Regional Educational

APPENDIXES Laboratory Southeast

July 2021
At Florida State University

Effectiveness of Early Literacy Instruction: Summary of 20

Years of Research
Appendix A. The search, screening, and review process
Appendix B. Technical results
Appendix C. Effects of interventions by domain and outcome type for the 132 interventions evaluated by high-
quality impact studies
Appendix D. Implementation characteristics of the 132 interventions evaluated by high-quality impact studies
Appendix E. Research basis for the 109 high-quality impact studies
Appendix F. Three-hundred fifty-seven studies reviewed using the evidence standards
See https://go.usa.gov/x6trG for the full report.

Appendix A. The search, screening, and review process

This appendix describes the literature search, screening, and review processes used in this report.

Literature search methodology

A comprehensive list of keywords was compiled from several sources including the National Early Literacy Panel
and the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) early childhood education topic area protocol (National Early Literacy
Panel, 2008; What Works Clearinghouse, 2014). Four categories of search terms (target ages and settings, study
design, interventions, and outcomes) were included and combined in each electronic database using the Boolean
operators OR between search terms within each category and AND between sets of search terms comprising the
four categories (boxes A1–A3) to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature. The interventions search term
category contained three subcategories—general terms, curricula, and instructional practices—that each contain
search terms linked by the Boolean operator OR within and across subcategories. The outcomes search term
category contained six subcategories—language, phonological awareness, print knowledge, decoding, early
writing, and general literacy—that each contained search terms linked by the Boolean operator OR within and
across subcategories.
These terms were used to search the following databases: Child Development and Adolescent Studies, EconLit,
ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations, and PsycINFO. The study team also conducted a hand search for additional relevant
articles from the 2016 and 2017 issues of several prominent research journals, including Child Development,
Developmental Psychology, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Early Education and Development, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Reading Research Quarterly, Scientific Studies of Reading,
and Topics in Early Childhood Special Education.
In addition, the reference lists from WWC intervention reports that used any of the WWC early childhood
education review protocols (What Works Clearinghouse, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2014), research syntheses produced
by the Institute of Education Sciences and other agencies, and meta-analyses were searched and cross-referenced
with the results of the literature search to identify additional studies not captured in the initial search.

REL 2021–084 A-1

The references of 60 meta-analyses and literature reviews were examined and cross-referenced with the results
of the literature search to identify additional studies that might not have been captured in the initial search. This
process resulted in identifying some 150 additional studies. The meta-analyses and literature reviews were Al
Otaiba and Fuchs, 2002; Al Otaiba et al., 2009; Allen, 2016; Anderson et al., 2003; Blok, 1999; Blok et al., 2005;
Bowers et al., 2010; Breit-Smith et al., 2009; Burger, 2015; Burger and Winner, 2000; Burne et al., 2011; Bus and
Van Ijzendoorn, 1999; Camilli et al., 2010; Chambers et al., 2016; Chambers et al., 2010; Chambers et al., 2006;
Christ and Wang, 2011; Connor et al., 2014; Darrow, 2009, 2010; Diamond et al., 2013; Ehri et al., 2001; Elleman
et al., 2009; Filiatrault-Veilleux et al., 2015; Fukkink and Lont, 2007; Graham et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2016; Hosley,
2000; Hsin et al., 2014; Jalongo and Sobolak, 2011; Kelchen et al., 2011; Kunkel, 2015; Lankshear and Knobel,
2003; Lee et al., 2015; Lin, 2013; Ma et al., 2014; Magnuson et al., 2016; Markussen-Brown et al., 2017; Marulis
and Neuman, 2010; McCoy et al., 2017; Mol et al., 2009; Moses, 2008; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Neale
and Pino-Pasternak, 2017; Nelson et al., 2003; Odom and Strain, 2002; Petersen, 2011; Piasta and Wagner, 2010;
Pidano and Allen, 2015; Reynolds et al., 2011; Schweinhart, 2001; Standley, 2008; Suggate, 2016; Swanson et al.,
2011; Takacs et al., 2014; Towson et al., 2017; Walker, 2011; Wasik et al., 2016; Zauche et al., 2016; and Zucker et
al., 2009.

Box A1. Keywords used for the target ages and settings and the study design search categories
Target ages and settings Three-year-old* Multi-element design
3 year* old Toddler* Multiple baseline
3-year-old* Young child Multiple baseline design
3 year Young children Multiple probe
4 year* old Preschooler Multiple-probe
4-year-old* Preschoolers Posttest
4 year Post-test
5 year* old Study design Post test
5-year-old* ABAB design Predict*
5 year Alternating treatment Prediction
Age*3 Assignment Predictive
Age*4 Baseline Pretest
Age*5 Causal* Pre-test
Child care* Causality QED
Childcare Changing criterion design Quasi experimental
Day care Comparison group* Quasi-experimental
Daycare Control group* Random*
Day-care* Effect* Randomization
Early childhood* Effective Randomized Control* Trial
Early experience Effectiveness Randomized controlled trial
Five-year-old* Efficacy Randomly assign
Four-year-old* Efficiency RCT
Home school* Evaluation RDD
Infant* Experiment Regression discontinuity
Infantile Experimental Reversal design
Nurseries Impact Simultaneous treatment
Nursery Intrasubject replication design Single case design
PreK* match Single subject design
Pre-K Literature review Single subject experimental
Prekindergarten* Matched group* design*
Pre-kindergarten* Meta analysis Systematic review
Preschool* Meta-analysis Treatment
Pre-school* Multi element design Withdrawal design
* indicates a wildcard character.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 A-2

Box A2. Keywords for the interventions search category, by subcategory
General terms Curiosity Corner Ready, Set, Leap!
Approach* Daisy Quest Reggio Emilia
Basal reading DARE to be You Rigby’s Activate Early Learning
Courseware Direct Instruction Saxon Early Learning
Curricula* DLM Early Childhood Express Scholastic Early Childhood Program
Curriculum Doors to Discovery School Readiness Express
Early childhood education Early Childhood Program Sing, Spell, Read, & Write Sound
Early intervention Early Literacy and Learning Model Foundations
Educational method* (ELLM) Smart Start
Educational strategy Fast ForWord Preschool Sound Foundations
Educational strategies* FunShine Express: Fireflies/Sprouts Sounds Abound
Educational therapy Funsteps, Inc. Spell, Read, PAT
Emergent Growing Readers Early Literacy S.P.A.R.K.
Initial teaching alphabet Curriculum (High/Scope) Stepping Stones to Literacy
Instruct* Headsprout Reading Basics Storytown
Instruction High Reach Tools of the Mind
Intervene* High/Scope Curriculum We Can! Curriculum
Intervention Houghton Mifflin PreK Waterford Early Reading Program
Language experience approach Innovations Comprehensive Pre-K
Learning* Preschool Curriculum (Gryphon Wee Learn
Literacy* House Pub.) Words and Concepts
Monitor* Interaction Approach
Instructional practices
Practice* Journeys into Early Literacy
Kaplan Planning Guide to the Book reading
Program*
Preschool Curriculum Classwide peer tutoring
Reading*
Ladders to Literacy: A Preschool Conversational-recasting
Remedial*
Activity Book Conversation-based language
Remediation
Language for Learning intervention
Strategy*
Language-Focused Curriculum Dialogic reading
Teacher*
Leap Direct instruction
Teaching
LeapDesk Workstation Explicit attention to articulation
Technique*
Learning Experiences: An Family literacy
Therapeutics*
Alternative Program for Functional communication training
Therapy training
Preschoolers and Parents (LEAP) Graphics-based software tools
Train*
Learningames—Abecedarian Home literacy
Transfer
Let’s Begin with the Letter People Imitation-based language
Treat*
Lidcombe Program intervention
Curricula1 Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Individualized reading
The Abecedarian Project Program (LiPS) Interactive shared Book Reading
A Beka Links to Literacy Curriculum Kit Interactive shared picture book
Active Learning Literacy Express reading
Bank Street Developmental Marazon system Letter knowledge training
Beyond Centers and Circle Time Montessori Method Peer training
Breakthrough to Literacy My Magic Story Car Peer-mediated intervention
Bright Beginnings Open Court Reading (OCR) Pre-K Phonological awareness training
Building Blocks for Literacy Open Court Reading Program Phonological awareness training
Building Early Literacy and Opening the World of Learning plus letter knowledge training
Language Skills (BELLS) Pebble Soup Picture book reading
Building Language for Literacy (BLL Phonemic Awareness in Young Pragmatic teaching
Scholastic) Children: A Classroom Curriculum Reciprocal teaching
Compass Learning Odyssey Pre-K/K Phono-Graphix Redirect
Computer Assisted Instruction Primrose Schools Repeated reading
Core Knowledge Preschool Project Approach Self-initiated augmentative
Sequence Project Construct communication treatment
Creative Curriculum Read, Play, and Learn! Shared book reading
ReadingLine Kits Stimulus control procedure
REL 2021–084 A-3
Storybook reading Teaching story grammar Verbal labeling responses
Sustained silent reading knowledge Video discourse intervention
Syntax program Teaching-script Written text cueing
Teaching phonological awareness Text-based software tools
Teaching rhyming Time delay

1. These curricula represent commercial products that have been identified by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). The WWC website includes
intervention reports for some of these curricula, but approximately 71 percent have not been updated in the past 10 years, as of June 28, 2017.
* indicates a wildcard character.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Box A3. Keywords for the outcomes search category, by subcategory

Language Speech Rhyme oddity
Cohesive adequacy Spoken language Rhyme production
Communicate Story Rhyming
Communication Story grammar Rime
Comprehend Subvocal Segment*
Comprehender Syntactic Segmentation
Comprehension Syntax Sound*
Comprehension monitoring Text structure Syllable*
Context clue Vocabulary Syllable blending
Discourse skills Syllable elision
Phonological awareness
Expressive Vowel*
Alliterate Word blending
Following direction
Alliteration Word completion
Grammar
Alliteration matching Word elision
Grammatical
Alliteration oddity
Language Print knowledge
Blend*
Language sample analysis
Blending AK
Lexical
Compound Alphabet*
Lexical diversity
Consonant Alphabetical
Listen
Delete* Book concepts
Listening
Deletion Concept of word
Mean length of utterance
Elision Concepts of word
Metalinguistics
Final phoneme elision Concept*
MLCU
Final sound Concept about print
MLU
Initial sound Concepts about print
Morpheme
Medial sound Concept of print
Morphological
Onset Concepts of print
Morphology
Onset rime blending Convention of print
Naming
Onset rime Conventions of print
Narrative
PA Directionality
Oral language
Phoneme Environmental text
Picture vocabulary
Phoneme blending Environmental*
Pragmatics
Phoneme blending into nonwords Left-to-right orientation
Productivity
Phoneme blending into words Letter case
Prosody
Phoneme elision Letter identification
Psycholinguistics
Phoneme isolation Letter knowledge
Recall
Phoneme manipulation Letter name
Receptive
Phoneme segmentation Letter names
Retell
Phoneme substitution Letter naming
Schema theory
Phonemic Letter recognition
Semantics
Phonetic Letter retrieval
Sentence completion
Phonological Letter sound
Sentence recalling
Rhyme* Letter sound correspondence
Sentence structure
Rhyme matching Letter sounds
Sociolinguistics
REL 2021–084 A-4
Letter-sound Phoneme-grapheme Signature
Letter-sound correspondence correspondence Spell*
Lowercase letter Phonetic Spelling
Phoneme grapheme Phonic Symbol
correspondence Phonics Write
Phoneme-grapheme Phonology Writing
correspondence Structural analysis Writing ability
Print awareness Syllable* Writing achievement
Print* Vowels Writing development
Punctuation Word list Writing expression
Sight* Word lists Writing fluency
Sound letter Word reading Writing name
Sound* Word recognition Writing readiness
Sound-letter Word* Written composition
Uppercase letter Written expression
Early writing
Word Written production
Composition
Decoding Dictation General literacy
Consonant* Direction Academic
Decode* Dot Achievement
Decoding Emergent writing Combined score
Grapheme* Encode Composite score
Letter sound correspondence Encoding Early childhood
Letter-sound correspondence Invented spelling Early*
Morpheme* Letter writing Language arts
Morphological Line Lexical*
Morphophonemic Linearity Lexicology
Orthograph* Mark Literacy
Orthographic Message Literacy*
Orthography Morphophonemic Readiness
Pattern recognition Name writing Reading*
Phoneme* Orthographic* Total score
Phoneme grapheme Scribble
correspondence Scribbling
* indicates a wildcard character.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Screening process and study eligibility criteria

The study abstracts and full reports of the 74,001 unique studies identified through the literature search were
screened for eligibility. Studies that were eligible for review met the following relevancy criteria:
• Study design. Studies must have used a randomized controlled design, quasi-experimental design, or a single-
case design.
• Publication date. Studies must have been published between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2017.
• Sample. Studies must have included a student sample that met the following criteria:
o Preschoolers. Children ages 36–71 months (that is, at least 3 years, 0 months old and not yet 6 years, 0
months old) who had not yet entered kindergarten and who were receiving school-, center-, or home-
based instruction delivered by a practitioner (for example, school- or center-based personnel, a speech-
language pathologist, or a paraprofessional). The review did not include studies that contained children
in kindergarten unless the study findings disaggregated the results for preschool children or preschool
children represented at least 60 percent of the children in the sample. Studies that provided children’s

REL 2021–084 A-5

 ages but not grade levels were reviewed when the mean age of the children in the sample was greater
than 36 months and less than or equal to 60 months.
o General education students. At least 50 percent of the children in each study were general education
students and were not classified as an English learner student or a student with disabilities (children with
a speech or language impairment were eligible for inclusion).
o Location of the intervention. The children must have attended a program in a country that is similar
enough to the United States that the study could be replicated in the United States (for example, in which
English is the predominant language).

Intervention types
The interventions considered for inclusion must have had a goal or goals of enhancing language, phonological
awareness, print knowledge, decoding, early writing, or general literacy performance (see definitions below); the
interventions could have had goals outside these domains as well. For example, a program that teaches language
and math was eligible for inclusion because one of its goals is language. Interventions must have been
implemented in a school- or center-based setting (for example, a child care center, school- or community-based
preschool, or other center-based early childhood setting) and delivered by a researcher or practitioner (for
example, school- or center-based personnel, a speech-language pathologist, or a paraprofessional). Interventions
implemented in a home-based setting or a clinic (for example, a speech-language pathology clinic) were excluded.
At least 75 percent of the language used during instruction must have been in English to be included. The program
might have included other components (for example, parent training, education), but only curricula and
instructional practices that fit the criteria above were included. Figure A1 demonstrates the decision tree for
categorizing intervention type.
Definitions and inclusion criteria for each intervention type are as follows:
• Curriculum. A set of activities, materials, or guidance for working with children that serves as the primary
instructional tool designed to meet children’s learning needs in multiple areas (for example, Creative
Curriculum) or that is designed as a supplement to the primary instructional tool (for example, At risk Tier 2:
Developing Talkers). A curriculum could—but did not have to—have a clearly identified name and included
home-based programs delivered by a practitioner (for example, school- or center-based personnel, a speech-
language pathologist or a paraprofessional). State and federally funded sources (for example, a state funded
prekindergarten program or Head Start) were excluded because different curricula and instructional practices
are used across sites receiving funding from the same source.

• Instructional practice. A specific teaching method that guides the instructional interaction with children.
Examples include dialogic reading and phonological awareness training.
• Lesson package. A set of lesson plans with a clearly identified name. An intervention that combined two or
more named interventions (for example, an intervention that combined Kindergarten Peer Assisted Literacy
Strategies and Developing Talkers) was also considered a lesson package.

• Technology program. A program that uses a form of technology (such as a computer or audio player) to deliver
instruction to students. An intervention was coded as a technology program when the intervention comprised
exclusively a single or multiple technology programs.
In the overall rating of effectiveness, the study team included any comparison that permitted the effects of the
intervention to be estimated. In some cases this meant that an entire curriculum, lesson package, instructional
practice, or technology program was compared with a business-as-usual comparison group (for example, a typical
preschool curriculum). In other cases this meant that the additive effects of a particular component of a practice
REL 2021–084 A-6
(for example, adult interaction during shared book reading) was examined in relation to the practice in absence
of that additive component (for example, shared book reading). It can also mean that one intervention was
compared with another.

Figure A1. Decision tree for categorizing intervention type

Does the entire intervention use

one or more technology programs
only?

If yes, If no, does it serve as the primary instructional

technology tool or a supplement to the primary instructional
program tool?

If yes, If no, does it include lesson

curriculum plans?

If yes, is it a named If no, instructional

intervention? practice

If yes, If no, is it composed of two or more

lesson package named programs?

If yes, If no,
lesson package Instructional practice

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Outcome domains
The primary outcome domains for this review are language, phonological awareness, print knowledge, decoding,
early writing, and general literacy. The structure of the outcome domains in this review are supported by research
evaluating the dimensionality of language and literacy constructs with prekindergarten children (Anthony &
Lonigan, 2004; Catts et al., 2015; Language and Reading Research Consortium, 2015; Puranik et al., 2011) and are
generally consistent with the predictive validity findings in National Early Literacy Panel (2008). Only direct
assessments and observations (for example, standardized and researcher-developed assessments) and teacher

REL 2021–084 A-7

ratings of child outcomes were eligible for review under this protocol. Outcomes must also be in English to be
eligible for review. Additional information about each domain is described below:
• Language. Includes outcomes in the areas described below:1
o Vocabulary. The development of knowledge about the meanings, uses, and pronunciation of words.
Vocabulary tasks include receptive vocabulary (words understood) and expressive vocabulary (words
used).
o Listening comprehension. The ability to understand spoken language or text read aloud.
o Syntax. The ability to display developmentally appropriate knowledge of the rules for combining words
into phrases and sentences. Measures of syntactic skill include both receptive tasks (selecting correct
responses) and expressive tasks (producing correct responses).
o Narrative understanding and production. The ability to comprehend the basic structure and elements of
stories, including the concepts of characters, settings, events, sequences, problems, and outcomes. It also
refers to children’s inclusion of these elements in their own oral narratives. Narrative understanding can
be demonstrated in a variety of tasks, including narrative production, retell, acting out of stories, and
specific responses to queries.
o Composite language. An outcome that encompasses more than one of the other language constructs.
o Not otherwise specified. An outcome that assesses a student’s ability to comprehend or use spoken
language but cannot be classified as any of the above constructs.
• Phonological awareness. Encompasses phonological and phonemic awareness. Phonological awareness refers
to awareness of larger spoken units such as syllables and rhyming words. Tasks of phonological awareness
might require students to generate words that rhyme, to segment sentences into words, to segment
polysyllabic words into syllables, or to delete syllables from words (for example, what is “candy” without
“dy”?). Phonemic awareness refers to the understanding that the sounds of spoken language—phonemes—
work together to make words and that phonemes can be substituted and rearranged to create different
words. Tasks of phonemic awareness include the ability to identify, think about, and blend the separate
sounds of a word (for example, “/c/ /a/ /t/ – cat”).
• Print knowledge. Includes outcomes in the areas described below:
o Letter knowledge. Knowledge of the names and sounds of the letters of the alphabet.
o Concepts about print. Knowledge of print, such as print carries a message; print has conventions, such as
directionality (left to right, top to bottom), differences between letters and words, distinctions between
uppercase and lowercase, and punctuation; and books have some common characteristics (for example,
author, title, front and back).
• Decoding. Knowledge that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes (the sounds in spoken
language) and graphemes (the letters used to represent the sounds in written language) and that such
relations can be used to decode or read words.

1 Measures from language sample analyses were included and categorized under the most appropriate language construct.
REL 2021–084 A-8
• Early writing. Includes outcomes in the areas described below:
o Letter writing. The ability to write letters.
o Name writing. The ability to write one’s own name.
o Spelling. The ability to use phoneme-grapheme relations or orthographic rules to write words.
o Written expression. The understanding that writing conveys meaning. These tasks could include attempts
to communicate information through scribbles, symbols, marks, letters, words, or sentences or
demonstration of the understanding that writing conveys meaning.
• General literacy domain. Includes outcomes that combine measures in two or more of the previous domains
(language, phonological awareness, print knowledge, decoding, and early writing) or two or more constructs
across domains or that provide some other type of summary score across domains or constructs, such as a
“total reading score” on a standardized reading test or a kindergarten readiness score.

Reviewing studies using What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards

Of the 74,001 unique studies identified by the search procedures, 357 met the eligibility criteria and were
reviewed using the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (version 4.0) for group design and single-case
design studies (What Works Clearinghouse, 2017a, 2017b). All reviewers were certified in the WWC standards,
version 4.0. Because the online study review guide for entering version 4.0 reviews into the WWC database as
required by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) for its contractors starting in late 2017 was not ready at the
time of these reviews, the study team could not use an official WWC protocol for the reviews. Consequently, the
reviews, while conducted using the latest WWC standards available at the time, were not entered into the
database of official WWC reviews maintained by IES. Therefore, the studies discussed in this report cannot be
described as meeting WWC evidence standards with or without reservations or as not meeting WWC evidence
standards. After the first reviewer determined the rating of a study, the study was independently reviewed and
rated by a second reviewer. A senior reviewer then double-checked the first and second reviews to ensure
accuracy and reconcile any differences between the two. Of the 357 studies that were reviewed, 109 were rated
as high-quality impact studies (figure A2). The summary of interventions described in this report includes only
interventions that two reviewers determined met evidence standards for high-quality impact studies.

REL 2021–084 A-9

Figure A2. The study team identified 109 studies, representing 132 interventions, that were rated as high-
quality impact studies; 37 of those studies, representing 38 interventions, demonstrated effectiveness on at
least one language or literacy outcome domain

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Of the 357 studies reviewed, 248 were rated by the study team as not meeting the evidence standards. Of those
248, 44 percent were unable to establish baseline equivalence for the analytic sample between the intervention
and comparison groups (table A1). Baseline equivalence must be demonstrated for randomized controlled design
studies with high attrition and for quasi-experimental design studies. Within each outcome domain, if any baseline
measure is considered nonequivalent, the entire domain is rated as lacking baseline equivalence. Studies with
multiple outcome domains receive a rating for each domain based on the establishment of baseline equivalence.
If a study does not demonstrate baseline equivalence across all domains, the study is rated as not meeting the
standards. About 38 percent of the studies rated as not meeting the evidence standards included a confound,
which means that the study findings cannot be attributed solely to the intervention. A confound can occur when
only one unit is assigned to one or all conditions or when the intervention was always used in combination with
another intervention. About 5 percent of the studies rated as not meeting the evidence standards did not meet
validity and reliability requirements, included outcome measures that were not collected in the same manner for
all participating children, or included outcome measures that were considered overaligned.

