. Shared reading was
not associated with more positive study outcomes in any
of the analyses.
e degree of active child participation in the read-
ing episodes was signifi cantly related to both the linguistic
processing and print-related outcomes as well as to all out-
comes combined. e relationship between studies coded
as more passive interventions was also signifi cantly related
to all outcomes combined, but not as strongly related with
studies coded as involving more active participation.
e three reading practices taken together were more
eff ective when implemented with older children as evi-
denced by the relatively larger Zs for the studies including
mostly children 48 months of age or older. Young children
signifi cantly benefi ted from the reading practices but not as
much as older children.
Reading sessions lasting 15 minutes or less were more
eff ective than sessions that were longer than 15 minutes.
4 CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2
e length of the interventions mattered only in terms of
the linguistic processing outcomes, with interventions last-
ing 30 or more days having a stronger relationship with
this outcome. e length of the interventions did not seem
to matter as much for the print related outcomes or for all
measures combined, although there was a trend showing
shorter interventions were associated with more positive ef-
fects.
CONCLUSION
Results from this secondary analysis of three What
Works Clearinghouse research syntheses indicate that
reading interventions that more actively involved young
children in reading episodes were likely to result in more
positive benefi ts. e two interventions that were most ef-
fective were dialogic reading and interactive shared book
reading. Both procedures included a number of diff erent
techniques and strategies for engaging children in asking
questions, prompting descriptions, asking for elaboration,
completing part of a story, etc. Of these two reading meth-
ods, dialogic reading is the more structured procedure.
e fi ndings from this practice-based research synthe-
sis are very similar to those that have included additional
reading studies (Cutspec, 2004, 2006). e common
themes across most if not all studies having positive eff ects
is the variety of ways the practices actively involve children
in the reading episodes. is is in contrast to practices and
often prescribed recommendations to “read to children ev-
eryday.” How one reads to children seems to matter more
than the sheer amount of reading in terms of developing
reading skills.
Implications for Practice
A content analysis of the dialogic reading (What
Works Clearinghouse, 2006a) and interactive shared read-
ing (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007) reports indicates
that certain reading techniques and procedures are strong
candidates for routine, everyday book reading at home and
at school with an individual child or a small group of chil-
dren. ese techniques that actively involve children in the
reading process include asking Wh____ questions about
the story being read, asking for descriptions or explana-
tions of book pictures, prompting elaborations and expan-
sions of child language, asking a child to complete or fi ll in
the end of a sentence, adding to or expanding upon child
language, and providing the child the necessary supports
and assistance to be an active part of the book-reading epi-
sode. e use of any of these techniques and procedures is
likely to be most eff ective if done in the context of inter-
est-based learning opportunities where a child’s interest in
a topic is the basis for the book(s) being read. Findings
from both the series of What Works Clearinghouse reports
(2006a, 2007) and this secondary analysis are being used
to develop practice guides that will include many of the
key features of evidence-based intervention procedures for
reading to young children.
A nontechnical summary of this practice-based re-
search synthesis highlights the main results reported in this
paper (CELLnotes, Volume 1, Number 2). is summary is
useful for providing parents and practitioners information
about the research foundations of evidence-based reading
practices and ideas about what they can do to more actively
involve children in reading episodes. A more detailed de-
scription of the framework used by the Center for Early Lit-
eracy Learning for developing evidence-based literacy learn-
ing practices can be found in a companion paper (Dunst et
al., 2006).
REFERENCES
Button, K., & Johnson, M. (1997). e role of shared
reading in developing eff ective early reading strategies.
Reading Horizons, 37, 262-273.
Chaiklin, S., Hedegaard, M., & Jensen, U. J. (Eds.).
(1999). Activity theory and social practice: Cultural-his-
torical approaches. Aarhus C, Denmark: Aarhus Uni-
versity Press.
Clay, M. M. (1983). Record of oral language and biks and
gutches. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1985). Concepts about print: Sand and stones.
Westport, CT: Heinemann.
Crain- oreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Enhancing lin-
guistic performance: Parents and teachers as book read-
ing partners for children with language delays. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 28-39.
Cutspec, P. A. (2004). Infl uences of dialogic reading on
the language development of toddlers. Bridges, 2(1),
1-12. Available at http://www.researchtopractice.info/
bridges/bridges_vol2_no1.pdf
Cutspec, P. A. (2006). Eff ects of dialogic reading on the
language development of 4- and 5-year-old children.
Bridges, 4(3), 1-15. Available at http://www.research-
topractice.info/bridges/bridges_vol4_no3.pdf
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). PPVT: Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test (Rev. ed.). Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2002).
Toward an operational defi nition of evidence-based
practices. Centerscope, 1(1), 1-10. Available at http://
www.researchtopractice.info/centerscopes/center-
scope_vol1_no1.pdf
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., Masiello, T., Roper, N., &
Robyak, A. (2006). Framework for developing evi-
dence-based early literacy learning practices. CELLpa-
pers, 1(1), 1-12. Available at http://www.earlyliteracyl-
earning.org/cellpapers/cellpapers_v1_n1.pdf
Gardner, M. E. (1990). EOWPVT-R: Expressive One-Word
CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2 5
Picture Vocabular y Test-Revised. Novato, CA: Academic
erapy.
Gunn, B. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998).
Emergent literacy: Instructional and curricular basics
and implications. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kam-
menui (Eds.), What reading tells us about children with
diverse learning needs (pp. 51-59). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed eff ects models. In H. Cooper
& L. V. Hedges (Eds.), e handbook of research syn-
thesis (pp. 285-299). New York: Russell Sage Founda-
tion.
Irlen, S. M. (2003). e impact of video viewing and retell-
ing on preliterate children’s narrative comprehension.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(04), 1174A.
(UMI No. 3088967).
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook
reading to increase print awareness in at-risk children.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11,
17-29.
Karuza, J., Zevon, M. A., Gleason, T. A., Karuza, C. M.,
& Nash, L. (1990). Models of helping and coping,
responsibility attributions, and well-being in commu-
nity elderly and their helpers. Psychology and Aging, 5,
194-208.
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois
Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana, IL: University
of Illinois Press.
Lamb, H. A. (1986). e eff ects of a read-aloud program
with language interaction. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 47(05), 1596A (UMI No. 9115887).
Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfi eld, B. G., Dyer, S.
M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Eff ects of two shared-
reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of
at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22,
306-322.
Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative ef-
fi cacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-
reading intervention for preschool children from low-
income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 13, 263-290.
Mautte, L. A. (1991). e eff ects of adult-interactive be-
haviors within the context of repeated storybook read-
ings upon the language development and selected pre-
reading skills of prekindergarten at-risk students. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 52(01), 122A. (UMI
No. 9115887).
McCormick, C. E., & Mason, J. M. (1989). Fostering
reading for Head Start children with Little Books. In
J. Allen & J. M. Mason (Eds.), Risk makers, risk tak-
ers, risk breakers: Reducing the risks for young literacy
learners (pp. 154-177). Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
mann.
McGuinness, D. (2004). Early reading instruction: What
science really tells us about how to teach reading. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1981). Test
of early reading ability. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Rogoff , B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa-Chávez, M.,
& Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through
intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54,
175-203.
Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining
estimates of eff ect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges
(Eds.), e handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261-
281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffi n, P. (Eds.). (1998).
Preventing reading diffi culties in young children. Wash-
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stein, M., Johnson, B., & Gutlohn, L. (1999). Analyzing
beginning reading programs: e relationship between
decoding instruction and text. Remedial and Special
Education, 20, 275-287.
Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a
book: Interactive book reading and language develop-
ment in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93, 243-250.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006a, October). Dialogic
reading. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved December
21, 2006, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/Inter-
vention.asp?iid=271&tid=13&pg=topic.asp
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006b, September). Shared
book reading. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved
December 21, 2006, from http://www.whatworks.
ed.gov/InterventionReportLinks.asp?iid=277&tid=13
What Works Clearinghouse. (2006c). WWC study review
standards. Rockville, MD: Author. Retrieved February
14, 2006, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/review-
process/study_standards_fi nal.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse. (2007, January). Interac-
tive shared book reading. Rockville, MD: Author.
Retrieved February 28, 2007, from http://www.
whatworks.ed.gov/InterventionReportLinks.
asp?iid=276&tid=13
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell,
A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture
book reading intervention in day care and home for
children from low-income families. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 679-689.
Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A.
C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes
of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542-555.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-
Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM
Teacher Resources.