REL 2021–084 A-10

Table A1. Reasons studies were rated as not meeting the evidence standards, as determined by the study
team
Number of Share of total
Reason studies (percent)
Baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups used for the analysis was 108 44
not demonstrated.a
The measure of effectiveness could not be attributed solely to the intervention. There was 94 38
only one unit assigned to one or both conditions (confound).
The eligible outcomes did not meet requirements for validity and reliability.b 5 2
The outcomes were not collected in the same way for all participating children. 4 2
Overaligned outcome. 2 1
Did not use acceptable approach to address all missing data in the analytic sample. 4 2
No credible analysis of effect was included. 2 1
Single-case design study with insufficient data points. 22 9
Single-case design study with conditions for manipulation of the independent variable that 5 2
were not determined by the researcher.
Single-case design study with outcome that did not meet requirements. 2 1
Total 248 100
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding.
a. According to What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for group design, baseline equivalence should be demonstrated for quasi-experimental design
studies or high-attrition randomized controlled trials with some missing or imputed baseline data in the analytic sample. A study is rated as not meeting
WWC group design standards if baseline equivalence was not demonstrated in an outcome domain or if the analysis did not include an acceptable statistical
adjustment to meet the requirement.
b. According to WWC standards for group design, outcome measures must demonstrate sufficient face validity and reliability. To demonstrate face validity,
a measure had to be defined and had to assess what it was described as assessing. Reliability for group-design studies was assessed using the following
standards determined by the WWC: internal consistency (at least of .50), temporal stability or test–retest reliability (at least of .40), or interrater reliability
(at least of .50).
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Coding the description of the intervention in the 109 studies that met the evidence standards
The 109 studies that the study team determined met the evidence standards and their 132 included interventions
were coded by the study team according to a common set of codes. A code book was created to capture the
implementation characteristics and instructional features specific to each instructional domain. Study team
members were trained to reliably use the codebook.
Implementation characteristics

• What is the type of intervention? See the “Intervention types” section for the definition of each intervention
type (curriculum, lesson package, instructional practice, and technology program).
• What is the grouping/group size in which students experience instruction? One or more of the following were
selected: whole class (6 or more students and 80 percent or more of the class), large group (6 or more students
and less than 80 percent of the class), small group (2–6 students), or one on one.
• What is the total duration of the intervention? Coders noted the number of minutes each session lasted, the
number of sessions that occurred each week, and the number of weeks the intervention lasted. This
information was used to categorize the intervention into one of four categories: less than 2 hours, 2–25 hours,
26–50 hours, or more than 60 hours.
• Who implemented the instruction with children? One or more of the following options were selected:
researcher (including researcher assistant or hired staff), teacher (including classroom teacher, special

REL 2021–084 A-11

 education teacher, or teacher assistant), technology (with or without adult supervision), or other (including
speech-language pathologists, paraprofessionals, volunteers, or parents).
• Are written lesson plans provided for interventionists?
• Is professional development provided for interventionists prior to implementing the intervention? If yes, what
is the duration?
• Is ongoing support provided for interventionists during implementation of the intervention?
Instructional features

• Language
o Is connected text (for example, a book) present? Connected text refers to multiple sentences that are
related to each other. What type of book was used (ABC or narrative)?
o Does the intervention include children listening to read aloud text? Does the implementer ask students
questions pertaining to the connected text before, during, or after shared book reading?
o Which instructional components and techniques are included?
 Narrative text structure. Intervention focuses on story grammar or narrative text structures such as
character, setting, problem, resolution, or sequence of events.
 Expository text structure. Intervention focuses on expository text structures such as cause and effect,
information in sequence, or ordinal keywords.
 Comprehension, inference, and elaboration. Text is not required for comprehension interventions.
Interventions focusing on comprehension might include such instructional components as identifying
the main idea, connecting story to life, drawing inference from literal or nonliteral questions, or
passive listening. Instructional techniques might include modeling, asking questions by adults or
children, making a prediction, recalling or retelling a story, acting-out a story, making an oral or
written extension, or reading text to children.
 Vocabulary. Intervention focuses on promoting vocabulary by labeling, identifying, or pronouncing
vocabulary by adults or children. Other instructional activities might include providing a definition,
written exposure, systematic repeated exposure, oral text reading, or elaboration (for example,
synonym/antonym generation, category sorting, connecting to life, describing attributes, verb
demonstration, or providing example/nonexample).
 Morphology/morphosyntax. Intervention focuses on word parts and their roles and functions (for
example, “un” at the beginning of a word usually means “not”; adding “s” at the end of a word
typically means plural). Instructional technique might include modeling, asking question by adults or
children, making an extension, recasting, using gestures, retelling a story, or playing interactive games.
 Phrasal/sentence syntax. Intervention focuses on the formation of sentences and the associated
grammatical rules. Instructional technique might include modeling, asking question by adults or
children, making an extension, recasting, using gestures, retelling a story, or playing interactive games.
 WH- questions. Intervention involves responding and generating WH- questions (for example, who,
what, where, and when). Instructional technique might include modeling, question generation by
adults or children, using gestures, retelling a story, or playing interactive games.

REL 2021–084 A-12

  Extending/elaborating expressive language. Intervention focuses on supporting children’s expressive
language complexity. Instructional technique might include modeling, making an extension, recasting,
cloze elicitation, asking open-ended questions, or playing interactive games.
 Speech-production (phonology-related). Intervention focuses on eliciting speech-production to fulfill
a phonology-related instructional goal.
 Pragmatics. Intervention focuses on communicative rules such as turn taking.

• Phonological awareness
o Is connected text (for example, a book) present? What type of book was used? (ABC or narrative)
o What instructional tasks and sound units are taught? The instructional tasks might include blending,
deleting, substituting, identifying, matching or sorting, segmenting, or counting sound units. Other
instructional tasks include producing or reciting words that share the same sound unit. Sound units might
include first phoneme or onset, final consonant, vowel, body-coda, rime unit, syllable, or word.
o What is the sequence of intervention? The sequence could be specified by task or unit.
• Print knowledge
o Is connected text (for example, a book) present? What type of book was used (ABC or narrative)?
o What letter knowledge skills are taught? The intervention might focus on letter sounds, letter names, or
orthographic shape.
o What is the quantity of letter sounds or letter names taught? The quantity of letter sounds or names could
be either the whole alphabet or a subset of the alphabet.
o What is the sequence of letter names and sounds in the intervention if both are taught? The sequence of
skills could be letter name first, letter sound first, or simultaneous.
o What concepts about print are taught? The instructional activities might focus on the definition of author
or illustrator, book conventions (for example, front cover, text, or illustration), the directionality of print,
the use of punctuation, the one-to-one word-to-speech correspondence, and that print is what is read
and conveys meaning.
• Decoding
o Is connected text (for example, a book) present? What type of book was used? (ABC or narrative)
o What instructional tasks and unit are taught? The instructional task might include blending into words,
segmenting from words, or reading words. The units being manipulated might include single syllable or
multisyllable words (or nonwords).
• Early writing
o Is connected text (for example, a book) present? What type of book was used (ABC or narrative)?
o What instructional tasks and units are taught?
 Individual letter formation. Intervention focuses on individual letter formation by adults or children.
Instructional activities might combine adult- or child-generated and adult- or child-encoded letters.
Techniques used during the instruction might include copying or tracing.
 Whole word encoding. Intervention focuses on whole word writing in isolation by adults or children.
Instructional activities might combine adult- or child-generated and adult- or child-encoded words.
REL 2021–084 A-13
 Techniques used during the instruction might include copying, tracing, spelling, or letter by letter
dictation by adults.
 Connected text. Intervention focuses on sentence, phrase, or paragraph writing by adults or children.
Instruction tasks might combine adult- or child-generated and adult- or child-encoded text.
Techniques used during the instruction might include copying, tracing, spelling, or word by word
dictation by adults.

Calcluations of weighted effect sizes and confidence intervals

This section provides detailed information on how weights were applied to effect sizes based on sample sizes and
on the adjustments made to fixed-effects models to create random-effects models.
Weighting effect sizes. Prior to combining effect sizes across multiple samples, a weight was calculated for each
effect size (equation A1). The assumption is that effect sizes based on larger sample sizes will produce effect sizes
more similar to the “true” effect in the population than smaller sample sizes will. Therefore, effect sizes based on
larger sample sizes are given more weight when calculating the average effect size than effect sizes based on
smaller sample sizes (Cooper et al., 2009).
ଶሺ௡೔೅ ା௡೔಴ ሻ௡೔೅ ௡೔಴
𝑤௜ = (A1)
ଶሺ௡೔೅ ା௡೔಴ ሻమ ା ௡೔೅ ௡೔಴ ௚೔ మ

where 𝑤௜ is the weight for each effect size, 𝑛௜் is the sample size for the treatment (or intervention) condition,
𝑛௜஼ is the sample size for the comparison condition, and 𝑔௜ is the effect size estimate. The weight represents the
inverse of the standard error of the estimate.
The weighted effect size is then calculated as the sum of the products of the effect sizes and their weights, divided
by the sum of the weights (equation A2).
∑ೖ
೔సభ ௚೔ ௪೔
𝑔. = ∑ೖ
(A2)
೔సభ ௪೔

where 𝑔. is the weighted effect size, 𝑔௜ is the effect size for the ith comparison, 𝑤௜ is the corresponding weight
(equation A1), and k is the total number of effect sizes being combined.
The 95 percent confidence interval represents the range of effect size values within which the “true” effect is likely
to exist with 95 percent certainty (equation A3). If the calculated range of effect size values includes 0, the average
weighted effect size is indistinguishable from 0.
ଵ
𝐶𝐼௚.ଽହ% = 𝑔. ± 1.96ට∑ೖ (A3)
೔సభ ௪೔

௞
where CIg.95% is the 95 percent confidence interval, 𝑔. is the weighted effect size, and ∑௜ୀଵ 𝑤௜ is the sum of the
weights for the effect sizes being combined.
The confidence intervals in a random-effects model are calculated differently to account for additional possible
sources of error. In a random-effects model an alternative calculation is used to estimate effect size weights
(equation A4). All confidence intervals reported are based on random-effects models.
ଵ
𝑤௜ = (A4)
௦௘೔ మ ା ௩ොഇ

where 𝑤௜ is the random-effects weight for each effect size, 𝑠𝑒௜ is the standard error of the estimate, and 𝑣ොఏ is the
additional error component (see equation A5).
Adjustments for random effects. In this review, results are reported for the random-effects model. This analytical
model assumes that the “true” effect might vary from study to study. For example, the effect size might be a little
REL 2021–084 A-14
larger if the students are younger, if the students are at greater risk for reading difficulties, or if the study used a
more intensive or comprehensive intervention. The curricula, lesson plans, and instructional practices included in
this report represent a wide range of early literacy interventions. Although this review examined one
implementation characteristic or instructional feature at a time in its estimation of effects, there might still be
variability in interventions that share the same characteristics or features. Given the wide range of interventions
and implementation characteristics, the study team adopted the random-effects model for the analyses (Cooper
et al., 2009).
To account for random effects, an extra component, 𝑣ොఏ , is added to the standard error associated with an effect
size estimate. The inverse of the standard error estimate becomes the new weight for the effect. The formula for
𝑣ොఏ as reported in Lipsey and Wilson (2001) is:
ொି௞ିଵ
𝑣ොఏ = ∑ ೢమ
(A5)
∑ ௪ି൬ ∑ ൰
ೢ

where Q is the Hedges’ Q statistic, k is the number of effects, and w is the weights.
The Hedges’ Q statistic tests for homogeneity of effects and represents a test of the assumption that all effect
sizes are estimating the same population value. The Hedges’ Q statistic follows a 𝜒 ଶ distribution with k – 1 degrees
of freedom when effect sizes are estimating the same population value. A statistically significant Q statistic (that
is, one that exceeds the critical value for 𝜒 ଶ with the appropriate degrees of freedom) suggests that factors
associated with the particular samples might be affecting the effect sizes. Therefore, a significant Q statistic
provides justification to explore whether particular features of samples or research conditions might be related
to magnitudes of effect sizes (Cooper et al., 2009).
The method used to calculate Hedges’ Q statistic for this report is:
𝑄 = ∑ 𝑤௜ (𝑔 − 𝑔̅௪ )ଶ (A6)
where 𝑤௜ is the fixed-effect weight associated with the ith effect size, 𝑔 is the corresponding effect size, and 𝑔̅௪
is the fixed-effect weighted effect size estimate.
In practice, adding the additional error to the standard error has two effects. First, it reduces the impact of the
sample size weights on the weighted effect size. Second, it increases the confidence interval around the weighted
effect size, thereby making it less likely to find a significant effect.

References
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of
the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ655440.
Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C. S., Ziolkowski, R. A., & Montgomery, T. M. (2009). Effectiveness of early phonological awareness
interventions for students with speech or language impairments. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 107–128.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ847502.
Allen, A. C. (2016). A meta-analysis on the variables of storybook reading relative to early literacy development (UMI No.
10181450) [Master’s thesis, University of California Riverside]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Anderson, L. M., Shinn, C., Fullilove, M. T., Scrimshaw, S. C., Fielding, J. E., Normand, J., et al. (2003). The effectiveness of early
childhood development programs: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(3), 32–46.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00655-4.
Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The nature of phonological awareness: Converging evidence from four studies of
preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 43–55.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ684924.

REL 2021–084 A-15

Blok, H. (1999). Reading to young children in educational settings: A meta-analysis of recent research. Language Learning,
49(2), 343–371. http://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00091.
Blok, H., Fukkink, R., Gebhardt, E., & Leseman, P. (2005). The relevance of delivery mode and other programme characteristics
for the effectiveness of early childhood intervention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(1), 35–47.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ816095.
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic
review of the literature. Review of educational research, 80(2), 144–179. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ889128.
Breit-Smith, A., Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., & Kaderavek, J. (2009). How often and how much? Intensity of print referencing
intervention. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(4), 360–369. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ885272.
Burger, K. (2015). Effective early childhood care and education: Successful approaches and didactic strategies for fostering
child development. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(5), 743–760.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1082920.
Burger, K., & Winner, E. (2000). Instruction in visual art: Can it help children learn to read? Journal of Aesthetic Education,
34(3/4), 277–293. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ658285.
Burne, B., Knafelc, V., Melonis, M., & Heyn, P. C. (2011). The use and application of assistive technology to promote literacy
in early childhood: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 6(3), 207–213.
http://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2010.522684.
Bus, A. G., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental
training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 403. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.403.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on
cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579–620. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ888457.
Catts, H. W., Herrera, S., Nielsen, D. C., & Bridges, M. S. (2015). Early prediction of reading comprehension within the simple
view framework. Reading and Writing, 28(9), 1407–1425. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1074936.
Chambers, B., Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). Literacy and language outcomes of comprehensive and developmental­
constructivist approaches to early childhood education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 18(1), 88–
111. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573668.
Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Slavin, R. E., Smith, D., & Laurenzano, M. (2010). Effective early childhood education programs: A
systematic review. Center for Research and Reform in Education, 1-60. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED527643.
Chambers, B., Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2006). Effective preschool programs for children at risk of school failure: A best-
evidence synthesis. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (2nd
ed.) (pp. 347–359). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Christ, T., & Wang, X. C. (2011). Closing the vocabulary gap? A review of research on early childhood vocabulary practices.
Reading Psychology, 32(5), 426–458. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ946766.
Connor, C. M., Alberto, P. A., Compton, D. L., & O’Connor, R. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at
risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers
(NCSER No. 2014-3000). National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544759.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.).
Russell Sage Foundation.
Darrow, C. L. (2009). Language and literacy effects of curriculum interventions for preschools serving economically
disadvantaged children: A meta analysis. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED514949.
Darrow, C. L. (2010). Making sense of preschool research: A multi-paper dissertation on the implementation and effectiveness
of preschool curriculum interventions (UMI No. 769908272) [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database.
REL 2021–084 A-16
Diamond, K. E., Justice, L. M., Siegler, R. S., & Snyder, P. A. (2013). Synthesis of IES research on early intervention and early
childhood education (NCSER No. 2013-3001). National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER).
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544212.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness
instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ629253.
Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level
comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1–44.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ866970.
Filiatrault-Veilleux, P., Bouchard, C., Trudeau, N., & Desmarais, C. (2015). Inferential comprehension of 3–6 year olds within
the context of story grammar: A scoping review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 50(6),
737–749. http://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12175.
Fukkink, R. G., & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 294–311. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ782961.
Graham, S., Liu, X., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K. R., et al. (2018). Effectiveness of literacy programs balancing
reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(3), 279–304.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1183265.
Guo, Y., Wang, S., Hall, A. H., Breit-Smith, A., & Busch, J. (2016). The effects of science instruction on young children’s
vocabulary learning: A research synthesis. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(4), 359–367.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1102230.
Hosley, C. A. (2000). Early childhood education programs: A review of program models and effectiveness. Wilder Research
Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED440754.
Hsin, C. T., Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). The influence of young children’s use of technology on their learning: A review.
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 85–99. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1045554.
Jalongo, M. R., & Sobolak, M. J. (2011). Supporting young children’s vocabulary growth: The challenges, the benefits, and
evidence-based strategies. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38(6), 421–429. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ915821.
Kelchen, R., Magnuson, K., Duncan, G., Schindler, H., Shager, H., & Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Do the effects of early childhood
programs on academic outcomes vary by gender? A meta-analysis. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED517846.
Kunkel, A. K. (2015). The effects of computer-assisted instruction in reading: A meta-analysis (UMI No. 1724669047) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.
Language and Reading Research Consortium. (2015). The dimensionality of language ability in young children. Child
Development, 86(6), 1948–1965. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1079898.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New technologies in early childhood literacy research: A review of research. Journal of
Early Childhood Literacy, 3(1), 59–82. http://doi.org/10.1177/14687984030031003.
Lee, B. K., Patall, E. A., Cawthon, S. W., & Steingut, R. R. (2015). The effect of drama-based pedagogy on preK–16 outcomes:
A meta-analysis of research from 1985 to 2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 3–49.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1052099.
Lin, J. (2013). The effects of code-based literacy interventions on spelling achievement: A meta-analysis (UMI No.
1430900249) [Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
Ma, W., Adesope, O. O., Nesbit, J. C., & Liu, Q. (2014). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 901. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1049508.

REL 2021–084 A-17

Magnuson, K. A., Kelchen, R., Duncan, G. J., Schindler, H. S., Shager, H., & Yoshikawa, H. (2016). Do the effects of early
childhood education programs differ by gender? A meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36(1), 521–536.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.021.
Markussen-Brown, J., Juhl, C. B., Piasta, S. B., Bleses, D., Højen, A., & Justice, L. M. (2017). The effects of language-and literacy-
focused professional development on early educators and children: A best-evidence meta-analysis. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 38(1), 97–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.07.002.
Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word learning: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335. https://eric.ed.gov/?&id=EJ906930.
McCoy, D. C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K. M., Duncan, G. J., Schindler, H. S., Magnuson, K., et al. (2017). Impacts of early
childhood education on medium-and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 474–487.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1161123.
Mol, S. E., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2009). Interactive book reading in early education: A tool to stimulate print knowledge
as well as oral language. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 979–1007. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ879465.
Moses, A. M. (2008). Impacts of television viewing on young children’s literacy development in the USA: A review of the
literature. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1), 67–102. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ789997.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. National Institute
for Literacy. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504224.
Neale, D., & Pino-Pasternak, D. (2017). A review of reminiscing in early childhood settings and links to sustained shared
thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 641–665. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1150787.
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early
literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 255–267.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ677952.
Odom, S. L., & Strain, P. S. (2002). Evidence-based practice in early intervention/early childhood special education: Single-
subject design research. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(2), 151–160. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ666134.
Petersen, D. B. (2011). A systematic review of narrative-based language intervention with children who have language
impairment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(4), 207–220. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ931488.
Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruction.
Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8–38. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ871738.
Pidano, A. E., & Allen, A. R. (2015). The Incredible Years series: A review of the independent research base. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 24(7), 1898–1916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9991-7.
Puranik, C. S., Lonigan, C. J., & Kim, Y. S. (2011). Contributions of emergent literacy skills to name writing, letter writing, and
spelling in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 465–474. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ938476.
Reynolds, M., Wheldall, K., & Madelaine, A. (2011). What recent reviews tell us about the efficacy of reading interventions
for struggling readers in the early years of schooling? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
58(3), 257–286. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ949011.
Schweinhart, L. J. (2001). Recent evidence on preschool programs (ED No. 458046.) ERIC Digest.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458046.
Standley, J. M. (2008). Does music instruction help children learn to read? Evidence of a meta-analysis: Update. Applications
of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 17–32. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ811673.
Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading
comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77–96. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1083414.

REL 2021–084 A-18

Swanson, E., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Heckert, J., Cavanaugh, C., et al. (2011). A synthesis of read-aloud
interventions on early reading outcomes among preschool through third graders at risk for reading difficulties. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 258–275. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ923007.
Takacs, Z. K., Swart, E. K., & Bus, A. G. (2014). Can the computer replace the adult for storybook reading? A meta-analysis on
the effects of multimedia stories as compared to sharing print stories with an adult. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1366.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01366.
Towson, J. A., Fettig, A., Fleury, V. P., & Abarca, D. L. (2017). Dialogic reading in early childhood settings: A summary of the
evidence base. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37(3), 132–146. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1157849.
Walker, D. (2011). Evidence-based practice in early childhood intervention. In C. Groark, S. P. Maude, & L. A. Kaczmarek (Eds.),
Early childhood intervention: Shaping the future for children with special needs and their families (pp. 147–167). ABC­
CLIO.
Wasik, B. A., Hindman, A. H., & Snell, E. K. (2016). Book reading and vocabulary development: A systematic review. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 37(1), 39–57. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.04.003.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2005). WWC Evidence Review Protocol for Early Childhood Education Interventions, Version 1.0.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/24.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2009). WWC Evidence Review Protocol for Early Childhood Education Interventions, Version 2.0.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/24.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2010). WWC Evidence Review Protocol for Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children
with Disabilities, Version 2.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 9, 2017,
from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/30.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). WWC Evidence Review Protocol for Early Childhood Education Interventions, Version 3.0.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 9, 2017, from
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/24.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017a). What Works Clearinghouse procedures handbook version 4.0. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017b). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook version 4.0. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Zauche, L. H., Thul, T. A., Mahoney, A. E. D., & Stapel-Wax, J. L. (2016). Influence of language nutrition on children’s language
and cognitive development: An integrated review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36(1), 318–333.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.015.
Zucker, T. A., Moody, A. K., & McKenna, M. C. (2009). The effects of electronic books on pre-kindergarten-to-grade 5 students’
literacy and language outcomes: A Research Synthesis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 47–87.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842944.

REL 2021–084 A-19

Appendix B. Technical results
This appendix provides technical results pertaining to the primary research question and the additional
subquestions addressed in the body of the report. Specifically, this appendix includes tables that report findings
by study design (that is, group design and single-case design), details pertaining to the reported weighted effect
size estimates, and figures that depict the distribution of implementation characteristics and instructional features
among the 132 interventions that were evaluated by the 109 studies that the study team determined met the
evidence standards. Box B1 defines key terms used in this appendix.