Zevenbergen, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Dialogic
reading: A shared picture book reading intervention
6 CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2
for preschoolers. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B.
Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and
teachers (pp. 177-200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002).
Preschool language scale (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX:
Psychological.
AUTHORS
Carol M. Trivette, Ph.D., and Carl J. Dunst, Ph.D.,
are Co-Directors of the Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute
and Co-Principal Investigators of the Center for Early Lit-
eracy Learning (CELL).
CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2 7
Table 2
Background Characteristics of the Study Participants
Study
Sample
Size
Mean Age
(months)
Percent
Males Ethnicity Percent Socioeconomic Status
Crain- oreson &
Dale (1999)
22 52 69 NR – NR
Irlen (2003,
Sample 1)
33 57 52 Caucasian
African American
Asian
Latino
Not specifi ed
39
24
16
10
11
Lower to middle income (100%)
Irlen (2003,
Sample 2)
30 57 52 Caucasian
African American
Asian
Latino
Not specifi ed
39
24
16
9
12
Lower to middle income (100%)
Justice & Ezell
(2002)
30 53 50 Caucasian
Asian
African American
90
7
3
Low income (100%) (All at or
below 133% of poverty line)
Lamb (1986) 19 48 NR NR – Low-income
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 1)
61 45 54 African American
Not specifi ed
77
23
Mostly low-income (Eligible for
subsidized child care)
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 2)
66 45 54 African American
Not specifi ed
77
23
Mostly low-income (Eligible for
subsidized child care)
Lonigan &
Whitehurst (1998)
75 33-60 46 African American
Not specifi ed
91
9
Low income (100%)
Mautte (1991) 38 48 49 African American
Caucasian
Latino
87
9
4
Low income (100%) (All at risk)
McCormick &
Mason (1989)
55 NR Caucasian
African American
96
4
Mostly low income (Head Start)
Wasik & Bond
(2001)
121 52 NR African American
Not specifi ed
94
6
Low income (100%) (All eligible
for free or reduced lunch)
Whitehurst, Arnold,
et al. (1994)
67 42 55 African American
Latino
Not specifi ed
55
23
6
Low income (100%) (Most
eligible for subsidized child care)
Whitehurst, Epstein,
et al. (1994)
167 48 56 Caucasian
African American
Latino
Asian
46
45
8
1
Low income (100%) (At risk)
NR = Not reported.
8 CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2
Table 3
Selected Characteristics of the Studies
NR = Not reported.
Study Research Design Location
Group vs.
Individual
Length of
Intervention
(days)
Session
Duration
(minutes)
Crain- oreson
& Dale (1999)
Randomly assigned control
w/diff erential attrition
Classrooms (5 sites in 3
districts)
Individual 48 NR
Irlen (2003,
Sample 1)
Randomly assigned control Preschools (3 sites) Group 8.5 35
Irlen (2003,
Sample 2)
Randomly assigned control Preschools (3 sites) Group 8.5 35
Justice & Ezell
(2002)
Randomly assigned control Head Start center (1 site) Group 24 NR
Lamb (1986) Randomly assigned control Day care center (1 site) Group 50 NR
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 1)
Randomly assigned control Child care centers (5 sites) Group 30 10–15
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 2)
Randomly assigned control Child care centers (5 sites) Group 30 10–15
Lonigan &
Whitehurst (1998)
Randomly assigned control Child care centers (4 sites) Group 30 10
Mautte (1991) Randomly assigned control Early childhood education
center (1 site)
Group 60 25
McCormick &
Mason (1989)
Quasi-experimental Head Start (1 site, 4
classrooms)
Group 6 10–15
Wasik & Bond
(2001)
Randomly assigned control Title I Early Learning
center (1 site)
Group 60 NR
Whitehurst, Arnold,
et al. (1994)
Randomly assigned control
w/ diff erential attrition
Day care centers (5 sites) Group at
school;
Individual
at home
30 10
Whitehurst, Epstein,
et al. (1994)
Randomly assigned control Head Start (4 sites) Group at
school;
Individual
at home
16 wks. 3–5
times a wk.,
plus reading
at home &
sound foun-
dations 1–3
times a wk.