Box B1. Key terms

Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A correction used to reduce the possibility of mistakenly concluding that the effects are
significantly different from zero (called Type I error in hypothesis testing) because repeated tests of highly correlated
measures in the same outcome domain can lead to inflated estimates of the effects.
Effective outcome. An outcome domain in a studied intervention that used a group design and demonstrated a statistically
significant positive effect after multiple comparisons were adjusted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction. This term
also refers to an outcome domain in a studied intervention that used a single-case design and demonstrated strong or
moderate evidence of a positive effect based on the criteria described in version 4.0 of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
standards for single-case designs (What Works Clearinghouse, 2017).
Group design. A study design in which outcomes for a group receiving an intervention are compared with outcomes for a
comparison group. Examples of group designs include randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs.
Inconclusive outcome. An outcome domain in a studied intervention that used a group design and did not demonstrate a
statistically significant effect after multiple comparisons were adjusted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction. This
term also refers to an outcome domain in a studied intervention that used a single-case design and demonstrated no evidence
of an effect based on the criteria described in version 4.0 of the WWC standards for single-case designs (What Works
Clearinghouse, 2017).
Not effective outcome domain. An outcome domain in a studied intervention that used a group design and demonstrated a
statistically significant negative effect after multiple comparisons were adjusted for using the Benjamini-Hochberg correction.
This term also refers to an outcome domain in a studied intervention that used a single-case design and demonstrated strong
or moderate evidence of a negative effect based on the criteria described in version 4.0 of the WWC standards for single-
case designs (What Works Clearinghouse, 2017).
Single-case design. A study design in which an outcome is measured repeatedly within and across different conditions that
are defined by the presence or absence of an intervention. Individuals serve as the unit of intervention and provide their own
control for purposes of comparison. Examples of single-case designs include multiple baseline designs and alternating
treatment designs.

Table B1. Number of interventions that taught each domain, by effect type
Domain taught
Phonological Print
Effect type Language awareness knowledge Decoding Early writing
Effective interventions 30 27 18 3 7
a a a a
Inconclusive interventions 53 15 22 2 4a
Not effective interventions 3 1 1 0 1
Interventions without an aligned outcome 26 17 27 6 18
Note: See box B1 for definitions of effect types. See table B2 for intervention categorization by study design (that is, group design and single-case design).
a. An effect size could not be calculated with the information provided for two interventions evaluating effectiveness on phonological awareness and for
one intervention evaluating effectiveness on each of the other domains; therefore, the findings were considered inconclusive.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-1

Table B2. Number of interventions that taught each domain, by effect type and study design
Domain taught
Phonological Print
Effect type Language awareness knowledge Decoding Early writing
Group design (n = 118)
Effective interventions 28 25 17 3 7
Inconclusive interventions 47a 12a 22a 1a 4a
Not effective interventions 2 1 1 0 1
Interventions without an aligned outcome 25 17 24 6 18
Single-case design (n = 14)
Effective interventions 2 2 1 0 0
Inconclusive interventions 6 3 0 1 0
Not effective interventions 1 0 0 0 0
Interventions without an aligned outcome 1 0 3 0 0
Note: See box B1 for definitions of intervention categorizations.
a. An effect size could not be calculated with the information provided for two interventions evaluating effectiveness on phonological awareness and for
one intervention evaluating effectiveness on each of the other domains; therefore, the findings were considered inconclusive.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Table B3. Instructional patterns among the 132 interventions evaluated by high-quality impact studies
Outcome domain assessed
Instructional domain
taught Number Percent L PA PK D W G
L only 50 38 49 6 5 6 5 6
L, PA, & PK 20 15 15 11 12 7 4 4
L, PA, PK, & W 14 11 6 11 11 5 2 1
L & PK 13 10 7 5 6 1 1 2
PA & PK 6 5 1 6 2 1 0 1
PA only 5 4 0 5 0 0 0 0
Taught all areas 5 4 2 4 3 4 4 1
PA, PK, & W 3 2 0 1 3 1 1 0
L & PA 3 2 1 3 1 0 0 1
L&W 3 2 3 1 0 1 1 1
PA, PK, & D 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0
PK & W 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0
L, PA, PK, & D 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0
L, PK, & W 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 0
PA, D, & W 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
L&D 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
D is decoding. G is general literacy. L is language. PA is phonological awareness. PK is print knowledge. W is early writing.
Note: See table B4 for instructional patterns by study design (that is, group design and single-case design). Percentages do not sum to 100 because of
rounding.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-2

Table B4. Instructional patterns among the 132 interventions evaluated by high-quality impact studies, by
study design
Outcome domain assessed
Instructional domain
taught Number Percent L PA PK D W G
Group design (n = 118)
L only 42 36 41 6 5 6 5 6
L, PA, & PK 20 17 15 11 12 7 4 4
L, PA, PK, & W 14 12 6 11 11 5 2 1
L & PK 12 10 6 5 6 1 1 2
Taught all areas 5 4 2 4 3 4 4 1
PA only 4 3 0 4 0 0 0 0
PA & PK 3 3 1 3 1 0 0 1
PA, PK, & W 3 3 0 1 3 1 1 0
L&W 3 3 3 1 0 1 1 1
PA, PK, & D 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0
PK & W 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0
L & PA 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 1
L, PA, PK, & D 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0
L, PK, & W 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 0
PA, D, & W 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
L&D 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Single-case design (n = 14)
L only 8 57 8 0 0 0 0 0
PA & PK 3 21 0 3 1 1 0 0
PA only 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0
L & PA 1 7 0 1 0 0 0 0
L & PK 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0
D is decoding. G is general literacy. L is language. PA is phonological awareness. PK is print knowledge. W is early writing.
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because of rounding.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-3

Table B5. Number and percentage of interventions that evaluated effects in each outcome domain among the
38 interventions that demonstrated effectiveness in at least one outcome domain, by study design
Group design (n = 34) Single-case design (n = 4) All interventions (n = 38)
Number of
Number of interventions interventions
demonstrating statistically demonstrating strong
significant positive or moderate Number of effective
Outcome domain effects Percent evidence of effects Percent interventions Percent
Language 14 41 2 50 16 42
Phonological 9 26 2 50 11 29
awareness
Print knowledge 12 35 1 25 13 34
Decoding 6 18 0 0 6 16
Writing 4 12 0 0 4 11
General literacy 4 12 0 0 4 11
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Figure B1. Flowchart for interventions that taught language exclusively

Interventions that taught

language exclusively

(n = 50)

Evaluated language Did not evaluate

language
(n = 49)
(n = 1)

Used a group design Used a single-case

designa
(n = 41)
(n = 8)

Included sufficient information Did not include sufficient

to derive an effect size estimate information to derive an effect
size estimate
(n = 38)
(n = 3)

a. In single-case design studies the effect sizes and statistical significance are not estimated; instead, visual analysis is used to evaluate the effectiveness of
an intervention. Single-case design studies are therefore not included in weighted effect size estimates.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-4

Figure B2. Flowchart for all interventions evaluated by high-quality impact studies

Interventions that met the evidence standards

(n = 132)

Used a group design Used a single-case

designa
(n = 118)
(n = 14)

Included sufficient Did not include sufficient

information to derive an information to derive an effect
effect size estimate size estimate

(n = 112) (n = 6)

a. In single-case design studies the effect sizes and statistical significance are not estimated; instead, visual analysis is used to evaluate the effectiveness of
an intervention. Single-case design studies are therefore not included in weighted effect size estimates.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-5

Table B6. Average weighted effect size on language outcomes among interventions that taught language
exclusively, by implementation characteristic
95 percent
confidence intervala p-value
Number of Standard Lower Upper
Implementation characteristic interventions Hedges’ gb error limit limit
Intervention type
Used instructional practices 26 0.43 0.10 0.23 0.63 <.001
Used lesson packages 3 0.17 0.12 –0.07 0.40 .17
Used curricula 6 0.02 0.07 –0.10 0.15 .72
Used technology program 3 0.16 0.14 –0.12 0.44 .26
Intervention duration
Intervention duration less than 2 hours 12 0.49 0.18 0.15 0.84 <.01
Intervention duration 2–25 hours 19 0.35 0.11 0.15 0.56 <.001
Intervention duration 25 –50 hours 0 na na na na na
Intervention duration more than 60 hours 7 0.06 0.06 –0.05 0.17 .29
Implementer typec
Teacher implemented instruction 13 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.21 .02
Researcher implemented instruction 18 0.39 0.12 0.16 0.62 <.001
Other implementer 5 0.20 0.12 –0.04 0.44 .10
Group size
Used one-on-one or small-group (two to 27 0.43 0.10 0.22 0.63 <.001
six children) instruction
Used exclusively large-groupd or whole- 11 0.10 0.05 –0.01 0.20 .06
class instruction
Professional developmente
Professional development with ongoing 15 0.20 0.10 0.01 0.39 .04
support
Professional development without 6 0.34 0.12 0.11 0.56 <.001
ongoing support
na is not applicable.
Note: Of the 49 interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on language exclusively, 38 were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient
information to derive an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. Of the remaining 11, 8 were evaluated using a single-case design in which
effect sizes were not estimated, and 3 were evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
c. Two interventions were implemented by the teacher and the researcher and are not represented in the table.
d. An intervention was coded as using a large group if children were working in groups of more than six and less than 80 percent of the whole class was
represented.
e. Two interventions did not provide any professional development, and 15 interventions did not provide sufficient information about professional
development.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

REL 2021–084 B-6

Figure B3. Weighted effect size estimates for untaught outcome domains, by domain taught
PA outcome PK outcome D outcome W outcome

0.80 0.44
Weighted effect size

0.60 0.33 0.30 0.22

0.11 0.27
0.23 -0.09
0.40 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.18 0.13 0.22
0.20 0.02
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
PA PK D W PA PKᵃ D W Lᵃ PKᵃ D W Lᵃ PA D W Lᵇ W Lᵇ PA PKᵇ D
Taught L only Taught L & one or Taught PA & one or Taught PK & one or Taught D, Taught W & one or
but not the domain more other domains more other domains more other domains PA, & PK more other domains
listed under each but not the domain but not the domain but not the domain but not but not the domain
effect size listed under each listed under each listed under each the listed under each
effect size effect size effect size domain effect size
listed
under
each
effect size

D is decoding. L is language. PA is phonological awareness. PK is print knowledge. W is early writing.

Note: The error bar represents the 95 percent confidence interval, meaning that there is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the
lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the weighted mean effect size is not statistically significant. For example, interventions that taught PA and
one or more other domains but did not teach decoding resulted in a significant weighted effect size of 0.23 on decoding.
a. A weighted effect size could not be estimated because only one intervention met the referenced criteria.
b. No interventions met the referenced criteria.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Figure B4. Flowchart for interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on language

Taught and evaluated language

(n = 86)

Used a group design Used a single-case

designa
(n = 77)
(n = 9)

Included sufficient Did not include sufficient

information to derive an information to derive an effect
effect size estimate size estimate

(n = 74) (n = 3)

a. In single-case design studies the effect sizes and statistical significance are not estimated; instead, visual analysis is used to evaluate the effectiveness of
an intervention. Single-case design studies are therefore not included in weighted effect size estimates.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-7

Figure B5. Presence of shared book reading with or without questions in the 86 interventions that taught and
evaluated effectiveness on language

Implementer
asks questions
No shared Shared book (n = 49)
book reading
reading (n = 67)
(n = 19)
Passive listening
(n = 18)

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Figure B6. Components of language instruction included in the 86 interventions that taught and evaluated
effectiveness on language

90
78
80
71
70
Number of interventions

60

50

40
32
30

20

10 4 3 2
0
Vocabulary Comprehensionᵃ Extending Speech Pragmatics Morphology
languageᵇ production

a. Language instruction focused on comprehension always co-occurred with vocabulary instruction.

b. All but three interventions also included vocabulary instruction.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-8

Table B7. Weighted effect size on language outcomes among interventions that taught and evaluated
language, by type of outcome measure
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Type of outcome measure interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Overall 74 0.19 0.03 0.12 0.25 <.001
Standardized 53 0.12 0.02 0.07 0.17 <.001
Researcher-developed 31 0.43 0.09 0.25 0.61 <.001
Note: Of the 86 interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on language, 74 were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient
information to derive an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. Of the remaining 12, 9 were evaluated using a single-case design in which
effect sizes were not estimated, and 3 were evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Table B8. Average weighted effect size on language outcomes among interventions that taught and evaluated
language, by instructional feature
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Instructional feature interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Included any shared book reading 59 0.20 0.04 0.12 0.27 <.001
Did not include any shared book 15 0.20 0.06 0.07 0.32 .002
reading
Included shared book reading with 42 0.26 0.06 0.15 0.37 <.001
questions
Included shared book reading 17 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.17 .03
without questions
Included both comprehension and 62 0.20 0.04 0.12 0.27 <.001
vocabulary
Did not include both comprehension 12 0.14 0.08 –0.01 0.30 .08
and vocabulary
Included vocabulary and extending 25 0.26 0.07 0.12 0.40 <.001
language
Included vocabulary but not 43 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.22 <.001
extending language
Note: Of the 86 interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on language, 74 were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient
information to derive an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. Of the remaining 12, 9 were evaluated using a single-case design in which
effect sizes were not estimated, and 3 were evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

REL 2021–084 B-9

Figure B7. Flowchart for interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on phonological awareness

Taught and evaluated

phonological awareness

(n = 43)

Used a group design Used a single-case

designa
(n = 38)
(n = 5)

Included sufficient Did not include sufficient

information to derive an information to derive an effect
effect size estimate size estimate

(n = 36) (n = 2)
a. In single-case design studies the effect sizes and statistical significance are not estimated; instead, visual analysis is used to evaluate the effectiveness of
an intervention. Single-case design studies are therefore not included in weighted effect size estimates.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

Figure B8. Phonological awareness tasks included in 43 interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness
on phonological awareness

Unknown
(n = 9)
Segmenting
(n = 2) Matching
One task (n = 1)
(n = 5)
Two or more
tasksa Identification
(n = 29) (n = 2)

a. Interventions included two or more of the following tasks: Identification, matching, blending, counting, segmenting, or production.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-10

Table B9. Average weighted effect size on phonological awareness outcomes, by domain taught
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Domain taught interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Phonological awareness 36 0.32 0.04 0.23 0.41 <.001
Language but not phonological 6 0.02 0.06 –0.10 0.14 .73
awareness
Language and print knowledge but 7 0.03 0.09 –0.14 0.21 .71
not phonological awareness;
language and early writing but not
phonological awareness; or language,
print knowledge, and early writing
but not phonological awareness
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Table B10. Weighted effect size on phonological awareness outcomes among interventions that taught and
evaluated phonological awareness, by type of outcome measure
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Type of outcome measure interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Standardized 27 0.28 0.04 0.20 0.37 <.001
Researcher-developed 12 0.43 0.11 0.22 0.64 <.001
Note: Of the 43 interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on phonological awareness, 36 were evaluated using a group design and included
sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. Of the remaining 7, 5 were evaluated using a single-case design in
which effect sizes were not estimated, and 2 were evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Table B11. Average weighted effect size on phonological awareness outcomes among interventions that
taught and evaluated phonological awareness, by instructional feature
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Instructional feature interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
c
Taught combination of tasks 27 0.38 0.06 0.26 0.50 <.001
Note: Of the 43 interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on phonological awareness, 27 were evaluated using a group design and included
sufficient information to derive an effect size, provided sufficient information to identify phonological awareness tasks, and are represented in the table. Of
the remaining 16, 9 interventions were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient information to derive an effect size but either did not provide
sufficient information to identify any phonological awareness tasks or taught a phonological awareness task that was coded as “other,” 5 were evaluated
using a single-case design in which effect sizes were not estimated, 2 were evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive
an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
c. A combination of tasks that includes one or more of the following tasks: identification, matching, blending, counting, segmenting, or production.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

REL 2021–084 B-11

Figure B9. Flowchart for interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on print knowledge

Taught and evaluated

print knowledge

(n = 42)

Used a group design Used a single-case

designa
(n = 40)
(n = 2)

Included sufficient Did not include sufficient

information to derive an information to derive an effect
effect size estimate size estimate

(n = 38) (n = 2)

a. In single-case design studies the effect sizes and statistical significance are not estimated; instead, visual analysis is used to evaluate the effectiveness of
an intervention. Single-case design studies are therefore not included in weighted effect size estimates.
Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-12

Figure B10. Print knowledge instructional features included in the 42 interventions that taught and evaluated
effectiveness on print knowledge

Letter name and sound instruction

Letter
sounds only
(n = 5)

Simultaneous
Letter (n = 19)
Letter names and
names sounds
only (n = 26)
(n = 5) Sequential
(n = 5)

Concepts about
print only Unknown
(n = 5) (n = 2)

Concepts about print instruction

Letter
names only
(n = 2)
No concepts Letter names
Concepts
about print and sounds
about print
(n = 26) (n = 9)
(n = 16)
Concepts
about print
only
(n = 5)

Sources: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-13

Figure B11. Print knowledge instructional materials included in the 42 interventions that taught and evaluated
effectiveness on print knowledge
20 18
18

Number of interventions
16
14 12
12 11
10
10
8
6
4
2
0
Books Letter cardsᵃ Picture cards Letter-shape
manipulatives

a. Letter cards are with or without pictures.

Sources: Authors’ compilation.

Table B12. Average weighted effect size on print knowledge outcomes, by domain taught
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Domain taught interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Print knowledge 38 0.23 0.05 0.13 0.33 <.001
Did not teach print knowledge 5 0.10 0.13 –0.15 0.35 .45
Phonological awareness and print 28 0.25 0.06 0.14 0.37 <.001
knowledge
Print knowledge but not phonological 10 0.09 0.07 –0.05 0.24 .22
awareness
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Table B13. Weighted effect size on print knowledge outcomes among interventions that taught and evaluated
print knowledge, by type of outcome measure
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Type of outcome measure interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Standardized 19 0.24 0.08 0.09 0.39 <.01
Researcher-developed 22 0.30 0.08 0.14 0.47 <.001
Note: Of the 42 interventions that taught and evaluated print knowledge, 38 were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient information to
derive an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. Of the remaining 4, 2 were evaluated using a single-case design in which effect sizes were
not estimated, and 2 were evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

REL 2021–084 B-14

Table B14. Average weighted effect size on print knowledge outcomes among interventions that taught and
evaluated print knowledge, by instructional feature
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Instructional feature interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Taught both letter names and letter 23 0.20 0.04 0.12 0.28 <.001
sounds
Taught either letter names or letter 9 0.16 0.06 0.03 0.28 .01
sounds but not both
Taught concepts about print 15 0.32 0.13 0.08 0.57 .01
Did not teach concepts about print 22 0.18 0.04 0.09 0.26 <.001
Note: Of the 42 interventions that taught and evaluated print knowledge, 38 were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient information to
derive an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. Of the remaining 4, 2 were evaluated using a single-case design in which effect sizes were
not estimated, and 2 were evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Figure B12. Flowchart for interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on decoding

Taught and evaluated

decoding

(n = 5)

Used a group design Used a single-case

design
(n = 5)
(n = 0)

Included sufficient Did not include sufficient

information to derive an information to derive an effect
effect size estimate size estimate

(n = 4) (n = 1)

Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-15

Figure B13. Decoding instructional features included in the five interventions that taught and evaluated
effectiveness on decoding
5

Number of interventions
4

2
2

0
Blending phonemes in words Segmenting words into phonemes

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Table B15. Average weighted effect size on decoding outcomes, by domain taught
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Domain taught interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Decoding, phonological awareness, 4 0.52 0.15 0.22 0.82 <.001
and print knowledge
Phonological awareness and print 13 0.22 0.07 0.09 0.36 <.001
knowledge but not decoding
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Table B16. Weighted effect size on decoding outcomes among interventions that taught and evaluated
decoding, by type of outcome measure
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Type of outcome measure interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Standardized 4 0.56 0.17 0.23 0.89 .001
Researcher-developed 2 0.45 0.15 0.16 0.75 <.01
Note: Of the five interventions that taught and evaluated decoding, four were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient information to derive
an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. The remaining one was evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to
derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

REL 2021–084 B-16

Figure B14. Flowchart for interventions that taught and evaluated effectiveness on early writing

Taught and evaluated

early writing

(n = 12)

Used a group design Used a single-case

design
(n = 12)
(n = 0)

Included sufficient Did not include sufficient

information to derive an information to derive an effect
effect size estimate size estimate

(n = 11) (n = 1)

Source: Authors’ compilation.

Figure B15. Early writing instructional features included in the 12 interventions that taught and evaluated
effectiveness on early writing
12

10
Number of interventions

8
8
7

4
3

0
Individual letter formation Writing whole words in Writing whole words in
isolation connected text

Source: Authors’ compilation.

REL 2021–084 B-17

Table B17. Average weighted effect size on writing outcomes, by domain taught
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Domain taught interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Early writing 11 0.32 0.13 0.06 0.58 .02
Early writing, phonological 6 0.41 0.14 0.14 0.69 .003
awareness, and print knowledge
Early writing but not phonological 5 0.18 0.24 –0.29 0.64 .45
awareness and print knowledge
Phonological awareness and print 6 0.33 0.09 0.16 0.51 <.001
knowledge but not early writing
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Table B18. Weighted effect size on early writing outcomes among interventions that taught and evaluated
early writing, by type of outcome measure
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Type of outcome measure interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Standardized 4 0.23 0.26 –0.28 0.75 .37
Researcher-developed 7 0.36 0.12 0.13 0.59 <.01
Note: Of the 12 interventions that taught and evaluated early writing, 11 were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient information to derive
an effect size estimate and are represented in the table. The remaining one was evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to
derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

Table B19. Average weighted effect size on early writing outcomes among interventions that taught and
evaluated early writing, by instructional feature
95 percent
confidence intervala
Number of Standard
Instructional feature interventions Hedges’ gb error Lower limit Upper limit p-value
Instruction focused on individual 8 0.35 0.13 0.11 0.60 <.01
letter formation
Instruction did not focus on individual 2 0.62 0.23 0.17 1.07 <.01
letter formation
Instruction focused on whole words 6 0.43 0.15 0.13 0.73 <.01
in isolation
Instruction did not focus on whole 4 0.34 0.18 –0.02 0.70 .07
words in isolation
Note: Of the 12 interventions that taught and evaluated early writing, 10 were evaluated using a group design and included sufficient information to derive
an effect size estimate, provided sufficient information to identify early writing instructional features, and are represented in the table. Of the remaining 2,
1 was evaluated using a group design that included sufficient information to derive an effect size but did not provide sufficient information to identify any
early writing instructional features. and 1 was evaluated using a group design but did not include sufficient information to derive an effect size estimate.
a. There is a 95 percent probability that the “true” effect size lies between the lower and upper limits. If the interval includes 0, the effect size is not
statistically significant.
b. Weighted mean effect size.
Source: Authors’ analysis of primary data collected for the review; see appendix E.

REL 2021–084 B-18

Reference
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook version 4.0. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

REL 2021–084 B-19

REL 2021–084

Appendix C. Effects of interventions by domain and type of outcome measure for the 132 interventions evaluated by high-
quality impact studies
Table C1. Effects of the 132 interventions evaluated by high-quality impact studies, by outcome domain, type of outcome measure, and study design
Phonological Print Early General
Language awareness knowledge Decoding writing literacy
Intervention RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S
Group design (n = 118)
Phonology with Reading (P + R) program (Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008) ○ ● ● ● ● ●
Nuffield Early Language Intervention—30 week (Fricke et al., 2013) ● ● ● ○ ● ○ ○
Jumpstart (Harris, 2010) ●a ○a ●a ●a
Emergent literacy intervention (Bailet et al., 2009) ● ● ● ○
Interactive reading and writing intervention (Thompson, 2015) ○ ● ● ○ ○ ○
Funnix Beginning Reading computer program (Stockard, 2009) ● ○ ○ ●
Letter manipulation plus articulation (Boyer, 2010) ○ ○ ● ●
Head Start REDI (Bierman et al., 2008) ● ● ○
Enriched literacy intervention (Ciancio, 2004) ● ●c
Stony Brook Emergent Literacy Project (Massetti, 2009)b ● ●
b
Rhyming/alliteration intervention (Yeh, 2003) ● ●
Integrated Phonics (Smith, 1998) ● ●
DLM Early Childhood Express supplemented with Open Court Reading Pre-K (Preschool
Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008h) ○ ○ ○ ○ ●
Nuffield Early Language Intervention—30 week (Fricke et al., 2017) ● ○ ○ ○
Tier 2: Intensive language- and code-focused intervention for children who qualified for
language-focused or language- and code-focused intervention (study 2) (Lonigan & Phillips,
2016) ● ○ ○ ○
Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum plus workshop and in-class mentoring (Lonigan et al.,
2011) ○ ○ ●
PAth to Literacy (Goldstein et al., 2017) ○ ● ○
Narrative Dynamics and story reenactment (Sa, 2012) ● ○
Educative curriculum material supports (Neuman et al., 2015) ● ○
C-1
REL 2021–084

Phonological Print Early General

Language awareness knowledge Decoding writing literacy
Intervention RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S
a
Interactive book reading (Wasik & Bond, 2001) ● ○
Professional development on responsivity education (Cabell et al., 2011)b ○ ●
Let’s Begin with the Letter People with mentoring (Assel et al., 2007) ○ ●
a a
Professional development with media-rich literacy supplement (Penuel et al., 2012) ○ ●
Writing using iPad and finger (Patchan & Puranik, 2016) ○ ●
Storybook reading with eliciting vocabulary questions (Walsh & Blewitt, 2006) ●
Storybook reading with noneliciting vocabulary questions (Walsh & Blewitt, 2006) ●
Responsive teaching and explicit instruction (Hong & Diamond, 2012)b ●
Storybook reading with questions (Zhou, 2014) ●
Storybook reading with ostensive questions and feedback (Langan, 2010) ●
Explicit expository book reading (Bochna, 2006) ●
Talk Boost (Lee & Pring, 2016) ●
Computer-assisted instruction (Lonigan et al., 2003) ●
Print-focused storybook reading (Justice, 2000) ●
Building Blocks for Literacy with distance mentoring (Lane et al., 2014) ●
Bright Beginnings curriculum (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008a) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Creative Curriculum (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008a) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Creative Curriculum (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008b) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Curiosity Corner curriculum (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008d) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Language-Focused Curriculum (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008g) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Literacy Express preschool curriculum (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium,
2008h) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Nuffield Early Language Intervention—20 week (Fricke et al., 2017) ○ ○ ○ ○
Ready, Set, Leap! (RMC Research Corporation, 2003) ○ ○ ○ ○
Ready, Set, Leap! (Davidson et al., 2009) ○ ○ ○ ○
Oral language intervention (L4R) (Haley et al., 2017) ○ ○ ○ ○
C-2
REL 2021–084

Phonological Print Early General

Language awareness knowledge Decoding writing literacy
Intervention RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S
Tier 2: Code- and language-focused intervention for children who qualified for code-focused
or code- and language-focused intervention (study 1) (Lonigan & Phillips, 2016) ○ ○ ○ ○
Dialogic reading and phonological awareness intervention (Lonigan et al., 2013) ○ ○ ○
Dialogic reading, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge (Lonigan et al., 2013) ○ ○ ○
Storybook reading, phonological awareness, and letter knowledge (Lonigan et al., 2013) ○ ○ ○
Dialogic reading and letter knowledge (Lonigan et al., 2013)b ○ ○ ○
Let’s Begin with the Letter People (Fischel et al., 2007)b ○ ○ ○
Waterford Early Reading (Fischel et al., 2007) ○ ○ ○
Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum + Pre-K Mathematics Curriculum + PATHS Explicit
(Lonigan et al., 2015) ○ ○ ○
Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum + Pre-K Mathematics Curriculum + PATHS Implicit
(Lonigan et al., 2015) ○ ○ ○
b
Phonological awareness training plus letter knowledge training (Pietrangelo, 1999) ○ ○ ○
Stepping Stones to Literacy (Nelson et al., 2009) ○ ○ ○
Universal Quality Literacy Practices plus PAVEd for Success program focus on phonological
awareness and explicit vocabulary enhancement practices (Schwanenflugel et al., 2010)b ○ ○ ○
Print awareness curriculum plus phonological awareness intervention (Gillis, 1998) ○ ○ ○
Letter name letter sounds intervention (Piasta, 2008) ○ ○ ○
Letter sounds only intervention (Piasta, 2008) ○ ○ ○
a a
Explicit emergent literacy intervention (Justice et al., 2003) ○ ○ ○a
Let’s Decode plus Moving on with Literacy (Callcott et al., 2015)b ○ ○
Let’s Decode (Callcott et al., 2015)b ○ ○
Oral language program (Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008) ○ ○
b
Library with additional supports (Neuman, 2017) ○ ○
Story Friends (Kelley et al., 2015) ○ ○
Talking buddies (Ruston & Schwanenflugel, 2010) ○ ○
Tier 2: Language- and code-focused intervention for children who qualified for language-
C-3

focused or language- and code-focused intervention (study 1) (Lonigan & Phillips, 2016) ○ ○
REL 2021–084

Phonological Print Early General

Language awareness knowledge Decoding writing literacy
Intervention RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S
a
At risk Tier 2: Developing Talkers (Zucker et al., 2013) ○ ○
Print-focused storybook read aloud with high-dose print referencing (Justice et al., 2010) ○ ○
Imagine Learning (Trotti et al., 2017) ○ ○
Waterford Early Learning (Trotti et al., 2017) ○ ○
Paper alphabet book reading (Willoughby et al., 2015) ○ ○
Writing using iPad and stylus (Patchan & Puranik, 2016) ○ ○
Environmental print (Neumann et al., 2013) ○ ○
Morphosyntax intervention (Tyler et al., 2003) ○
Storybook reading + retelling (Leung, 2008) ○
Storybook reading with scaffolding-like questions (study 2) (Blewitt et al., 2009) ○
Storybook reading with scaffolded questions and feedback (Langan, 2010) ○
Multimedia story reading with questions (Zhou, 2014) ○
Storybook reading with full scaffolded questions and comments (Palmiter, 2013) ○
Storybook reading with noneliciting vocabulary questions (Walsh, 2009) ○
Storybook reading with eliciting vocabulary questions (Walsh, 2009) ○
Storybook reading with eliciting vocabulary questions with full scaffolded questions and
comments (Wyant, 2008) ○
Storybook reading focusing on narrative (Callihan, 2003) ○
Digital storybook with interactive features (Kelley & Kinney, 2017) ○
Ladders to Literacy + Creative Curriculum (Russell, 2005) ○
Storybook reading with elaboration (Lima, 2008) ○a
Ready to Learn (Brigman et al., 1999) ○
b
Enhancing language and social skills using evidence-based practices (Esler, 2001) ○
Doors to Discovery (Christie et al., 2003)b ○
Emergent literacy intervention (Scott, 2005) ○
b
Dialogic reading (Lonigan et al., 1999) ○
C-4
REL 2021–084

Phonological Print Early General

Language awareness knowledge Decoding writing literacy
Intervention RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S
Words of Oral Reading and Language Development (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011) ○
Story Friends with embedded lessons (Goldstein et al., 2016) ○
Literate language intervention (Phillips et al., 2016) ○
My Sentence Builder (Washington et al., 2011) ○
Nonphonically decodable vocabulary with mixed teaching methods (Price-Mohr & Price,
2017)b ○
Music therapy activities with singing of books (Clouser, 2001)b ○
Tier 2: Intensive code- and language-focused intervention for children who qualified for code-
focused or code- and language-focused intervention (study 2) (Lonigan & Phillips, 2016) ○
Dialogic reading with emotion-laden storybooks (Mincic, 2009)b ○a
Phonological awareness training (Majsterek et al., 2000) ○
b
Computer-assisted instruction—Early Reading (Macaruso & Rodman, 2011) ○
Rhyme training (Desmond, 2008) ○
Whole-class phonological awareness training with supplemental small-group instruction
(Guidry, 2003) ○
Creative Curriculum with Ladders to Literacy (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research
Consortium, 2008c)b ○
CD-ROM (IBM’s Stories and More) (Talley et al., 1997) ○
eBook reading—Action (Gong & Levy, 2009) ○
eBook reading—Bouncing ball (Gong & Levy, 2009) ○
eBook reading—Violation (Gong & Levy, 2009) ○
Kindergarten Peer Assisted Literacy Strategies and Developing Talkers (Mannes, 2013)b ○a
Doors to Discovery without mentoring (Assel et al., 2007) ○
Phoneme segmentation training using letters to spell (O’Leary, 2017)b ○
Teaching Early Literacy and Language curriculum (Wilcox et al., 2011)b ○
Performance-oriented storybook reading (Witt, 2000) ○ ○
Read aloud fiction and nonfiction books (Cesar, 2013) ○ ○
C-5
REL 2021–084

Phonological Print Early General

Language awareness knowledge Decoding writing literacy
Intervention RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S RD S
b
Electronic alphabet book reading (Willoughby et al., 2015) ○ ○
Electronic picturebooks (Allison, 2016) ○ ○
Project Approach (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008i) ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Single-case design (n = 14)
Modified PAth to Literacy (Olszewski, 2015) ● ●
Book reading and Enhanced Milieu Teaching play (McLeod et al., 2017)b ●
Book reading and play sessions (Stanton-Chapman et al., 2012) ●
b
Multiple skill phonological awareness instruction (Lovelace, 2008) ●
Grammatically complete and incomplete prompts to imitate (Bredin-Oja, 2012) ○
Play sessions (Craig-Unkefer, 1999) ○
Peer play (Craig-Unkefer & Kaiser, 2002) ○
Milieu teaching strategy (Sheldon, 1997)b ○
Book reading and play (Stanton-Chapman, 2004) ○
b
Video self-modeling (Whitlow, 2003) ○
Phonological awareness instruction (Hsin, 2007) ○ ○
b
Phonological awareness intervention (Kruse, 2013) ○
b
Phonological awareness intervention (first sound identification) (Noe et al., 2014) ○
iPad instruction of target verb (Dennis et al., 2016) □
● is effective (see box B1).
○ is inconclusive (see box B1).
□ is not effective (see box B1).
RD is researcher-developed outcome.
S is standardized outcome.
Note: See appendix F for the complete citation associated with each study evaluating the interventions.
a. There is not enough information provided in the manuscript to calculate effect size.
b. Study was rated as a high-quality quasi-experimental study as opposed to a high-quality experimental study.
Source: Authors’ compilation.
C-6
REL 2021–084

Appendix D. Implementation characteristics of the 132 interventions evaluated by high-quality impact studies
Table D1. Implementation characteristics of the 132 interventions evaluated by high-quality impact studies, by study design and intervention type
Time Instructional domain Implementation
Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Group design (n = 118)
Curriculum
At risk Tier 2: Developing Talkers (Zucker et al., W, S 30 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ T √ √
2013) 10 sessions per week
for 4 weeks
Bright Beginnings curriculum (Preschool W 5 sessions per week More than √ T √ √
Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, for whole school year 60
2008a)
Creative Curriculum (Preschool Curriculum W 5 sessions per week More than √ T √ √
Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008a) for whole school year 60
Creative Curriculum (Preschool Curriculum W 5 sessions per week More than √ T √ √
Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008b) for whole school year 60
Curiosity Corner curriculum (Preschool W 5 sessions per week More than √ T √ √
Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, for whole school year 60
2008d)
DLM Early Childhood Express supplemented W 5 sessions per week More than √ √ √ T √ √
with Open Court Reading Pre-K (Preschool for whole school year 60
Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium,
2008h)
Doors to Discovery (Christie et al., 2003) W, S 5 sessions per week 2–25 √ √ √ √ T √ √
for 12 weeks
Doors to Discovery without mentoring (Assel W, S, I Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
et al., 2007) 60
Head Start REDI (Bierman et al., 2008) W, I 3–4 sessions per week More than √ √ √ √ T, O √ √
for 25 weeks 60
Language-Focused Curriculum (Preschool W Whole school year More than √ T √ √
Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 60
2008g)
D-1
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Let’s Begin with the Letter People (Fischel et W, L, S Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ T √ √
al., 2007) 60
Let’s Begin with the Letter People with W, S, I 26 weeks More than √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
mentoring (Assel et al., 2007) 60
Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum W, L, S 5 sessions per week More than √ √ T √ √
(Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research for whole school year 60
Consortium, 2008h)
Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum plus L, S Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
workshop and in-class mentoring (Lonigan et 60
al., 2011)
Phonology with Reading (P + R) program S, I 25 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
(Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008) 5 sessions per week
for 20 weeks
Ready, Set, Leap! (Davidson et al., 2009) W, S, I 90 minute per day for More than √ √ √ √ T, TECH+ √ √
the whole school year 60
Ready, Set, Leap! (RMC Research Corporation, I Whole school year More than √ √ √ TECH
2003) 60
Stepping Stones to Literacy (Nelson et al., S 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ √ O √ √
2009) 2–3 sessions per week
for 10 weeks
Teaching Early Literacy and Language L, S 150 minute sessions, More than √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
curriculum (Wilcox et al., 2011) 4 sessions per week 60
for 40 weeks
Waterford Early Reading (Fischel et al., 2007) L, S, I 15 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ T, TECH √ √
116 sessions in
30 weeks
D-2
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Instructional practice
Dialogic reading (Lonigan et al., 1999) S 10–15 minute 2–25 √ R √ √
sessions, 4–5 sessions
per week for 6 weeks
Dialogic reading and letter knowledge S 15 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ R √ √
(Lonigan et al., 2013) 5 sessions per week
for 32 weeks
Dialogic reading and phonological awareness S 15 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ R √ √
intervention (Lonigan et al., 2013) 5 sessions per week
for 32 weeks
Dialogic reading with emotion-laden S 10–15 minute 2–25 √ √ T √ √
storybooks (Mincic, 2009) sessions, 3 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
Dialogic reading, phonological awareness, and S 15 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ R √ √
letter knowledge (Lonigan et al., 2013) 5 sessions per week
for 32 weeks
Educative curriculum material supports W 10–15 minute 2–25 √ √ T √ √
(Neuman et al., 2015) sessions, 5 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
Electronic alphabet book reading (Willoughby S 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ √ R, U U
et al., 2015) 2 sessions per week TECH+
for 8 weeks
Emergent Literacy intervention (Bailet et al., S, I 30 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ √ √ R, O √ √
2009) 2 sessions per week
for 9 weeks
Emergent literacy intervention (Scott, 2005) W 15–20 minute 2–25 √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
sessions, 4 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
Enhancing language and social skills using L, S, I 5 sessions per week 25–50 √ √ T √ √
evidence-based practices (Esler, 2001) for 18 weeks
Enriched literacy intervention (Ciancio, 2004) I 15 sessions 2–25 √ √ √ R √
D-3
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Environmental print (Neumann et al., 2013) S 30 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ √ R U U
1 session per week
for 8 weeks
Explicit emergent literacy intervention (Justice S 30 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ √ O √ √
et al., 2003) 2 sessions per week
for 6 weeks
Explicit expository book reading (Bochna, S 11 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R
2006) 14 sessions in 5 weeks
Interactive book reading (Wasik & Bond, 2001) W, S 4 sessions per week 2–25 √ √ R, T √ √
for 15 weeks
Interactive reading and writing intervention L, 20–25 minute 2–25 √ √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
(Thompson, 2015) sessions, 4 sessions
per week for 13 weeks
Jumpstart (Harris, 2010) S, I 4 hours per week More than √ O √
for 30 weeks 60
Letter manipulation plus articulation (Boyer, I 2.48 hours on average 2–25 √ √ √ √ √ R U U
2010)
Letter name letter sounds intervention (Piasta, S 10–15 minute 2–25 √ √ √ √ √ R √ √
2008) sessions, 3–4 sessions
per week for 8 weeks
Letter sounds only intervention (Piasta, 2008) S 10–15 minute 2–25 √ √ √ √ √ R √ √
sessions, 3–4 sessions
per week for 8 weeks
Library with additional supports (Neuman, W, I Whole school year More than √ T, O √ √
2017) 60
Literate language intervention (Phillips et al., S 20–25 minute 2–25 √ √ R √ √
2016) sessions, 3–4 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
Morphosyntax intervention (Tyler et al., 2003) S, I 35–40 minute 2–25 √ √ O √
sessions, 2 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
D-4
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Multimedia story reading with questions I 2 sessions in 2 weeks Less than 2 √ R, U U
(Zhou, 2014) TECH+
Music therapy activities with singing of books L 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ O
(Clouser, 2001) 4 sessions per week
for 4 weeks
My Sentence Builder (Washington et al., 2011) I 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R, U U
1 session per week TECH+
for 10 weeks
Narrative Dynamics and story reenactment S 25 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R U U
(Sa, 2012) 2 sessions per week
for 8 weeks
Nonphonically decodable vocabulary with W Whole school year More than √ √ √ T √ √
mixed teaching methods (Price-Mohr & Price, 60
2017)
Paper alphabet book reading (Willoughby et S 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ R U U
al., 2015) 2 sessions per week
for 8 weeks
Performance-oriented storybook reading S 30 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R U U
(Witt, 2000) 3 sessions per week
for 6 weeks
Phoneme segmentation training using letters I 1 session for Less than 2 √ √ √ R U U
to spell (O’Leary, 2017) 15 minutes
Phonological awareness training (Majsterek et W 10 minute sessions, Less than 2 √ R
al., 2000) 9 sessions in 4 weeks
Phonological awareness training plus letter W, S, 30–35 minute More than √ √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
knowledge training (Pietrangelo, 1999) sessions, 22 sessions 60
per week for 12 weeks
Print awareness curriculum plus phonological S, I 10–15 minute 2–25 √ √ √ √ R U U
awareness intervention (Gillis, 1998) sessions, 2 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
Print-focused storybook read aloud with high- W 4 sessions per week More than √ √ √ T √ √
dose print referencing (Justice et al., 2010) for 30 weeks 60
D-5
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Print-focused storybook reading (Justice, S 5 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ R U U
2000) 3 sessions per week
for 8 weeks
Professional development on responsivity W 24 weeks More than √ T √ √
education (Cabell et al., 2011) 60
Professional development with media-rich W, S, I 34 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ √ √ R, T √ √
literacy supplement (Penuel et al., 2012) 5 sessions per week
for 10 weeks
Project Approach (Preschool Curriculum W, S 50–55 minute More than √ √ T √ √
Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008i) sessions, 5 sessions 60
per week for whole
school year
Read aloud with fiction and nonfiction books W 8 sessions in 8 weeks 2–25 √ √ √ R U U
(Cesar, 2013)
Ready to Learn (Brigman et al., 1999) W 2 hours per week 2–25 √ T √ √
for 12 weeks
Responsive teaching and explicit instruction S 15 minute sessions, Less than 2 √ √ √ R U U
(Hong & Diamond, 2012) 4 sessions in 2–3
weeks
Rhyme training (Desmond, 2008) S 15 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ T U U
4 sessions per week
for 7 weeks
Rhyming/alliteration intervention (Yeh, 2003) S 20–25 minute 2–25 √ √ √ T √
sessions, 2 sessions
per week for 9 weeks
Storybook reading + retelling (Leung, 2008) S, I 3 sessions per week 2–25 √ √ R, T √
for 4 weeks
Storybook reading focusing on narrative S 35 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R √
(Callihan, 2003) 2 sessions per week
for 10 weeks
Storybook reading with elaboration (Lima, W 3 sessions in 1 week Less than 2 √ √ T √
2008)
D-6
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Storybook reading with eliciting vocabulary I 4 sessions in 6 weeks Less than 2 √ √ R U U
questions (Walsh & Blewitt, 2006)
Storybook reading with eliciting vocabulary I 4 sessions in 6 weeks Less than 2 √ √ R √
questions (Walsh, 2009)
Storybook reading with eliciting vocabulary I 1 session per week Less than 2 √ √ R U U
questions with full scaffolded questions and for 3 weeks
comments (Wyant, 2008)
Storybook reading with full scaffolded I 2 sessions in 2 weeks Less than 2 √ √ R U U
questions and comments (Palmiter, 2013)
Storybook reading with noneliciting I 4 sessions in 6 weeks Less than 2 √ √ R U U
vocabulary questions (Walsh & Blewitt, 2006)
Storybook reading with noneliciting I 4 sessions in 6 weeks Less than 2 √ √ R √
vocabulary questions (Walsh, 2009)
Storybook reading with ostensive questions I 2 sessions Less than 2 √ R U U
and feedback (Langan, 2010)
Storybook reading with questions (Zhou, 2014) I 2 sessions in 2 weeks Less than 2 √ R U U
Storybook reading with scaffolded questions I 2 sessions Less than 2 √ √ R U U
and feedback (Langan, 2010)
Storybook reading with scaffolding-like I 4 sessions Less than 2 √ √ R U U
questions (study 2) (Blewitt et al., 2009)
Storybook reading, phonological awareness, S 15 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ R √ √
and letter knowledge (Lonigan et al., 2013) 5 sessions per week
for 32 weeks
Talking buddies (Ruston & Schwanenflugel, S 25 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R √ √
2010) 2 sessions per week
for 10 weeks
Tier 2: Code- and language-focused S 40 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ √ R √ √
intervention for children who qualified for 4 sessions per week
code-focused or code- and language-focused for 11 weeks
intervention (study 1) (Lonigan & Phillips,
2016)
D-7
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Tier 2: Intensive code- and language-focused S 40 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ √ R √ √
intervention for children who qualified for 4 sessions per week
code-focused or code- and language-focused for 11 weeks
intervention (study 2)
(Lonigan & Phillips, 2016)
Tier 2: Intensive language- and code-focused S 40 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ √ R √ √
intervention for children who qualified for 4 sessions per week
language-focused or language- and code- for 11 weeks
focused intervention (study 2) (Lonigan &
Phillips, 2016)
Tier 2: Language- and code-focused S 40 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ √ R √ √
intervention for children who qualified for 4 sessions per week
language-focused or language- and code- for 11 weeks
focused intervention (study 1) (Lonigan &
Phillips, 2016)
Universal Quality Literacy Practices plus PAVEd W, S Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ T √ √
for Success program focus on phonological 60
awareness and explicit vocabulary
enhancement practices (Schwanenflugel et al.,
2010)
Whole-class phonological awareness training W, S 15–20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R U U
with supplemental small-group instruction 4–5 sessions per week
(Guidry, 2003) for 6 weeks
Writing using iPad and finger (Patchan & S 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R U U
Puranik, 2016) 3 sessions per week
for 8 weeks
Writing using iPad and stylus (Patchan & S 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R U U
Puranik, 2016) 3 sessions per week
for 8 weeks
D-8
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Lesson package
Building Blocks for Literacy with distance W 6 months 2–25 √ √ √ √ T √ √
mentoring (Lane et al., 2014)
Creative Curriculum with Ladders to Literacy W 5 sessions per week More than √ √ T √ √
(Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research for whole school year 60
Consortium, 2008c)
Integrated Phonics (Smith, 1998) W, S, I 20 weeks More than √ √ √ √ √ √ T U U
60
Kindergarten Peer Assisted Literacy Strategies L, S 35–40 minute 25–50 √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
and Developing Talkers (Mannes, 2013) sessions, 4 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
Ladders to Literacy + Creative Curriculum W Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ T √ √
(Russell, 2005) 60
Let’s Decode (Callcott et al., 2015) W, 15 minute sessions, More than √ √ √ √ T √ √
5 sessions per week 60
for whole school year
Let’s Decode plus Moving on with Literacy W, S, 30 minute sessions, More than √ √ √ √ T √ √
(Callcott et al., 2015) 5 sessions per week 60
for whole school year
Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum + Pre-K W, S Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
Mathematics Curriculum + PATHS Explicit 60
(Lonigan et al., 2015)
Literacy Express Preschool Curriculum + Pre-K W, S Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ √ T √ √
Mathematics Curriculum + PATHS Implicit 60
(Lonigan et al., 2015)
Nuffield Early Language Intervention—30 S, I 45 minutes per week, 25–50 √ √ √ √ T √ √
week (Fricke et al., 2013) for 10 weeks then 120
minutes per week
for 20 weeks
D-9
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Nuffield Early Language Intervention—30 S, I 45 minutes per week 25–50 √ √ √ √ T √ √
week (Fricke et al., 2017) for 10 weeks then
120 minutes per week
for 20 weeks
Nuffield Early Language Intervention—20 S, I 120 minutes per week 25–50 √ √ √ √ T √ √
week (Fricke et al., 2017) for 20 weeks
Oral language program (Bowyer-Crane et al., S, I 25 minute sessions, 25–50 √ √ √ T √ √
2008) 5 sessions per week
for 20 weeks
Oral language intervention (L4R) (Haley et al., W 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ T √ √
2017) 3 sessions per week
for 15 weeks
PAth to Literacy (Goldstein et al., 2017) S 10 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ T √ √
29 sessions in 15
weeks
Stony Brook Emergent Literacy Project W Whole school year More than √ √ √ √ T √ √
(Massetti, 2009) 60
Talk Boost (Lee & Pring, 2016) W, S 30 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ T, O √
3 sessions per week
for 10 weeks
Words of Oral Reading and Language L 15–20 minute 2–25 √ √ T √ √
Development (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011) sessions, 5 sessions
per week for 12 weeks
Technology program
Computer-assisted instruction—Early Reading I 10 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ TECH √
(Macaruso & Rodman, 2011) 20 sessions
CD-ROM (IBM’s Stories and More) (Talley et S 10–15 minute 2–25 √ TECH+ U U
al., 1997) sessions, 12 sessions
total
Computer-assisted instruction (Lonigan et al., I 3–4 sessions per week 2–25 √ TECH+ U U
2003) for 8 weeks
D-10
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Digital storybook with interactive features I 3 sessions in 2 weeks Less than 2 √ √ TECH+ U U
(Kelley & Kinney, 2017)
eBook reading—Action (Gong & Levy, 2009) I 12–15 minute Less than 2 √ √ TECH+ U U
sessions, 6 sessions in
4 weeks
eBook reading—Bouncing ball (Gong & Levy, I 10–15 minute Less than 2 √ √ TECH+ U U
2009) sessions, 6 sessions in
4 weeks
eBook reading—Violation (Gong & Levy, 2009) I 11–15 minute Less than 2 √ √ TECH+ U U
sessions, 6 sessions in
4 weeks
Electronic picturebooks (Allison, 2016) I 12 weeks 25–50 √ √ TECH √
Funnix Beginning Reading computer program I 30 minute sessions, More than √ √ √ √ √ √ TECH+ √ √
(Stockard, 2009) 5 sessions per week 60
for 32 weeks
Imagine Learning (Trotti et al., 2017) I 15 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ TECH U U
5 sessions per week
for 16 weeks
Story Friends (Kelley et al., 2015) I 8–10 minute sessions, 2–25 √ TECH+ U U
3–4 sessions per week
for 12 weeks
Story Friends with embedded lessons I 9–12 minute sessions, 2–25 √ TECH+ U U
(Goldstein et al., 2016) 1–3 sessions per week
for 26 weeks
Waterford Early Learning (Trotti et al., 2017) I 15 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ TECH U U
5 sessions per week
for 16 weeks
D-11
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Single-case design (n = 14)
Instructional practice
Book reading and Enhanced Milieu Teaching I 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R U U
play (McLeod et al., 2017) 13–21 sessions