NR
CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2 9
Table 4
Characteristics of the Reading Interventions and the Comparisons Against Which the Practices Were Assessed
Study
Reading
Typ e
Experimental Group
Comparison
GroupIntervention
Degree
of Child
Participation
Crain- oreson
& Dale (1999)
Dialogic reading Staff implemented one-on-one Dialogic
Reading
6 No one-on-one dialogic
reading
Irlen (2003,
Sample 1)
Shared book
reading
Listened to adult read story
Retold story as a group
3 1. Watched a video
2. Retold story as a group
Irlen (2003,
Sample 2)
Shared book
reading
Story book repeat
Listen to story twice
2 Video repeat
Watch story twice
Justice & Ezell
(2002)
Interactive
shared book
reading
Print focus: Interactive shared reading
w/print focus. Adult posed prompts in
3 types: print conventions, concept of
word, alphabet, knowledge. Reader calls
on each child to respond to a prompt.
4 Picture focus: Interactive
shared reading w/print focus.
Prompts based on pictures, 3
types: character forms, per-
ceptual focus, action focus.
Lamb (1986) Interactive
shared book
reading
Read aloud w/language interaction
(discussion prior, during, & after the
reading)
5 Read aloud only
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 1)
Shared book
reading
Typical shared book reading 1 No treatment
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 2)
Dialogic reading Dialogic reading 6 No treatment
Lonigan &
Whitehurst
(1998)
Dialogic reading Dialogic reading at school group, plus
dialogic reading at home & school
group
6 No treatment
Mautte (1991) Interactive
shared book
reading
Repeated reading w/adult interaction
(two developmental strata: average &
delayed)
5 Repeated reading without
adult interaction
McCormick &
Mason (1989)
Interactive
shared book
reading
Book recitation
Children made predictions about book
based on cover
Adult modeled reading by showing
pictures & text and pointing to words
while reading
Child received copy of book so they
could accompany in reading text
5 Story discussion
Adult told story while
displaying pictures.
Children didn’t see text.
Children asked to retell story
w/ pictures as prompts
Children received copy of
illustrations to follow along
Wasik & Bond
(2001)
Dialogic reading Dialogic reading plus reinforcement
activities—targeting certain vocabulary
7 Reading of same books by
teachers without dialogic
reading training
Whitehurst,
Arnold, et al.
(1994)
Dialogic reading Dialogic reading at school group plus
Dialogic reading at home & school
group
6 Small group play activities
(construction toys)
Whitehurst,
Epstein, et al.
(1994)
Dialogic reading Dialogic reading (at school and
home) w/adapted sound foundations
curriculum—7 consonant sounds at
beg. & end of words, 2 vowel sounds at
beg. & manuscript letters corresponding
to curriculum sounds
6 No treatment (regular Head
Start program)
10 CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2
Table 5
Outcome Measures and Eff ect Sizes for the Interventions
Study Outcome Domain Outcome Measures Eff ect Sizes
Crain- oreson
& Dale (1999)
Oral language Mean length of utterance
Number of utterances
Number of diff erent words used
Ratio of child participation
PPVT-Ra
EOWPVT-Rb
0.27
0.31
0.09
0.40
0.20
−0.14
Irlen (2003,
Sample 1)
Oral language Prompted score (Paris rubric score)
Prompted and Unaided score (Marshall checklist)
Unaided retelling score (Marshall checklist)
0.09
−0.02
0.18
Irlen (2003,
Sample 2)
Oral language Prompted score (Paris rubric score)
Prompted and Unaided score (Marshall checklist)
Unaided retelling score (Marshall checklist)
0.11
0.11
−0.07
Justice & Ezell
(2002)
Print knowledge Letter orientation and discrimination
Print concepts
Print recognition
Words in print
Alphabet knowledge
Literacy terms
0.84
0.31
1.77
1.13
0.48
0.45
Lamb (1986) Oral language
Print knowledge
Record of Oral Languagec
PPVT-R
Concepts About Print: Sand and Stonesd
−0.52
−0.01
−0.23
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 1)
Oral language
Phonological processing
Oral Language Measures
PPVT-R
EOWPVT-R
ITPA-VEe
WJ-LCf
Phonological Processing Measures
Rhyme oddity detection
Alliteration oddity detection
Sound blending
Sound elision
−0.05
0.04
0.48
0.29
−0.11
1.26
−0.08
−0.17
Lonigan et al.