Book reading and play (Stanton-Chapman, S 30 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R √

2004) 11 sessions
Book reading and play sessions (Stanton- S 20–25 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R U U
Chapman et al., 2012) 15 sessions
Grammatically complete and incomplete I 25 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R U U
prompts to imitate (Bredin-Oja, 2012) 7 sessions
iPad instruction of target verb (Dennis et al., S, I 10 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R √
2016) 7 sessions in 7 weeks
Milieu teaching strategy (Sheldon, 1997) I 10 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ R U U
23 sessions in
12 weeks
Modified PAth to Literacy (Olszewski, 2015) I 3–16 sessions 2–25 √ √ √ R √ √
Multiple skill phonological awareness I 4–11 sessions 2–25 √ R √
instruction (Lovelace, 2008)
Peer play (Craig-Unkefer & Kaiser, 2002) S 20 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R U U
14 sessions in 9 weeks
Phonological awareness instruction (Hsin, I 15 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ R √
2007) 23 sessions in 5 weeks
Phonological awareness intervention (first S 15–20 minute 2–25 √ √ √ R √
sound identification) (Noe et al., 2014) sessions, 24 sessions
in 8 weeks
Phonological awareness intervention (Kruse, S 10–15 minute sessions, 2–25 √ √ √ R √
2013) 26–36 sessions
in 12.5 weeks
Play Sessions (Craig-Unkefer, 1999) S 18 minute sessions, 2–25 √ R √
17 sessions
D-12
REL 2021–084

Time Instructional domain Implementation

Total
instruction Lesson Interven Prior PD Ongoing
Intervention name Grouping Intensity and duration (hours) L PA PK D W plan -tionist provided support
Technology program
Video self-modeling (Whitlow, 2003) I 4 sessions Less than 2 √ TECH+ U U
Grouping: I is one on one, L is large group, S is small group, W is whole class.
Instructional domain: D is decoding, L is language, PA is phonological awareness, PK is print knowledge, W is early writing.
Interventionist: O is speech-language pathologist, paraprofessional, volunteer, or parent; R is researcher; T is teacher; TECH is technology; TECH+ is technology with adult supervision.
Prior professional development (PD) provided: U is unknown.
Ongoing support: U is unknown.
Source: Authors’ compilation.
D-13
REL 2021–084

Appendix E. Research basis for the 109 high-quality impact studies

Table E1. Research basis for the 95 group design studies that the study team determined met the evidence standards
Nature of Effect Significant
Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Allison, J. C. (2016). Electronic Cluster Electronic Business as 67 students PA S GRTR: Phonological 0.07
picture books: Do they support the RCT picturebooks usual in 4 childcare awareness
construction of print knowledge in centers PK S GRTR: Print –0.26
young emergent literacy learners? knowledge
(Order No. 10193515) [Doctoral
dissertation, Temple University].
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database.
Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. Cluster Let’s Begin with Business as 261 students L S Preschool Language 0.02
R., & Gunnewig, S. (2007). An RCT the Letter usual in 13 schools Scale-IV: Auditory
evaluation of curriculum, setting, People with comprehension
and mentoring on the performance mentoring Expressive Vocabulary –0.10
of children enrolled in pre­ Test: Expressive
kindergarten. Reading and Writing, vocabulary and word
20(5), 463–494. retrieval
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ774756.
259 students D S WJ: Letter-word 0.34 *
in 13 schools identification
Doors to Business as 270 students D S WJ: Letter-word –0.08
Discovery usual in 13 schools identification
without
mentoring
E-1
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Bailet, L. L., Repper, K. K., Piasta, S. Cluster Emergent Business as About L S Year 1 GGG: Picture 0.47 **
B., & Murphy, S. P. (2009). Emergent RCT literacy usual 185 students naming
literacy intervention for intervention in 38 private Year 2 TOPEL: –0.03
prekindergarteners at risk for preschool and Vocabulary
reading failure. Journal of Learning childcare centers
Disabilities, 42(4), 336–355. in year 1; PA S Year 1 GGG: 0.45 **
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ843696. about Alliteration
252 students Year 1 GGG: Rhyming 0.38
in 72 private
Year 2 TOPEL: Elision –0.02
preschool and
childcare centers Year 2 TOPEL: 0.23
in year 2; Blending
about Year 3 TOPEL: Elision 0.09
370 students
in 102 private Year 3 TOPEL: 0.35 **
preschool and Blending
childcare centers Year 3 Assessment of 0.24
in year 3 Literacy and
Language: Rhyme
knowledge
PK S Year 2 TOPEL: Print 0.48 **
knowledge
Year 3 TOPEL: Print 0.12
knowledge
G S Year 1 GRTR 0.38
Year 2 GRTR 0.28
Year 3 GRTR 0.22
E-2
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Cluster Head Start Business as 336 students L S EOWPVT 0.18
Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., RCT REDI usual in 44 Head Start TOLD: Grammatical 0.28 *
Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., Nelson, classrooms understanding
K. E., & Gill, S. (2008). Promoting
academic and social-emotional TOLD: Sentence –0.13
school readiness: The head start imitation
REDI program. Child Development, PA S TOPEL: Blending 0.37 ***
79(6), 1802–1817.
TOPEL: Elision 0.28 *
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ818718.
PK S TOPEL: Print 0.11
knowledge
Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. RCT Storybook Storybook 33 students L RD New Word 0.11
E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading with reading with in 4 preschools Comprehension Test
reading: When and how questions scaffolding-like scaffolding- New Word Definition 0.76
affect young children’s word questions like Test
learning. Journal of Educational (study 2) questions
Psychology, 101(2), 294.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ835037.
Bochna, C. R. (2006). The impact of RCT Explicit Storybook 36 students L RD Main idea free recall –0.02
instruction in text structure on expository reading in 3 Head Start Main idea prompted 0.22
listening comprehension in book reading centers recall
preschool age students (UMI No.
3378045) [Doctoral dissertation, The Topic prompted recall 1.35 ***
Pennsylvania State University]).
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database.
E-3
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., RCT Phonology with Oral 142 students PA RD Sound isolation task— 0.10
Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J. Reading (P + R) language in 19 schools initial phoneme
M., Miles, J., Gotz, C., & Hulme, C. program program component
(2008). Improving early language S TOPA: Phoneme 0.82 ***
and literacy skills: Differential segmentation,
effects of an oral language versus a blending, deletion
phonology with reading
intervention. Journal of Child Phonological abilities 0.22
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), test
422–432. PK RD Letter identification 0.42 *
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ812879.
D RD Prose reading 0.44 **
accuracy
S Early Word 0.43 *
Recognition Test
W RD Spelling items correct 0.50 **
Spelling percent 0.25
consonants correct
Oral language Phonology 142 students L RD Listening 0.11
program with in 19 schools comprehension
Reading (P + S APT: Grammar 0.38
R) program
The Bus Story: 0.30
Average sentence
length
The Bus Story: 0.24
Narrative skill
E-4
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Boyer, N. E. (2010). Phonemic RCT Letter Letter 40 students PA RD Phoneme 0.70
awareness instruction: Effects of manipulation manipulatio in 6 classrooms segmentation—words
letter manipulation and articulation plus n only in 2 private Phoneme 0.54
training on learning to read and articulation preschools segmentation—
spell (UMI No. 3426368) [Doctoral sounds
dissertation, The City University of
New York]. ProQuest Dissertations & PK RD Letter-sound task 0.32
Theses database. D RD Nonword reading task 0.84 *
W RD Developmental 0.81 *
spelling task—
nonwords
Developmental 0.85 *
spelling task—sounds
Brigman, G., Lane, D., Switzer, D., Cluster Ready to Learn Business as 145 students L S Metropolitan 0.07
Lane, D., & Lawrence, R. (1999). RCT usual in 10 classrooms Readiness Test:
Teaching children school success in 3 preschool Combined auditory
skills. The Journal of Educational centers memory and school
Research, 92(6), 323–329. language and listening
http://doi.org/10.1080/0022067990 subtests
9597615. Metropolitan 0.70
Readiness Test: Story
structure
Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. Cluster Professional Business as 235 students L S PPVT-III 0.12
B., Curenton, S. M., Wiggins, A., RCT development usual in 49 classrooms CELF Preschool-2: 0.03
Turnbull, K. P., & Petscher, Y. (2011). on responsivity in 38 Head Start Expressive vocabulary
The impact of teacher responsivity education centers and public
education on preschoolers’ elementary PK S PWPA 0.40 **
language and literacy skills. schools
American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 20(4), 315–
330.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ946267.
E-5
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Callcott, D., Hammond, L., & Hill, S. Cluster Let’s Decode Business as 163 students PA S TOPA 0.48
(2015). The synergistic effect of QED plus Moving on usual in 16 classrooms W S WRAT–Revised: 0.58
teaching a combined explicit with Literacy in 8 primary Spelling
movement and phonological schools
awareness program to preschool Let’s Decode Business as 146 students PA S TOPA 0.44
aged students. Early Childhood usual in 16 classrooms
Education Journal, 43(3), 201–211. W S WRAT–Revised: 0.30
in 8 primary Spelling
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1055702. schools
Callihan, K. D. (2003). Emergent RCT Storybook Storybook 4 students L RD Lexical richness 0.81
literacy activities in preschool years: reading reading in 1 daycare Percentage of –1.03
The effects of explicit instruction on focusing on focusing on center completed cohesive
rhyming and narrative development narrative rhyme ties used
(UMI No. 1418524) [Master’s thesis,
Marshall University]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database.
Cesar, R. (2013). Read alouds in the RCT Read aloud Read Aloud 30 students L S Kaufman Survey of –0.53
preschool classroom: A tool for program with program in 1 preschool Early Academic and
developing pre-emergent fiction and with fiction Language Skills
vocabulary, print awareness, and nonfiction books PA S PALS-PreK –0.05
comprehension skills (UMI No. books
3578578) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Phoenix]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database.
Christie, J., Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., Cluster Doors to Business as 53 students L S PPVT 0.45
& Han, M. (2003). The effects of a QED Discovery usual in 5 classrooms
well-designed literacy program on in 5 preschools
young children’s language and
literacy development. In F. Lamb-
Parker, J. Hagan, R. Robinson, & H.
Rhee (Eds.), The first eight years,
Pathways to the future: Implications
for research, policy, and practice,
Head Start’s Sixth National Research
Conference (pp. 453–454). Columbia
University, Mailman School of Public
Health.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED474955.
E-6
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Ciancio, D. J. (2004). Early RCT Enriched Storybook 106 students PA RD Rhyme matching 1.71 ***
intervention: Effects of behavioral literacy reading in 7 Head Start Rhyme detection 1.19 ***
regulation on learning and emerging intervention classrooms
self-competence (UMI No. 3116629) PK RD Letter name 1.20 ***
[Doctoral dissertation, University of knowledge
Notre Dame]. ProQuest Letter sound –0.45 *
Dissertations & Theses database. knowledge
Clouser, K. F. (2001). The effects of QED Music therapy Music 50 students L S PPVT–Revised 0.22
setting storybooks’ texts to music on activities with therapy in 4 preschools
story comprehension, vocabulary, singing of activities
and attitude towards reading in books with reading
preschool children [Unpublished of books
master’s thesis, Florida State
University].
Davidson, M. R., Fields, M. K., & Cluster Ready, Set, Business as 254 students L S PPVT-III 0.01
Yang, J. (2009). A randomized trial RCT Leap! usual in 17 public PA S CTOPP: Blending 0.18
study of a preschool literacy elementary
curriculum: The importance of schools DIBELS: Initial sound 0.16
implementation. Journal of Research fluency
on Educational Effectiveness, 2(3), WJ-III: Rhyming 0.09
177–208.
PK S DIBELS: Letter naming –0.06
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ866975.
fluency
D S WJ: Letter-word 0.10
identification
Desmond, S. K. (2008). The effects of RCT Rhyme training Math About 60 students PA S PIPA: Sound 0.28
rhyme on phonological sensitivities manipulativ in 5 public segmentation
(UMI No. 3326012) [Doctoral e preschool PIPA: Sound isolation –0.22
dissertation, Seattle Pacific Intervention classrooms
University]. ProQuest Dissertations PIPA: Alliteration 0.13
& Theses database. awareness
PIPA: Rhyme 0.45
awareness
E-7
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Esler, A. N. (2001). Children at the Cluster Enhancing Business as 46 students L S Test of Early Language 0.75
venter: Promoting child RCT language and usual in 7 classrooms Development-3
development through evidence- social skills in 6 childcare
based practice (UMI No. 9997644) using evidence- centers
[Master’s thesis, University of based practices
Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses database.
Fischel, J. E., Bracken, S. S., Fuchs- Cluster Let’s Begin with Business as 335 students L S PPVT-III 0.20
Eisenberg, A., Spira, E. G., Katz, S., & RCT the Letter usual in 23 Head Start D S WJ–Revised: Letter- 0.30
Shaller, G. (2007). Evaluation of People classrooms word Identification
curricular approaches to enhance
preschool early literacy skills. 228 students W S WJ–Revised: Dictation 0.37
Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), in 23 Head Start
471–501. classrooms
http://doi.org/10.1080/1086296070 Waterford Business as 322 students L S PPVT-III 0.06
1675333. Early Reading usual in 23 Head Start D S WJ–Revised: Letter- 0.12
classrooms word Identification
277 students W S WJ–Revised: Dictation 0.04
in 23 Head Start
classrooms
E-8
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Fricke, S., Bowyer-Crane, C., Haley, RCT Nuffield Early Business as 166 students L RD Listening 0.27
A. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. Language usual in 15 nursery comprehension
(2013). Efficacy of language Intervention— schools Narrative mean length 0.24
intervention in the early years. 30 week utterances
Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 54(3), 280–290. Narrative number of 0.48 **
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012716. words
Narrative number of 0.41 **
different words
S CELF Preschool-2 0.44 **
Expressive vocabulary
CELF Preschool-2 0.13
Sentence structure
APT: Information 0.44 **
APT: Grammar 0.88 ***
PA RD Alliteration matching 0.51 **
S YARC: Sound isolation 0.16
PK RD Letter sounds 0.31 *
D S YARC: Early word 0.16
reading
W RD Spelling 0.22
E-9
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Fricke, S., Burgoyne, K., Bowyer- RCT Nuffield Early Business as 234 students L RD Listening 0.26 *
Crane, C., Kyriacou, M., Zosimidou, Language usual in 34 nursery comprehension
A., Maxwell, L., Lervåg, A., Snowling, Intervention— schools S CELF Preschool-2: 0.23
M. J., & Hulme, C. (2017). The 30 week Expressive vocabulary
efficacy of early language
intervention in mainstream school CELF Preschool-2: 0.02
settings: A randomized controlled Sentence structure
trial. Journal of Child Psychology and BPVS 0.19
Psychiatry, 58(10), 1141–1151.
APT: Information 0.05
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1154623.
APT: Grammar 0.19
PK S YARC: Letter-sound 0.19
knowledge
D S YARC: Early word –0.03
reading
Nuffield Early Business as 242 students L RD Listening 0.10
Language usual in 30 nursery comprehension
Intervention— schools S CELF: Expressive 0.21
20 week vocabulary
CELF: Sentence 0.20
structure
BPVS 0.09
APT: Information 0.23
APT: Grammar 0.21
PK S YARC: Letter-sound –0.07
knowledge
D S YARC: Early word 0.15
reading
E-10
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Gillis, M. B. (1998). Evidence for the RCT Print Print 37 students PA RD Rubin’s test of 0.55
language basis of reading awareness awareness in 1 public rhyming awareness
disabilities in preschool children curriculum plus curriculum preschool S Test of Awareness of 0.61
(UMI No. 9907066) [Doctoral phonological Language Segments
dissertation, University of awareness
Louisville]. ProQuest Dissertations & intervention PK RD Clay’s (1975) Stones: 0.29
Theses database. The Concepts About
Print Test
Goldstein, H., Kelley, E., Greenwood, Cluster Story Friends Story 154 students L S CELF Preschool 0.12
C., McCune, L., Carta, J., Atwater, J., RCT with embedded Friends in 32 public school PPVT-IV 0.17
Guerrero, G., McCarthy, T., lessons without prekindergarten
Schneider, N., & Spencer, T. (2016). embedded classrooms
Embedded instruction improves lessons
vocabulary learning during
automated storybook reading
among high-risk preschoolers.
Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 59(3), 484–500.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577031.
Goldstein, H., Olszewski, A., Haring, Cluster PAth to Story 104 students L S CELF Preschool-2 –0.20
C., Greenwood, C. R., McCune, L., RCT Literacy Friends in 39 public PA S DIBELS: First sound 1.13 ***
Carta, J., Atwater, J., Guerrero, G., prekindergarten fluency
Schneider, N., McCarthy, T., & classrooms and
Kelley, E. S. (2017). Efficacy of a childcare centers IGDI: First sounds 0.05
supplemental phonemic awareness in 3 states TOPEL: Phonological -0.04
curriculum to instruct preschoolers awareness
with delays in early literacy
PK S IGDI: Sound 0.23
development. Journal of Speech,
identification
Language, and Hearing Research,
60(1), 89–103. TOPEL: Print 0.02
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577032. knowledge
E-11
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Gong, Z., & Levy, B. A. (2009). Four eBook eBook 48 students PK RD WRAT-3: Letter 0.37
year old children’s acquisition of reading— reading in 12 public naming items of the
print knowledge during electronic Action schools reading subtest
storybook reading. Reading and eBook eBook 48 students PK RD WRAT-3 Letter naming 0.24
Writing, 22(8), 889–905. reading— reading in 12 public items of the reading
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ855305. Bouncing ball schools subtest
eBook eBook 48 students PK RD WRAT-3 Letter naming 0.07
reading— reading in 12 public items of the reading
Violation schools subtest
Guidry, L. O. (2003). A phonological RCT Whole-class Whole-class 48 students PA S Test of Awareness of –0.07
awareness intervention for at -risk phonological phonological in 4 classrooms Language Segments
preschoolers: The effects of awareness awareness in 1 public school DIBELS: Initial sound 0.21
supplemental, intensive, small-group training with training only fluency
instruction (UMI No. 3098070) supplemental
[Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana small-group
State University and Agricultural and instruction
Mechanical College]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database.
Haley, A., Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, RCT Oral language Business as 100 students L S CELF Preschool-2: –0.11
C., Snowling, M. J., & Fricke, S. intervention usual in 13 nursery Expressive vocabulary
(2017). Oral language skills (L4R) schools CELF Preschool-2: –0.01
intervention in pre-school—a Sentence structure
cautionary tale. International
Journal of Language & APT: Information 0.17
Communication Disorders, 52(1), APT: Grammar 0.03
71–79.
YARC: Listening 0.36
http://doi.org/10.1111/1460­
comprehension
6984.12257.
PA RD Alliteration matching 0.07
PK S YARC: Letter-sound 0.05
knowledge
D S YARC: Early word 0.28
reading
E-12
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Harris, S. (2010). Early intervention RCT Jumpstart Business as 66 students L S TERA: Meaning ne+ *
for poverty-stricken children: A study usual in 3 preschools IGDI: Picture naming ne +
*
of preschoolers receiving Jumpstart and childcare
+
(UMI No. 3528245) [Doctoral programs PA S IGDI: Alliteration ne
dissertation, Illinois State IGDI: Rhyming ne+
University]. ProQuest Dissertations
PK S TERA: Alphabet ne+ **
& Theses database.
+
TERA: Conventions ne **
+
G S Bracken School ne **
Readiness Assessment
Hong, S. Y., & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Cluster Responsive Responsive 72 students L RD Concepts and 1.01 ***
Two approaches to teaching young QED teaching and teaching in 18 classrooms vocabulary
children science concepts, explicit
vocabulary, and scientific problem- instruction
solving skills. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 27(2), 295–305.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ958051.
Justice, L. M. (2000). An RCT Print-focused Picture- 30 students PK RD Print concepts 0.33
experimental evaluation of an storybook focused in 4 classrooms Print recognition 1.57 ***
intervention to stimulate written reading storybook in 1 Head Start
language awareness in preschool reading center Words in print 1.30 **
children from low-income Letter orientation and 0.26
households (UMI No. 9980417) discrimination
[Doctoral dissertation, Ohio
Alphabet knowledge 0.48
University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. Literacy terms 0.47
Justice, L. M., Chow, S. M., Capellini, RCT Explicit Shared 18 students PA S PAT: Phonological ne+
C., Flanigan, K., & Colton, S. (2003). emergent storybook in 1 preschool segmentation
Emergent literacy intervention for literacy reading + center PAT: Rhyme ne+
vulnerable preschoolers. American intervention story production items from
Journal of Speech-Language retelling rhyming subtest
Pathology, (12)3, 320–332.
http://doi.org/10.1044/1058­ PK RD Alphabet knowledge ne+
0360(2003/078). PWPA: Print concepts ne+
W S PALS-PreK: Name ne+
writing
E-13
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Piasta, Cluster Print-focused Print- 278 students L S CELF Preschool-2 0.08
S. B., Kaderavek, J. N., & Fan, X. RCT storybook read focused in 58 classrooms G RD Standardized factor 0.23
(2010). Print-focused read-alouds in aloud with storybook score from PALS-PreK:
preschool classrooms: Intervention high-dose print read aloud Upper-case alphabet
effectiveness and moderators of referencing recognition, PALS-
child outcomes. Language, Speech, PreK: Name writing,
and Hearing Services in Schools, and PWPA
41(4), 504–520.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ909127.
Kelley, E. S., Goldstein, H., Spencer, RCT Story Friends Business as 18 students in L RD Assessment of story 0.72
T. D., & Sherman, A. (2015). Effects usual 3 prekindergarten comprehension
of automated Tier 2 storybook classrooms S PPVT-IV 0.21
intervention on vocabulary and in 3 public
comprehension learning in elementary CELF Preschool: Core 0.22
preschool children with limited oral schools language composite
language skills. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 31(1), 47–61.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577028.
Kelley, E. S., & Kinney, K. (2017). RCT Digital Digital 30 students L RD Definitional word 0.15
Word learning and story storybook with storybook in 2 preschool knowledge
comprehension from digital interactive without centers Decontextual word 0.21
storybooks: Does interaction make a features interactive knowledge
difference? Journal of Educational features
Computing Research, 55(3), 410– Receptive word 0.01
428. knowledge
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141523.
Lane, C., Prokop, M. J. S., Johnson, Cluster Building Blocks Business as 133 students G S GRTR 1.05 ***
E., B., Podhajski, & Nathan, J. (2014). QED for Literacy usual in 18 Head Start
Promoting early literacy through the with distance classes
professional development of mentoring
preschool teachers. Early Years,
34(1), 67–80.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1024475.
E-14
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Langan, R. (2010). Reducing the RCT Storybook Storybook 26 students L RD Comprehension 1.99 ***
synonym effect: The impact of reading with reading with in several synonyms
increased engagement on children’s ostensive ostensive preschools Comprehension 0.43
word learning during book reading questions and comments nonsynonyms
(UMI No. 1483531) [Master’s thesis, feedback
Villanova University]. ProQuest Definition synonyms 0.72
Dissertations and Theses database. Definition 0.96 *
nonsynonyms
Storybook Storybook 26 students L RD Comprehension 0.69
reading with reading with in several synonyms
scaffolded ostensive preschools Comprehension 0.41
questions and comments nonsynonyms
feedback
Definition synonyms 0.40
Definition 0.85
nonsynonyms
Lee, W., & Pring, T. (2016). Cluster Talk Boost Business as 54 students L S APT: Information 0.97 **
Supporting language in schools: RCT usual in 18 schools APT: Grammar 0.16
Evaluating an intervention for
children with delayed language in The Bus Story 0.46
the early school years. Child
Language Teaching and Therapy,
32(2), 135–146.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1103212.
Leung, C. B. (2008). Preschoolers’ RCT Storybook Storybook 32 students L RD Free recall target 0.39
acquisition of scientific vocabulary reading + reading in 1 YWCA child word test
through repeated read-aloud retelling development
events, retellings, and hands-on center
science activities. Reading
Psychology, 29(2), 165–193.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ790593.
E-15
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Lima, O. K. A. (2008). Proximal Cluster Storybook Storybook 106 students L RD Receptive target word neu
processes in preschoolers’ word RCT reading with reading in 26 classrooms in Receptive incidental ne u
learning from classroom storybook elaboration private preschools
sessions: Effects of teacher Receptive control ne u
elaboration and child attention (UMI Expressive target ne u
No. 3362854) [Doctoral dissertation,
Expressive incidental ne u
University of Virginia]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database Expressive control ne u
Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., RCT Dialogic Storybook 54 students L S PPVT–Revised 0.39
Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., & reading reading in 5 childcare EOWPVT–Revised –0.02
Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects of two centers
shared-reading interventions on Illinois Test of 0.17
emergent literacy skills of at-risk Psycholinguistic
preschoolers. Journal of Early Abilities: Verbal
Intervention, 22(4), 306–322. expression
http://doi.org/10.1177/1053815199 WJ: Listening -0.13
02200406. comprehension
Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. RCT Computer- Business as 41 students PA RD Rhyme oddity 0.77 *
M., Cantor, B. G., Anthony, J. L., & assisted usual in 1 Head Start Rhyme matching 0.79
Goldstein, H. (2003). A computer- instruction center
assisted instruction phonological Word blending 0.33
sensitivity program for preschool Syllable/phoneme 0.01
children at-risk for reading blending
problems. Journal of Early
Multiple-choice 0.26
Intervention, 25(4), 248–262.
blending
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ674627.
Word elision 0.75 *
Syllable/phoneme 0.95 **
elision
Multiple-choice elision 0.31
E-16
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Phillips, Cluster Literacy Business as About L S Preschool Language 0.32
B. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2011). RCT Express usual 508 students Scale-IV
Promoting the development of Preschool in 33 Head Start PA S Preschool CTOPP: 0.34
preschool children’s emergent Curriculum plus centers and Title I Elision
literacy skills: A randomized workshop and schools
evaluation of a literacy-focused in-class Preschool CTOPP: 0.11
curriculum and two professional mentoring Blending
development models. Reading and PK S Preschool CTOPP: 0.44 *
Writing, 24(3), 305–337. Print knowledge
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ915825.
E-17
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Clancy, Cluster Literacy Business as About L S DELV: Language –0.07
J. L., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., RCT Express usual 445 students Variation Status
Assel, M., Taylor, H. B., Klein, A., Preschool in 60 preschool screener A
Starkey, P., Domitrovich, C. E., Curriculum + centers DELV: Language 0.21
Eisenberg, N., Villiers, J., Villiers, P., Pre-K Variation Status
& Barnes, M. (2015). Impacts of a Mathematics screener B
comprehensive school readiness Curriculum +
curriculum for preschool children at PATHS Explicit EOWPVT 0.15
risk for educational difficulties. Child DELV: Diagnostic Risk 0.14
Development, 86(6), 1773–1793. Status screener
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1079878.
PA S TOPEL: Elision 0.26
TOPEL: Blending 0.26
PK S TOPEL: Print 0.19
knowledge
Literacy Business as About L S DELV: Language –0.05
Express usual 445 students Variation Status
Preschool in 60 preschool screener A
Curriculum + centers DELV: Language 0.19
Pre-K Variation Status
Mathematics screener B
Curriculum +
PATHS Implicit EOWPVT 0.11
DELV: Diagnostic Risk 0.24
Status screener
PA S TOPEL: Elision 0.21
TOPEL: Blending 0.31
PK S TOPEL: Print 0.16
knowledge
E-18
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Lonigan, C. J., & Phillips, B. M. RCT Tier 2: Business as 60 students L RD CLIP: Language 0.06
(2016). Response to instruction in Language- and usual in 12 Title I S Preschool CTOPP: –0.25
preschool: Results of two code-focused preschools Definitional
randomized studies with children at intervention vocabulary
significant risk of reading difficulties. for children
Journal of Educational Psychology, who qualified Preschool CTOPP: –0.26
108(1), 114–129. for language- Receptive vocabulary
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086979. focused or CELF Preschool: 0.29
code- and Receptive language
language-
CELF Preschool: 0.27
focused
Expressive language
intervention
(study 1)
Tier 2: Code- Business as 81 students PA S Preschool CTOPP: 0.15
and language- usual in 12 Title I Elision
focused preschools Preschool CTOPP: –0.25
intervention Blending
for children
who qualified PK RD CLIP: Letter names 0.25
for code- CLIP: Letter sounds 0.19
focused or
S Preschool CTOPP: 0.10
code- and
Print knowledge
language-
focused G S TERA –0.06
intervention
(study 1)
E-19
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Tier 2: Business as 132 students L S Preschool CTOPP: –0.04
Intensive usual in 21 Title I Definitional
language- and prekindergarten vocabulary
code-focused programs Preschool CTOPP: 0.21
intervention Receptive vocabulary
for children
who qualified CELF Preschool: 0.07
for language- Receptive language
focused or CELF Preschool: 0.00
code- and Expressive language
language-
focused
intervention
(study 2)
Tier 2: Business as 148 students PA S Preschool: CTOPP: 0.45 **
Intensive code- usual in 21 Title I Elision
and language- prekindergarten Preschool CTOPP: 0.13
focused programs Blending
intervention
for children PK RD CLIP: Letter names 0.14
who qualified CLIP: Letter sounds 0.18
for code-
S Pre-CTOPP: Print 0.20
focused or
knowledge
language- and
code-focused G S TERA-3 –0.10
intervention
(study 2)
E-20
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, RCT Dialogic Business as 129 students L RD Language composite 0.34
S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy- reading and usual in 13 Head Start PA RD Phonological 0.31
Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the phonological centers and Title I awareness composite
components of an emergent literacy awareness preschools
intervention for preschool children intervention PK RD Print knowledge 0.00
at risk for reading difficulties. composite
Journal of Experimental Child Dialogic Business as 139 students L RD Language composite 0.13
Psychology, 114(1), 111–130. reading, usual in 13 Head Start PA RD Phonological 0.32
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1006636. phonological centers and Title I awareness composite
awareness, and preschool
letter PK RD Print knowledge 0.19
knowledge composite
Storybook Business as 136 students L RD Language composite 0.00
reading, usual in 13 Head Start PA RD Phonological 0.29
phonological centers and Title I awareness composite
awareness, and preschools
letter PK RD Print knowledge 0.03
knowledge composite
Dialogic Business as 136 students L RD Language composite 0.20
Reading and usual in 13 Head Start PA RD Phonological 0.13
letter centers and Title I awareness composite
knowledge preschools
PK RD Print knowledge 0.14
composite
Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Cluster Computer- Business as 38 students PA S Group Reading 0.84
Efficacy of computer-assisted RCT assisted usual in 8 classrooms Assessment and
instruction for the development of instruction— Diagnostic Evaluation
early literacy skills in young children. Early Reading
Reading Psychology, 32(2), 172–196.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ920179.
Majsterek, D. J., Shorr, D. N., & Cluster Phonological Semantic 40 students in PA RD Rhyme detection task 0.57
Erion, V. L. (2000). Promoting early RCT awareness training 1 Head Start
literacy through rhyme detection training center
activities during Head Start circle-
time. Child Study Journal, 30(3),
143–143.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ626919.
E-21
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Mannes, T. J. (2013). The effect of Cluster Kindergarten Business as 94 students D RD Sight words ne+
tier one literacy practices on QED Peer Assisted usual in 6 classrooms
preschoolers emergent literacy skills Literacy
(UMI No. 3591959) [Doctoral Strategies and
dissertation, Michigan State Developing
University]. ProQuest Dissertations Talkers
and Theses database.
Massetti, G. M. (2009). Enhancing Cluster Stony Brook Business as 116 students PK RD GRTR–Revised: Print 1.75 ***
emergent literacy skills of RCT Emergent usual in 10 Head Start awareness
preschoolers from low-income Literacy Project classrooms S Developing Skills 1.89 ***
environments through a classroom- Checklist: Print
based approach. School Psychology awareness
Review, 38(4), 554–569.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ867982.
Mincic, M. S. (2009). Dialogic Cluster Dialogic Storybook 114 students L S TOPEL: Vocabulary ne+
reading with emotion-laden RCT reading with reading in 15 Head Start
storybooks: Intervention methods to emotion-laden classrooms
enhance children’s emergent literacy storybooks
and social-emotional skills (UMI No.
3364575) [Doctoral dissertation,
George Mason University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Nelson, J. R., Sanders, E. A., & RCT Stepping Interactive 88 students L S TOPEL: Definitional 0.12
Gonzalez, J. (2009). The efficacy of Stones to book in 8 Head Start vocabulary
supplemental early literacy Literacy reading classrooms PA S TOPEL: Phonological 0.20
instruction by community-based awareness
tutors for preschoolers enrolled in
Head Start. Journal of Research on PK RD TOPEL Section A: Print –0.34
Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 1– knowledge
25. TOPEL Sections B and 0.37
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ877224. C: Print knowledge
E-22
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Neuman, S. B. (2017). The Cluster Library with Business as 346 students L RD Concepts of 0.01
information book flood: Is additional RCT additional usual in 10 schools comprehension
exposure enough to support early supports S PPVT 0.29
literacy development? The
Elementary School Journal, 118(1), EOWPVT 0.22
1–27.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1162722.
Neuman, S. B., Pinkham, A., & Cluster Educative Business as 143 students in 10 L RD Comprehension 0.69 ***
Kaefer, T. (2015). Supporting RCT curriculum usual prekindergarten assessment
vocabulary teaching and learning in material classrooms S PPVT-IV –0.04
prekindergarten: The role of supports in 5 elementary
educative curriculum materials. schools
Early Education and Development,
26(7), 988–1011.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070888.
Neumann, M. M., Hood, M., & Ford, RCT Environmental Standard 48 students PK RD Letter name 0.21
R. M. (2013). Using environmental print print in 4 preschools knowledge
print to enhance emergent literacy Letter sound 0.42
and print motivation. Reading and knowledge
Writing, 26(5), 771–793.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1000168. Print concepts 0.25
W RD Letter writing –0.09
O’Leary, R. (2017). Do spellings of RCT Phoneme Phoneme 40 students W RD Invented spelling 0.42
words and phonemic awareness segmentation segmentation in public, private,
training facilitate vocabulary training using training using and charter
learning in preschoolers? (Order No. letters to spell shapes to schools
10275850) [Doctoral dissertation, spell
The City University of New York].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.
E-23
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Palmiter, A. B. W. (2013). The effects RCT Storybook Storybook 84 students L RD Receptive target word –0.34
of adult scaffolding and child reading with reading with in Head Start Expressive target –0.15
executive functioning skills on full scaffolded ostensive classrooms word
vocabulary learning during shared questions and repetition
book reading (UMI No. 3585307) comments Definition target word –0.06
[Doctoral dissertation, University of
Notre Dame]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Patchan, M. M., & Puranik, C. S. Cluster Writing using Writing 30 students PK RD Letter naming 0.44
(2016). Using tablet computers to RCT iPad and stylus using paper in 10 classrooms W RD Letter writing 0.27
teach preschool children to write and pencil in 6 preschools
letters: Exploring the impact of Writing using Writing 30 students PK RD Letter naming 0.02
extrinsic and intrinsic feedback. iPad and finger using iPad in 10 classrooms
Computers & Education, 102(1), W RD Letter writing 0.97 *
and stylus in 6 preschools
128–137.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2
016.07.007.
Penuel, W. R., Bates, L., Gallagher, L. Cluster Professional Professional 396 students PA S PALS-PreK: Beginning ne+
P., Pasnik, S., Llorente, C., RCT development development in 80 classrooms sound awareness
Townsend, E., Hupert, N., with media-rich with media- in 2 states PK S PALS-PreK: Letter ne+ ***
Dominguez, X., & VanderBorght, M. literacy rich Science name knowledge
(2012). Supplementing literacy supplement supplement
instruction with a media-rich PALS-PreK: Letter ne+ ***
intervention: Results of a sounds
randomized controlled trial. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1),
115–127.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ947504.
Phillips, B. M., Tabulda, G., Ingrole, RCT Literate Business as 77 students L S CELF Preschool-2: 0.08
S. A., Burris, P. W., Sedgwick, T. K., & language usual in 7 public Title I Sentence structure
Chen, S. (2016). Literate language intervention prekindergarten Oral and Written 0.31
intervention with high-need programs Language Scales:
prekindergarten children: A Listening
randomized trial. Journal of Speech, comprehension
Language, and Hearing Research,
59(6), 1409–1420. WJ-III: Picture –0.14
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1124170. vocabulary
E-24
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Piasta, S. B. (2008). Developing RCT Letter name Business as 38 students PA S TOPEL: Phonological 0.31
emergent literacy skills: The impact letter sounds usual in 4 private awareness
of alphabet instruction (UMI No. intervention childcare centers PK RD Letter name 0.21
3340751) [Doctoral dissertation, production
Florida State University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database. Letter name 0.13
recognition
Letter sound 0.46
production
Letter sound 0.30
recognition
D S WJ: Letter-word 0.05
identification
Letter sounds Business as 38 students PA S TOPEL: Phonological 0.02
only usual in 4 private awareness
intervention childcare centers PK RD Letter name –0.23
production
Letter name –0.23
recognition
Letter sound 0.11
production
Letter sound 0.03
recognition
D S WJ-III: Letter-word 0.03
identification
Pietrangelo, D. J. (1999). Outcomes Cluster Phonological Business as 129 students L S PPVT-III 0.16
of an enhanced literacy curriculum RCT awareness usual in 10 Head Start PA RD Alliteration 0.38
on the emergent literacy skills of training plus classrooms
Head Start preschoolers (Doctoral letter Rhyming 0.38
dissertation). Available from knowledge Phoneme blending 0.47
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses training
W RD Invented spelling 0.18
database. (UMI No. 9927614).
E-25
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. Cluster Words of Oral Business as 125 students L S PPVT-III 0.09
E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, RCT Reading and usual in 6 public EOWPVT 0.08
A. B., Davis, M. J., Kim, M., & Language preschool
Simmons, L. (2011). The effects of Development classrooms and
an intensive shared book-reading 12 Head Start
intervention for preschool children classrooms
at risk for vocabulary delay.
Exceptional Children, 77(2), 161–
183.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918889.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Cluster Bright Business as About L S PPVT 0.17
Research Consortium. (2008a). RCT Beginnings usual 197 students TOLD: Grammatical 0.15
Bright Beginnings and Creative curriculum in 14 preschool understanding
Curriculum: Vanderbilt University. In classrooms
Effects of Preschool Curriculum PA S Preschool CTOPP: –0.03
Programs on School Readiness Elision
(NCER No. 2008-2009). U.S. D S WJ: Letter-word 0.34
Department of Education, Institute Identification
of Education Sciences, National
W S WJ: Spelling 0.26
Center for Education Research.
G S TERA 0.31
Creative Business as 193 students L S TOLD: Grammatical 0.12
Curriculum usual in 14 preschool understanding
classrooms PPVT 0.28
PA S Preschool CTOPP: 0.04
Elision
D S WJ: Letter-word 0.17
identification
W S WJ: Spelling 0.20
G S TERA 0.00
E-26
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Cluster Creative Business as About L S TOLD: Grammatical –0.18
Research Consortium. (2008b). RCT Curriculum usual 169 students understanding
Creative Curriculum: University of in 18 preschool PPVT 0.04
North Carolina at Charlotte. In classrooms
Effects of Preschool Curriculum PA S Preschool CTOPP: 0.06
Programs on School Readiness Elision
(NCER No. 2008-2009). U.S. D S WJ: Letter-word –0.20
Department of Education, Institute identification
of Education Sciences, National
W S WJ: Spelling –0.22
Center for Education Research.
G S TERA –0.19
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Cluster Creative Business as 105 students PA S Preschool CTOPP: –0.1
Research Consortium. (2008c). RCT Curriculum usual in 14 preschool Elision
Creative Curriculum with Ladders to with Ladders to classrooms
Literacy: University of New Literacy
Hampshire. In Effects of Preschool
Curriculum Programs on School
Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009).
U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education
Research.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Cluster Curiosity Business as About L S PPVT –0.19
Research Consortium. (2008d). RCT Corner usual 200 students TOLD: Grammatical –0.24
Curiosity Corner: Success for All curriculum in 18 preschools understanding
Foundation. In Effects of Preschool
Curriculum Programs on School PA S Preschool CTOPP: –0.19
Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) Elision
(pp. 75–83). U.S. Department of D S WJ: Letter-word –0.18
Education, Institute of Education identification
Sciences, National Center for
W S WJ: Spelling –0.20
Education Research.
G S TERA –0.13
E-27
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Cluster Language- Business as About L S PPVT 0.01
Research Consortium. (2008g). RCT Focused usual 180 students TOLD: Grammatical 0.02
Language-Focused Curriculum: Curriculum in 14 preschool understanding
University of Virginia. In Effects of classrooms
Preschool Curriculum Programs on PA S Preschool CTOPP: 0.20
School Readiness (NCER No. 2008­ Elision
2009) (pp. 109-116). U.S. D S WJ: Letter-word 0.15
Department of Education, Institute identification
of Education Sciences, National
W S WJ: Spelling 0.23
Center for Education Research.
G S TERA 0.22
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Cluster DLM Early Business as About L S PPVT 0.51
Research Consortium. (2008h). RCT Childhood usual 190 students TOLD: Grammatical 0.40
Literacy Express and DLM Early Express in 12 preschools understanding
Childhood Express Supplemented supplemented
with Open Court Reading Pre-K: with Open PA S Preschool CTOPP: 0.34
Florida State University. In Effects of Court Reading Elision
Preschool Curriculum Programs on Pre-K D S WJ: Letter-word 0.57
School Readiness (NCER 2008-2009) identification
(pp. 117–130). U.S. Department of
W S WJ: Spelling 0.56
Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for G S TERA 0.69 *
Education Research. Literacy Business as About L S PPVT 0.36
Express usual 183 students TOLD: Grammatical 0.05
Preschool in 12 preschools understanding
Curriculum
PA S Preschool CTOPP: 0.29
Elision
D S WJ: Letter-word 0.33
identification
W S WJ: Spelling 0.17
G S TERA 0.34
E-28
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Cluster Project Business as 192 students L S PPVT –0.25
Research Consortium. (2008i). RCT Approach usual in 12 preschools TOLD: Grammatical –0.31
Project Approach: Purdue understanding
University/University of Wisconsin.
In Effects of Preschool Curriculum PA S Preschool CTOPP: –0.31
Programs on School Readiness Elision
(NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 143– D S WJ: Letter-word –0.06
151). U.S. Department of Education, identification
Institute of Education Sciences,
W S WJ: Spelling –0.34
National Center for Education
Research. G S TERA –0.36
Price-Mohr, R., & Price, C. (2017). Cluster Nonphonically Phonically 176 students L S BPVS 0.04
Gender differences in early reading QED decodable decodable in 16 schools
strategies: A comparison of vocabulary vocabulary
synthetic phonics only with a mixed with mixed with mixed
approach to teaching reading to 4–5 teaching teaching
year-old children. Early Childhood methods methods
Education Journal, 45(5), 613–620.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016­
0813-y.
RMC Research Corporation. (2003). Cluster Ready, Set, Business as 254 students L S PPVT-III 0.01
Ready, Set, Leap! Program: Newark RCT Leap! usual in 17 preschools PA S Composite scores by 0.27
prekindergarten study 2002-2003 averaging raw scores
final report. from DIBELS: Initial
sound fluency, CTOPP:
Blending words, and
Woodcock-Johnson:
Sound awareness—
rhyming
PK S DIBELS: Letter naming –0.08
fluency
D S WJ: Letter-word 0.12
identification
E-29
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Ruston, H. P., & Schwanenflugel, P. RCT Talking buddies Business as 74 students L S Expressive Vocabulary 0.35
J. (2010). Effects of a conversation usual in 6 classrooms Test
intervention on the expressive in 4 preschool RD Lexical diversity from 0.21
vocabulary development of centers language sample
prekindergarten children. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41(3), 303–313.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ892596.
Russell, J. (2005). An investigation of Cluster Ladders to Business as 34 students L RD Mean length of –0.13
preschool oral language RCT Literacy + usual in 12 preschools utterance
improvements through Ladders to Creative Type token ratio 0.05
Literacy [Unpublished doctoral Curriculum
dissertation, University of New
Hampshire].
Sa, A. (2012). Fostering RCT Narrative Story 26 students L RD Story book 0.63
preschoolers’ narrative Dynamics and Grammar/ in several comprehension book
comprehension through inference story acting out preschool 1
making and story reenactment reenactment classrooms Story book 0.56
training (UMI No. 3542680) comprehension book
[Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh 2
University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. Retelling idea unit 0.28
Retelling story 0.32
grammar elements
Retelling total 1.11 **
comprehension
Narrative picture 1.70 ***
sequence total
S CELF: Expressive 0.03
vocabulary
E-30
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, C. Cluster Universal Universal 163 students L S PPVT-III –0.07
E., Neuharth-Pritchett, S., Restrepo, RCT Quality Literacy Quality in 37 classrooms Expressive Vocabulary –0.11
M. A., Bradley, B. A., & Webb, M. Y. Practices plus Literacy in 18 public Test
(2010). PAVEd for success: An PAVEd for Practices plus schools
evaluation of a comprehensive Success PAVEd for PA RD Adapted PAT –0.12
preliteracy program for four-year­ program focus Success PK RD Alphabet knowledge: 0.08
old children. Journal of Literacy on program Letter name
Research, 42(3), 227–275. phonological (PAVE) focus
Alphabet knowledge: –0.01
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ897192. awareness and on
Letter sounds
explicit phonological
vocabulary awareness
enhancement only
practices
Scott, D. D. (2005). Investigating the Cluster Emergent Business as 92 students L S IGDI: Picture naming –0.02
behavioral outcomes of an early RCT literacy usual in 6 Head Start
literacy intervention for at-risk intervention classrooms
preschool children (UMI No.
3177496) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Virginia]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Smith, S. H. (1998). The effects of a Cluster Integrated Business as 114 students D S WJ–Revised: Letter- 1.25 **
whole language method of RCT Phonics usual in 8 classrooms word identification
instruction and an integrated in 4 public WJ–Revised: Word 0.38
phonics method of instruction on the elementary attack
reading achievement of inner-city schools
preschool pupils (UMI No. 9826788) W S WJ–Revised: Dictation 0.96 *
[Doctoral dissertation, The George
Washington University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
E-31
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Stockard, J. (2009). Promoting early RCT Funnix Business as 37 students PA S DIBELS: Phoneme 2.18 ***
literacy of preschool children: A Beginning usual in 6 Head Start segmentation fluency
study of the effectiveness of Funnix Reading classrooms PK S DIBELS: Letter naming 0.55
Beginning Reading (Technical computer fluency
Report No. 2009-1). National program
Institute of Direct Instruction. D RD 100 word list 0.52
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ908028. Controlled Text 0.46
Passages
S Woodcock Reading 0.99 **
Mastery Tests: Word
identification
Woodcock Reading 1.46 ***
Mastery Tests: Word
attack
DIBELS: Nonsense 0.70
word fluency
Talley, S., Lancy, D. F., & Lee, T. R. RCT CD-ROM (IBM’s Business as 61 students PK S PAT 0.17
(1997). Children, storybooks and Stories and usual in 8 classrooms Concepts About Print –0.09
computers. Reading Horizons, 38(2), More) in 1 Head Start
116–128. Retrieved March 13, 2018, center Picnic test –0.03
from
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/re
ading_horizons/vol38/iss2/7/.
E-32
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Thompson, P. S. (2015). Scaffolding RCT Interactive Business as 174 students L S CPAA: Listening –0.20
emergent literacy skills in pre­ reading and usual in 9 classrooms PA S CPAA: Phonemic 0.42 **
kindergarten through writing writing in 4 public schools awareness
instruction (UMI No. 3702167) intervention
[Doctoral dissertation, Middle PK S COS: Letter –0.04
Tennessee State University]. recognition
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses COS: Sound 0.38 *
database. knowledge
COS: Print knowledge 0.46 **
D S CPAA: Phonics 0.22
W S Test of Early Written 0.10
Language
G S CPAA: Reading 0.08
Trotti, J., Hendricks, R., & Bledsoe, RCT Imagine Business as 102 students PA S CIRCLE: Phonological 0.13
C. (2017). Emergent literacy Learning usual awareness
development and computer assisted G S CIRCLE: Composite 0.26
instruction. SRATE Journal, 26(1),
30–39. Waterford Business as 111 students PA S CIRCLE: Phonological 0.14
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1134394. Early Learning usual awareness
G S CIRCLE: composite 0.30
Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & RCT Morphosyntax Business as 17 students L RD Percent change in 0.65
Tolbert, L. C. (2003). Outcomes of intervention usual in preschools morphosyntactic
different speech and language goal performance
attack strategies. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research,
46(5), 1077–1094.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ823316.
E-33
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Walsh, B. (2009). Novel word RCT Storybook Storybook 29 students L RD Seasonal word 0.11
learning of preschoolers enrolled in reading with reading in 1 Head Start comprehension game
Head Start regular and bilingual noneliciting center Seasonal word 0.15
classrooms: Impact of adult vocabulary production game
vocabulary noneliciting questions questions
during shared storybook reading Storybook Storybook 30 students L RD Seasonal word –0.34
(UMI No. 3384573) [Doctoral reading with reading in 1 Head Start comprehension game
dissertation, Texas Woman’s eliciting center
University]. ProQuest Dissertations Seasonal word 0.46
vocabulary production game
and Theses database. questions
Walsh, B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2006). RCT Storybook Storybook 23 students L RD New Word 3.38 ***
The effect of questioning style reading with reading in childcare Comprehension Test
during storybook reading on novel eliciting centers or nursery New Word Production 0.59
vocabulary acquisition of vocabulary schools Test
preschoolers. Early Childhood questions
Education Journal, 33(4), 273–278. Storybook Storybook 24 students L RD New Word 2.12 ***
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ747238. reading with reading in childcare Comprehension Test
noneliciting centers or nursery New Word Production 0.95 *
vocabulary schools Test
questions
Washington, K. N., Warr-Leeper, G., RCT My Sentence Non– 22 students L S Structured 0.04
& Thomas-Stonell, N. (2011). Builder computer- in government- Photographic
Exploring the outcomes of a novel assisted funded speech Expressive Language
computer-assisted treatment treatment and language Test–Preschool
program targeting expressive- programs Developmental 0.25
grammar deficits in preschoolers sentence scoring
with SLI. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 44(3), 315–330.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925765.
Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Cluster Interactive Repeated 121 students L RD Receptive vocabulary 1.58 **
Beyond the pages of a book: RCT book reading reading in 4 classrooms Expressive vocabulary 2.05 ***
interactive book reading and in 1 Title I early
language development in preschool learning center S PPVT-III ne+
classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(2), 243.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ638739.
E-34
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Wilcox, M. J., Gray, S. I., Guimond, Cluster Teaching Early Business as 118 students W S PALS-PreK: Name 0.26
A. B., & Lafferty, A. E. (2011). RCT Literacy and usual in 29 classrooms writing
Efficacy of the TELL language and Language
literacy curriculum for preschoolers curriculum
with developmental speech and/or
language impairment. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3),
278–294.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ924085.
Willoughby, D., Evans, M. A., & QED Paper alphabet Storybook 59 students PA S TOPA–Kindergarten: 0.15
Nowak, S. (2015). Do ABC eBooks book reading reading in public and Initial sound-same
boost engagement and learning in private schools subtest
preschoolers? An experimental PK RD Letter-naming task 0.15
study comparing eBooks with paper
ABC and storybook controls. Letter-sound task –0.16
Computers & Education, 82(1), 107– Electronic Storybook 62 students PA S TOPA–Kindergarten: 0.06
117. alphabet book reading in public and Initial sound-same
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2 reading private schools subtest
014.11.008.
PK RD Letter-naming task –0.06
Letter-sound task –0.26
Witt, E. N. (2000). Effects of reading RCT Performance- Interactive 20 students L RD Story retelling 0.33
styles on African-American oriented storybook in 2 Head Start World knowledge task –0.31
preschoolers of disadvantage (UMI storybook reading classrooms
No. 9998719) [Doctoral dissertation, reading in 1 school PK RD Test of acquisition of –0.60
Louisiana State University and literacy concepts
Agricultural and Mechanical
College]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
Wyant, A. B. (2008). What type of RCT Storybook Ostensive 37 students L RD Definition 0.14
extra-textual input is optimal for reading with repetition in preschool Comprehension –0.23
preschoolers’ vocabulary learning eliciting classrooms
during storybook reading? (UMI No. vocabulary
1454132) [Master’s thesis, Villanova questions with
University]. ProQuest Dissertations full scaffolded
and Theses database. questions and
comments
E-35
REL 2021–084