(1999, Sample 2)
Oral language
Phonological processing
Oral Language Measures
PPVT-R
EOWPVT-R
ITPA-VE
WJ-LC
Phonological Processing Measures
Rhyme oddity detection
Alliteration oddity detection
Sound blending
Sound elision
−0.49
0.05
0.30
0.38
0.11
1.46
0.02
0.17
Lonigan &
Whitehurst
(1998)
Oral language PPVT-R
EOWPVT-R
ITPA-VE
−0.07
0.04
0.43
CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2 11
aPPVT-R = Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). PPVT: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Rev. ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
bEOWPVT-R = Gardner, M. E. (1990). EOWPVT-R: Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabular y Test-Revised. Novato, CA: Academic
Therapy.
cRecord of Oral Language = Clay, M. M. (1983). Record of oral language and biks and gutches. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
dConcepts About Print: Sand and Stones = Clay, M. M. (1985). Concepts about print: Sand and stones. Westport, CT: Heinemann.
eITPA-VE = Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.
fWJ-LC = Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM Teacher
Resources.
gPLS = Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002). Preschool language scale (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological.
hTERA = Reid, D., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (1981). Test of early reading ability. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Study Outcome Domain Outcome Measures Eff ect Sizes
Mautte (1991) Oral language
Print knowledge
PLSg
TERAh
PLS (delayed development)
TERA (delayed development)
−0.12
−0.36
1.06
0.35
McCormick &
Mason (1989)
Print knowledge
Early reading/writing
Letter naming
Points to print
Picture label
Word label, taught book, and new book were excluded
0.07
0.27
0.70
Wasik & Bond
(2001)
Oral language Receptive language measure (subset of vocabulary
words presented in interactive book reading)
Expressive language measure (pictures representing
words presented during interactive book reading)
1.58
2.05
Whitehurst,
Arnold, et al.
(1994)
Oral language PPVT-R
EOWPVT-R
ITPA-VE
“Our Word” (researcher developed, measures
knowledge of novel vocabulary)
0.19
0.32
0.00
0.21
Whitehurst,
Epstein, et al.
(1994)
Oral language
Phonological processing
Print knowledge
Early reading/writing
domains
21 outcome measures reduced to 4 factors:
Language factor
Print concepts factor
Linguistic awareness factor
Writing factor
0.08
0.64
0.02
0.54
Table 5, continued
12 CELLReviews Volume 1, Number 2
Table 6
Mean Eff ect Sizes for the Intervention and Study Characteristics Constituting the Focus of Analysis
aAnalyses that included only two effect sizes were not considered as part of the data interpretation and are included here for
informational purposes only.
bA single study included all six effect sizes and was not used for data interpretation.
*p < .001, **p < .0001.
Characteristics
Linguistic Processing Skills Print Related Skills All Outcomes Combined
Number
of Eff ect
Sizes
Mean
Eff ect
Size
95%
CI
Number
of Eff ect
Sizes
Mean
Eff ect
Size
95%
CI
Number
of Eff ect
Sizes
Mean
Eff ect
Size
95%
CI
Type of Intervention
Dialogic reading 25 .34** .23–.44 2a .59 .37–.81 27 .38** .29–.48
Interactive shared reading 4 .11 −.35–.57 12 .47** .27–.68 16 .41** .23–.60
Shared reading 14 .16 .00–.32 0 – 4 .16 .00–.32
Degree of Child Participation
Passive 14 .16 .00–.32 6 .78b.47–1.09 20 .29* .15–.43
Active 29 .33** .23–.43 8 .45** .28–.62 37 .36** .27–.45
Child Age (months)
42–48 29 .15* .05–.25 5 .49** .29–.70 34 .21* .13–.30
> 48 14 .77** .58–.96 9 .57** .35–.79 23 .69** .54–.83
Length of Reading Sessions
(minutes)
15 or less 23 .18* .07–.29 3 .34* .02–.66 26 .20* .09–.30
> 15 8 .14 −.13–.40 2 .03 −.61–.67 10 .12 −.12–.37
Length of Intervention (days)
< 30 6 .07 −.22–.36 9 .57** .35–.79 15 .38** .21–.56
30–49+ 37 .30** .21–.39 5 .49** .29–.70 42 .33** .04–.41