Nature of Effect Significant

Study Intervention comparison Outcome Outcome size for after B-H
Citation design name group Analysis sample domain type Outcome measure measure correction
Yeh, S. S. (2003). An evaluation of Cluster Rhyming/alliter Segmenting 44 students PK RD Letter-sound 0.77 *
two approaches for teaching QED ation Intervention in 4 classrooms matching
phonemic awareness to children in intervention in 2 Head Start D RD Oral reading 1.10 ***
Head Start. Early Childhood centers
Research Quarterly, 18(4), 513–529.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ778645.
Zhou, N. (2014). Effects of RCT Storybook Storybook 36 students L RD Target vocabulary test 0.98 **
multimedia story reading on reading with reading in several
preschoolers’ vocabulary learning, questions preschools
story comprehension and reading Multimedia Multimedia 37 students L RD Target vocabulary test 0.17
engagement (UMI No. 3669649) story reading story in several
[Doctoral dissertation, Purdue with questions reading preschools
University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database.
Zucker, T. A., Solari, E. J., Landry, S. Cluster At risk Tier 2: At-risk 119 students L RD Listening 0.06
H., & Swank, P. R. (2013). Effects of RCT Developing comparison in 39 classrooms comprehension
a brief tiered language intervention Talkers in Head Start S CIRCLE Phonological ne+
for prekindergartners at risk. Early centers, private Awareness, Language,
Education & Development, 24(3), childcare and Literacy System:
366–392. programs, and Rapid vocabulary
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1010582. public schools naming
* is significant at p < .05; ** is significant at p < .01; *** is significant at p < .001.
Study design: RCT is randomized controlled trial.
Outcome domain: D is decoding. G is general literacy. L is language. PA is phonological awareness. PK is print knowledge. W is early writing.
Type of outcome measure: RD is researcher-developed measure. S is standardized measure.
Effect size for measure: ne is not enough information provided in the manuscript to calculate effect size (ne+ indicates that the direction of the effect was positive, and neu indicates that the direction of the effect
is unknown).
Outcome measure: APT is Action Picture Test. BPVS is British Picture Vocabulary Scale. CELF is Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. CIRCLE is Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning
and Education. CLIP is Code and Language Intervention Post-test. COS is Clay’s Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. CPAA is Children’s Progress Academic Assessment. CTOPP is Comprehensive Test
of Phonological Processing. DELV is Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation. DIBELS is Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills. EOWPVT is Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. GGG is Get it, Got it,
Go!. GRTR is Get Ready to Read. IGDI is Get It, Got It, Go! Individual Growth and Development Indicators. PALS is Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening. PAT is Phonological Awareness Test. PIPA is Pre-
Reading Inventory of Phonological Awareness. PPVT is Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. PWPA is Preschool Print and Word Awareness Assessment. TERA is Test of Early Reading Ability. TOLD is Test of Language
Development. TOPA is Test of phonological awareness. TOPEL is Test of Preschool Emergent Literacy. TTR is Type Token Ratio. WJ is Woodcock-Johnson. WRAT is Wide Range Achievement Test. YARC is York
Assessment of Reading Comprehension.
B-H correction is Benjamini-Hochberg correction (see box B1).
Note: Two studies (Wasik & Bond, 2001, and Zucker et al., 2013) reported sufficient information to calculate effect size for some outcomes but not all.
Source: Authors’ compilation.
E-36
REL 2021–084

Table E2. Research basis for the 14 single-case design studies determined to meet the evidence standards
SCD
Intervention Sample size Outcome Outcome evidence
Citation Design type name (case) domain type Outcome measure levela
Bredin-Oja, S. L. (2012). Children’s responses to Alternating Grammatically 1 (student 2) L RD Number of responses No
grammatically complete and incomplete prompts to treatment complete and containing a target semantic evidence
imitate (UMI No. 3541650) [Doctoral dissertation, incomplete relation
University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses prompts to
database. imitate
Craig-Unkefer, L. A. (1999). Increasing the social- Multiple Play sessions 6 (dyad 1, L RD Peer-directed descriptive No
communicative skills of at-risk preschool-age children in baseline dyad 2, dyad 3) statements evidence
a play context (UMI No. 9929116) [Doctoral across Peer-directed requests No
dissertation, Vanderbilt University]. ProQuest participants evidence
Dissertations & Theses database.
Peer-directed comments No
plus requests evidence
Number of four or more No
word utterances evidence
Number of different word No
roots evidence
Total words No
evidence
Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002). Improving Multiple Peer play 6 (dyad 1, L RD Descriptive utterances No
the social communication skills of at-risk preschool baseline dyad 2, dyad 3) evidence
children in a play context. Topics in Early Childhood across Request utterances No
Special Education, 22(1), 3–13. participants evidence
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ645081.
Dennis, L. R., Whalon, K., Kraut, L., & Herron, D. (2016). Alternating iPad 1 (participant L RD Expressive probe gain score No
Effects of a teacher versus iPad-facilitated intervention treatment instruction of 1) evidence
on the vocabulary of at-risk preschool children. Journal target verb RD Receptive probe gain score No
of Early Intervention, 38(3), 170–186. evidence
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113679.
1 (participant L RD Expressive probe gain score No
2) evidence
RD Receptive probe gain score Moderate
(–)
1 (participant L RD Expressive probe gain score No
3) evidence
E-37
REL 2021–084

SCD
Intervention Sample size Outcome Outcome evidence
Citation Design type name (case) domain type Outcome measure levela
RD Receptive probe gain score No
evidence
1 (participant L RD Expressive probe gain score No
4) evidence
RD Receptive probe gain score No
evidence
1 (participant L RD Expressive probe gain score No
5) evidence
RD Receptive probe gain score No
evidence
Hsin, Y. W. (2007). Effects of phonological awareness Multiple Phonological 1 (Tracy, Steph, PA S DIBELS: Phoneme No
instruction on pre-reading skills of preschool children probe awareness Henry) segmentation fluency evidence
at-risk for reading disabilities [Doctoral dissertation, across instruction DIBELS: Nonsense word No
The Ohio State University]. Retrieved November 29, participants fluency evidence
2018, from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.
Kruse, L. (2013). Small groups, big gains: Efficacy of a Multiple Phonological 7 (Eva, PA RD Modified DIBELS first sound No
tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with probe awareness Courtney, fluency evidence
preschoolers using a multiple-baseline design (UMI No. across intervention Teshwan, Modified DIBELS word parts No
3673735) [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State participants Andre, Kaylee, fluency evidence
University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Anna, Cristina)
database.
Lovelace, T. S. (2008). The effects of explicit Multiple Multiple skill 1 (student 1) PA RD Number correct on multiple Strong
phonological awareness instruction on the prereading baseline phonological phonological awareness (+)
skills of preschool children at risk for reading failure: across awareness tasks
Comparing single and multiple skill instructional settings instruction 1 (student 5) PA RD Number correct on multiple No
strategies [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State phonological awareness evidence
University]. Retrieved August 3, 2018, from tasks
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.
McLeod, R. H., Hardy, J. K., & Kaiser, A. P. (2017). The Multiple Book reading 1 (Caleb) L RD Number of target words Strong
effects of play-based intervention on vocabulary probe and Enhanced used (+)
acquisition by preschoolers at risk for reading and across Milieu 1 (Jacorius) L RD Number of target words No
language delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(2), settings Teaching play used evidence
147–160. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1140020.
E-38
REL 2021–084

SCD
Intervention Sample size Outcome Outcome evidence
Citation Design type name (case) domain type Outcome measure levela
Noe, S., Spencer, T. D., Kruse, L., & Goldstein, H. (2014). Multiple Phonological 7 (Jerome, PA S DIBELS: First sound fluency No
Effects of a tier 3 phonological awareness intervention probe awareness Tanisha, evidence
on preschoolers’ emergent literacy. Topics in Early across intervention Marcus, Jada,
Childhood Special Education, 34(1), 27–39. participants (first sound Victoria,
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1022226. identification) Amber,
Connor)
Olszewski, A. (2015). Modeling alphabet skills as Multiple Modified PAth 1 (Ben) PA RD Phonological awareness No
instructive feedback within a phonological awareness baseline to Literacy fluency measure evidence
curriculum (Order No. 3738434) [Doctoral dissertation, across PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor No
University of South Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations and settings evidence
Theses database.
1 (Brandon) PA RD Phonological awareness No
fluency measure evidence
PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor No
evidence
1 (Edgar) PA RD Phonological awareness No
fluency measure evidence
PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor No
evidence
1 (Elijah) PA RD Phonological awareness Strong
fluency measure (+)
PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor Moderate
1 (Jose) PA RD Phonological awareness No
fluency measure evidence
PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor No
evidence
1 (Joshua) PA RD Phonological awareness No
fluency measure evidence
PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor No
evidence
1 (Matthew) PA RD Phonological awareness No
fluency measure evidence
PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor No
evidence
E-39
REL 2021–084

SCD
Intervention Sample size Outcome Outcome evidence
Citation Design type name (case) domain type Outcome measure levela
1 (Michael) PA RD Phonological awareness No
fluency measure evidence
PK RD Alphabet Mastery Monitor No
evidence
Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Effects of a milieu teaching Multiple Milieu 1 (David) L RD Targeted language No
strategy in a storybook context on the acquisition, baseline teaching behaviors evidence
maintenance, and generalization of expressive across strategy
language by young children with developmental settings
disabilities (Order No. 9801786) [Doctoral dissertation,
The Ohio State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
Stanton-Chapman, T. L. (2004). Building social Alternating Book reading 1 (A1) L RD Social programmatic No
communication skills during peer interaction using treatment and play outcome evidence
storybooks (UMI No. 3127279) [Doctoral dissertation, 1 (A2) L RD Social programmatic No
Vanderbilt University]. ProQuest Dissertations and outcome evidence
Theses database.
1 (B1) L RD Social programmatic No
outcome evidence
1 (B2) L RD Social programmatic No
outcome evidence
1 (C1) L RD Social programmatic No
outcome evidence
1 (C2) L RD Social programmatic No
outcome evidence
1 (D1) L RD Social programmatic No
outcome evidence
1 (D2) L RD Social programmatic No
outcome evidence
E-40
REL 2021–084

SCD
Intervention Sample size Outcome Outcome evidence
Citation Design type name (case) domain type Outcome measure levela
Stanton-Chapman, T. L., Denning, C. B., & Jamison, K. R. Multiple Book reading 8 (A1, A2, B1, L RD Frequency of initiated Moderate
(2012). Communication skill building in young children baseline and play B2, C1, C2, D1, behavior that resulted in a (+)
with and without disabilities in a preschool classroom. across sessions D2) peer
The Journal of Special Education, 46(2), 78–93. participants
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ972255.
Whitlow, C. K. G. (2003). Video self-modeling as an Multiple Video self- 3 (Stephanie, L RD Percent grammatical No
intervention for specific language impairment in baseline modeling Corey, and morpheme usage evidence
preschoolers (UMI No. 3095690) [Doctoral dissertation, across Leslie) Mean length of utterance No
The University of Memphis]. ProQuest Dissertations participants evidence
and Theses database.
Outcome domain: D is decoding. G is general literacy. L is language. PA is phonological awareness. PK is print knowledge. W is early writing.
Type of outcome measure: S is standardized measure. RD is researcher-developed measure.
Outcome measure: DIBELS is Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills.
Note: See appendix F for the complete citation associated with each study evaluating the interventions.
a. Refers to the characterization of findings under the pilot What Works Clearinghouse standards for single-case designs.
Source: Authors’ compilation.
E-41
Appendix F. Three-hundred fifty-seven studies reviewed using the evidence standards
An asterisk denotes studies that the study team rated as high-quality impact studies using the What Works
Clearinghouse evidence standards, version 4.0.
Abel, K. D. (2001). Analysis of collaborative E-mail use on the language acquisition of pre-school children aged 4 and 5 (UMI
No. 3010775) [Doctoral dissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Aguilar, J. M. (2017). Exemplar variability facilitates word learning by children with specific language impairment (Order No.
10254084) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Additional source: Aguilar, J. M. (2017). Exemplar variability facilitates word learning by children with specific language
impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(1), 72–84. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1166681.
Allain, S. M. (2001). Effectiveness of a phonemic awareness intervention with four and five year olds (UMI No. 3027639)
[Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman’s University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
*Allison, J. C. (2016). Electronic picture books: Do they support the construction of print knowledge in young emergent literacy
learners? (Order No. 10193515) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Alman, L. F. (2003). The effects of a computer-mediated intervention on “at-risk” preschool students’ receptive vocabulary
and computer literacy skills (UMI No. 3123024) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses database.
Ard, L. M., & Beverly, B. L. (2004). Preschool word learning during joint book reading: Effect of adult questions and comments.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(1), 17–28. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ722299.
Ascetta, K. E. (2017). The features of effective online professional development for early childhood educators (Order No.
10608077) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
*Assel, M. A., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., & Gunnewig, S. (2007). An evaluation of curriculum, setting, and mentoring on the
performance of children enrolled in pre-kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 20(5), 463–494.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ774756.
Additional source: Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008e). Doors to Discovery and Let’s Begin
with the Letter People: University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. In Effects of preschool curriculum
programs on school readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 85–98). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
Aziz, S. A., Fletcher, J., & Bayliss, D. M. (2016). The effectiveness of self-regulatory speech training for planning and problem
solving in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(6), 1045–1059.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0115-7.
Baciu, I. E. (2010). Vocabulary and phonological awareness in 3- to 4-year-old children: Effects of a training program (Order
No. NR68757) [Doctoral dissertation, Wilfrid Laurier University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database.
*Bailet, L. L., Repper, K. K., Piasta, S. B., & Murphy, S. P. (2009). Emergent literacy intervention for prekindergarteners at risk
for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(4), 336–355. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ843696.
Additional source: Bailet, L. L., Repper, K., Murphy, S., Piasta, S., & Zettler-Greeley, C. (2013). Emergent literacy
intervention for prekindergarteners at risk for reading failure: Years 2 and 3 of a multiyear study. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 46(2), 133–153. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1009184.
Barton, K. (2013). Literacy and dramatic play: storytelling with props increases preschool children’s language skills during play
(UMI No. 1545786) [Master’s thesis, University of Alabama]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Bass, L. A. (2008). Effects of interactive storybook reading on the morphosyntactic development of preschool children from
low-income environments (UMI No. 3282566) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database.

REL 2021–084 F-1

Bass, L. A., & Barron, E. V. (2014). Effects of instructional condition on preschool children’s novel word learning. Infants &
Young Children, 27(2), 136–161. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1065236.
Beale, N. A. (2009). Effects of utilizing educational TV shows and conversational recasting on language skills of preschoolers
with specific language impairments (Order No. 3336651) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Database.
Bellin, H. F., & Singer, D. G. (2006). My magic story car: video-based play to strengthen emergent literacy of at-risk
preschoolers. In D. G., Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances
Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth (pp. 101–123). Oxford University Press.
http://doi.org/10.1093/9780195304381.003.0006.
Bellon-Harn, M. L. (2012). Dose frequency: Comparison of language outcomes in preschool children with language
impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 28(2), 225–240. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ964268.
Bellon-Harn, M. L., Byers, B. A., & Lappi, J. (2014). Treatment intensity: Effects of interactive book reading on narrative abilities
in preschool children with SLI. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 35(4), 226–236.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1525740114524051.
Bennett, C. (2006). What are the effects of “Breakthrough to Literacy” in a prekindergarten classroom? [Unpublished master’s
thesis, Midwestern State University].
Bickford-Smith, A., Wijayatilake, L., & Woods, G. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of an early years language intervention.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 21(3), 161–173. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ694767.
*Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., Nelson, K. E., & Gill, S. (2008).
Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The head start REDI program. Child Development, 79(6),
1802–1817. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ818718.
Additional source: Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions
and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development
and Psychopathology, 20(3), 821–843. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000394.
Additional source: Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Heinrichs, B. S., Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Gill, S. (2014).
Effects of Head Start REDI on children’s outcomes 1 year later in different kindergarten contexts. Child Development,
85(1), 140–159. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1027520.
*2Blewitt, P., Rump, K. M., Shealy, S. E., & Cook, S. A. (2009). Shared book reading: When and how questions affect young
children’s word learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 294. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ835037.
*Bochna, C. R. (2006). The impact of instruction in text structure on listening comprehension in preschool age students (UMI
No. 3378045) [Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Boit, R. J. (2010). A comparison study on the effects of the standardized and a teacher modified dialogic reading programs on
early literacy outcomes of preschool children from low income communities (UMI No. 3427495) [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Massachusetts Amherst]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Bortnem, G. M. (2005). The effects of using non-fiction interactive read-alouds on expressive and receptive vocabulary of
preschool children (UMI No. 3188194) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of South Dakota]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses database.
*Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Carroll, J. M., Miles, J., Gotz, C., & Hulme, C. (2008). Improving
early language and literacy skills: Differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 422–432. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ812879.

2 This manuscript includes two experiments that were reviewed as separate studies. Experiment 1 was rated as not meeting the evidence
standards, and experiment 2 was rated as meeting the evidence standards.
REL 2021–084 F-2
 Additional source: Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Carroll, J. M., Duff, F. J., & Snowling, M. J. (2012). The causal role of
phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining intervention studies with mediation
analyses. Psychological Science, 23(6), 572–577. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611435921.
*Boyer, N. E. (2010). Phonemic awareness instruction: Effects of letter manipulation and articulation training on learning to
read and spell (UMI No. 3426368) [Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses database.
Additional source: Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and
articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440–470.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ933946.
*Bredin-Oja, S. L. (2012). Children’s responses to grammatically complete and incomplete prompts to imitate (UMI No.
3541650) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
*Brigman, G., Lane, D., Switzer, D., Lane, D., & Lawrence, R. (1999). Teaching children school success skills. The Journal of
Educational Research, 92(6), 323–329. http://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597615.
Butler, M. C. (2012). Implementation of evidence-based book-reading strategies by Head Start teachers: Benefits of
professional development and effect on children’s literacy outcomes (UMI No. 3512230) [Doctoral dissertation, University
of Wisconsin, Madison]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Buysse, V., Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Burchinal, M. (2012, March). Recognition & response: Developing and evaluating a model
of RTI for pre-k. Paper presented at the Sixth Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Conference, Washington,
DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530413.
*Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Piasta, S. B., Curenton, S. M., Wiggins, A., Turnbull, K. P., & Petscher, Y. (2011). The impact of
teacher responsivity education on preschoolers’ language and literacy skills. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 20(4), 315–330. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ946267.
Additional source: Johanson, M., Justice, L. M., & Logan, J. (2016). Kindergarten impacts of a preschool language-focused
intervention. Applied Developmental Science, 20(2), 94–107. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566470.
Additional source: Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., Cabell, S. Q., Wiggins, A. K., Turnbull, K. P., & Curenton, S. M. (2012). Impact
of professional development on preschool teachers’ conversational responsivity and children’s linguistic productivity
and complexity. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 387–400. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ974447.
Cadeau, T. N. (2011). Can the Headsprout Early Reading Program improve reading skills in a Head Start preschool classroom?
(UMI No. 1493476) [Master’s thesis, Northern Michigan University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
*Callcott, D., Hammond, L., & Hill, S. (2015). The synergistic effect of teaching a combined explicit movement and phonological
awareness program to preschool aged students. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(3), 201–211.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1055702.
*Callihan, K. D. (2003). Emergent literacy activities in preschool years: The effects of explicit instruction on rhyming and
narrative development (UMI No. 1418524) [Master’s thesis, Marshall University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database.
Carson, C. J. (2012). Read with me: examining the effects of a community volunteer reading program on preschoolers’ literacy
skills (UMI No. 3513912) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Toledo]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Carson, K. L., Gillon, G. T., & Boustead, T. M. (2013). Classroom phonological awareness instruction and literacy outcomes in
the first year of school. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2), 147–160.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1003987.
Castles, A., Coltheart, M., Wilson, K., Valpied, J., & Wedgwood, J. (2009). The genesis of reading ability: What helps children
learn letter-sound correspondences? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(1), 68–88.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842241.

REL 2021–084 F-3

*Cesar, R. (2013). Read alouds in the preschool classroom: A tool for developing pre-emergent vocabulary, print awareness,
and comprehension skills (UMI No. 3578578) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses database.
Chambers, B., Chamberlain, A., Hurley, E. A., & Slavin, R. E. (2001, April). Curiosity Corner: Enhancing preschoolers’ language
abilities through comprehensive reform. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association Conference, Seattle, WA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457999.
Chan, R. J. (2016). The effectiveness of explicit storybook comprehension instruction for improving preschool children’s
narrative comprehension skills (UMI No. 3713515) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses database.
Chera, P., & Wood, C. (2003). Animated multimedia ‘talking books’ can promote phonological awareness in children beginning
to read. Language and Instruction, 13(1), 33–52. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ670644.
*Christie, J., Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Han, M. (2003). The effects of a well-designed literacy program on young children’s
language and literacy development. In F. Lamb-Parker, J. Hagan, R. Robinson, & H. Rhee (Eds.), The first eight years,
Pathways to the future: Implications for research, policy, and practice, Head Start’s Sixth National Research Conference
(pp. 453–454). Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED474955.
Additional source: Han, M., Roskos, K., Christie, J., Mandzuk, S., & Vukelich, C. (2005). Learning words: Large group time
as a vocabulary development opportunity. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(4), 333–345.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ726431.
*Ciancio, D. J. (2004). Early intervention: Effects of behavioral regulation on learning and emerging self-competence (UMI No.
3116629) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Notre Dame]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Cleven, J. G. (2006). Training and mentoring childcare providers in story sharing: Effects on vocabulary and story retelling for
four-year olds, and story sharing behaviors of childcare providers (UMI No. 3247020) [Doctoral dissertation, North
Carolina State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
*Clouser, K. F. (2001). The effects of setting storybooks’ texts to music on story comprehension, vocabulary, and attitude
towards reading in preschool children [Unpublished master’s thesis, Florida State University].
Colangelo, D. A. (2010). An evaluation of a dialogic book-reading program for at risk children (Order No. MR68719) [Master’s
thesis, Wilfrid Laurier University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Combs, S. G. (2009). The effects of information sharing and modeling on teacher talk and child language in dramatic play
(UMI No. 3368449) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Cook, S. A. (2008). Asking questions during shared book reading: The effects of demand level on the acquisition of novel
vocabulary words (UMI No. 1459978) [Master’s thesis, Villanova University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Correll, K. (2008). A program evaluation of a conversational instruction program for the vocabulary development of four-year­
old students in preschool classes (UMI No. 3345070) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database.
Coulter, L., & Gallagher, C. (2001). Evaluation of the Hanen Early Childhood Educators Programme. International Journal of
Language & Communication Disorders, 36, 264–269. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14606984.
Covington, T. M. (2006). Effects of rate-based responding on comprehension and maintenance of textual responding in
beginning readers (UMI No. 3203746) [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database.
*Craig-Unkefer, L. A. (1999). Increasing the social-communicative skills of at-risk preschool-age children in a play context (UMI
No. 9929116) [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Additional source: Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2003). Increasing peer-directed social-communication skills of
children enrolled in Head Start. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(4), 229–247. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ674626.

REL 2021–084 F-4

*Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002). Improving the social communication skills of at-risk preschool children in a play
context. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(1), 3–13. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ645081.
Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Enhancing linguistic performance: Parents and teachers as book reading partners for
children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(1), 28–39.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ583795.
Crawley, A. M., Anderson, D. R., Wilder, A., Williams, M., & Santomero, A. (1999). Effects of repeated exposures to a single
episode of the television program Blue’s Clues on the viewing behaviors and comprehension of preschool children.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 630–637. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.630.
Culatta, B., Kovarsky, D., Theadore, G., Franklin, A., & Timler, G. (2003). Quantitative and qualitative documentation of early
literacy instruction. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(2), 172–188. http://doi.org/10.1044/1058­
0360(2003/064).
Currier, A. R. (2013). Effects of a classroom-based pre-literacy intervention for preschoolers with communication disorders
(UMI No. 3589010) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
database.
Cusumano, D. L. (2005). Early learning experiences: Education with coaching and the effects on the acquisition of literacy skills
in preschool children [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/2843/.
Additional source: Cusumano, D. L., Armstrong, K., Cohen, R., & Todd, M. (2006). Indirect impact: How early childhood
educator training and coaching impacted the acquisition of literacy skills in preschool students. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 27(4), 363–377. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ831012.
Dahlke, K. A. (2016). Improving early childhood caregiver quality and child outcomes through low-intensity classroom
observation and individualized instructional feedback (UMI No. 1794656212) [Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern
University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Danger, S. E. (2003). Child-centered group play therapy with children with speech difficulties (UMI No. 3106872) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of North Texas]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Additional source: Danger, S., & Landreth, G. (2005). Child-centered group play therapy with children with speech
difficulties. International Journal of Play Therapy, 14(1), 81–102. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0088897.
*Davidson, M. R., Fields, M. K., & Yang, J. (2009). A randomized trial study of a preschool literacy curriculum: The importance
of implementation. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(3), 177–208. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ866975.
Davis, C. G. (2006). The effects of a developmental articulation approach to emergent literacy instruction on Head Start
students’ reading achievement (UMI No. 3213874) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database.
Deak, G. O., & Toney, A. J. (2013). Young children’s fast mapping and generalization of words, facts, and pictograms. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 273–296. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1007472.
DeBaryshe, B. D., & Gorecki, D. M. (2007). An experimental validation of a preschool emergent literacy curriculum. Early
Education and Development, 18(1), 93–110. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ772200.
*Dennis, L. R., Whalon, K., Kraut, L., & Herron, D. (2016). Effects of a teacher versus iPad-facilitated intervention on the
vocabulary of at-risk preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention, 38(3), 170–186.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113679.
*Desmond, S. K. (2008). The effects of rhyme on phonological sensitivities (UMI No. 3326012) [Doctoral dissertation, Seattle
Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Domack, A. M. (2005). The effect of a dialogic reading intervention on the emergent literacy skills of preschool students (UMI
No. EP73972) [Master’s thesis, University of Nebraska]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.

REL 2021–084 F-5

Downer, J., Pianta, R., Fan, X., Hamre, B., Mashburn, A., & Justice, L. (2011). Effects of web-mediated teacher professional
development on the language and literacy skills of children enrolled in pre-kindergarten programs. NHSA dialog, 14(4),
189–212. http://doi.org/10.1080/15240754.2011.613129.
Additional source: Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Consultation for
teachers and children’s language and literacy development during pre-kindergarten. Applied Developmental Science,
14(4), 179–196. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ904113.
Additional source: Cabell, S. Q., & Downer, J. T. (2011). Improving preschoolers’ language and literacy skills through web-
mediated professional development. NHSA dialog, 14(4), 316–322. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ951210.
Additional source: Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated
professional development resources on teacher–child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431–451. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ820560.
Dwyer, J. C. (2010). Investigating the efficacy of a preschool vocabulary intervention designed to increase vocabulary size and
conceptual knowledge (UMI No. 3429493) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses database.
Edmonds, E., O’Donoghue, C., Spano S., & Algozzine, R. F. (2009) Learning when school is out. The Journal of Educational
Research, (102)3, 213–222. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ821079.
Edwards, J. R., & Rosin, P. (2016). A prekindergarten curriculum supplement for enhancing mainstream American English
knowledge in nonmainstream American English speakers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47(2), 113–
122. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1100996.
Ervast, D. (2017). The effects of a music curriculum on the pre-reading and writing skills of three- to five-year-olds in an
inclusive day care setting (Order No. 10264636) [Master’s thesis, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses database.
*Esler, A. N. (2001). Children at the venter: Promoting child development through evidence-based practice (UMI No. 9997644)
[Master’s thesis, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Fantuzzo, J. W., Gadsden, V. L., & McDermott, P. A. (2011). An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language, and
literacy for Head Start children. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 763–793.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ924275.
Fehrenbach, L. A., Hurford, D. P., Fehrenbach, C. R., & Brannock, R. G. (1998). Developing the emergent literacy of preschool
children through a library outreach program. Journal of Youth Services in Libraries, 12(1), 40–45.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ584169.
Filla, A., Wolery, M., & Anthony, L. (1999). Promoting children’s conversations during play with adult prompts. Journal of Early
Intervention, 22(2), 93-108. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ585815.
*Fischel, J. E., Bracken, S. S., Fuchs-Eisenberg, A., Spira, E. G., Katz, S., & Shaller, G. (2007). Evaluation of curricular approaches
to enhance preschool early literacy skills. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 471–501.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10862960701675333.
Flanagan, E. G. O. (2006). Computer-based reading program with at-risk pre-kindergarten students (UMI No. 3238363)
[Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Flanigan, J. H. (2016). Effects of book genre on preschoolers’ acquisition of targeted vocabulary during classroom read-alouds
(Order No. 10144380) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Foran, M. (2015). The effects of overselective responding on learning by exclusion in preschool children (Order No. 10014819)
[Master’s thesis, University of Massachusetts Lowell]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Fort Worth Independent School District. (2003). Controlled study: Stanford Achievement Tests, Ninth Edition-Kindergarten
reading. Breakthrough to Literacy.

REL 2021–084 F-6

Frank, S. T. (2015). The use of explicit, non-evocative print referencing with preschool children at-risk: Implications for
increasing print concept knowledge (UMI No. 3584070) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky]. ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database.
*Fricke, S., Bowyer-Crane, C., Haley, A. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2013). Efficacy of language intervention in the early
years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(3), 280–290. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1012716.
*Fricke, S., Burgoyne, K., Bowyer-Crane, C., Kyriacou, M., Zosimidou, A., Maxwell, L., Lervåg, A., Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C.
(2017). The efficacy of early language intervention in mainstream school settings: A randomized controlled trial. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), 1141–1151. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1154623.
Gallagher, P. A., Abbott-Shim, M., & VandeWiele, L. (2011). An evaluation of the Individualized Learning Intervention: A
mentoring program for early childhood teachers. NHSA Dialog, 14(2), 57–74. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ922667.
Gallingane, M. C. (2009). Effects of read-aloud strategies on young children’s vocabulary learning (UMI No. 3385925) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Garnet, K. E. (1998). Jumpstart: An evaluation of program efficacy for an intensive intervention with high-risk preschool
children (UMI No. 9810510) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2008). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income
children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 198–213. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ796965.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (2014). Increasing opportunities to respond to print during storybook reading: Effects of
evocative print-referencing techniques. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(3), 283–297.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.03.001.
*Gillis, M. B. (1998). Evidence for the language basis of reading disabilities in preschool children (UMI No. 9907066) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Louisville]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Gingold, C. J. (2000). A comparison of the impact of a computer based program with the impact of traditional instructional
methods on emergent reading skills of prekindergarteners (UMI No. 9965265) [Doctoral dissertation, Delta State
University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Glynn County Schools. (2002). Controlled study: Letter sound assessment-prekindergarten. Breakthrough to Literacy.
Glynn County Schools. (2002). Controlled study: Letter identification assessment-prekindergarten. Breakthrough to Literacy.
Godfrey, J. B. (2014). Using interactive reading techniques with Word World to enhance emergent literacy (UMI No. 3663118)
[Doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
*Goldstein, H., Kelley, E., Greenwood, C., McCune, L., Carta, J., Atwater, J., Guerrero, G., McCarthy, T., Schneider, N., &
Spencer, T. (2016). Embedded instruction improves vocabulary learning during automated storybook reading among
high-risk preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 484–500.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577031.
*Goldstein, H., Olszewski, A., Haring, C., Greenwood, C. R., McCune, L., Carta, J., Atwater, J., Guerrero, G., Schneider, N.,
McCarthy, T., & Kelley, E. S. (2017). Efficacy of a supplemental phonemic awareness curriculum to instruct preschoolers
with delays in early literacy development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(1), 89–103.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577032.
*Gong, Z., & Levy, B. A. (2009). Four year old children’s acquisition of print knowledge during electronic storybook reading.
Reading and Writing, 22(8), 889–905. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ855305.
Gonzalez, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Kim, M., & Simmons, L. (2011). Developing low-
income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary knowledge through content-focused shared book reading.
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(1), 25–52. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ911536.
Good, J. L. (2003). Developing early literacy skills in young children with symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity (UMI No.
3092743) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.

REL 2021–084 F-7

Grand Rapids, MI Preschool Work Sampling, 1997-1998. (2002). The new three Rs: Research, reading, and results.
Breakthrough to Literacy. Wright Group/McGraw-Hill.
Grand Rapids Public Schools, Michigan Education Special Services Association. (1998). Breakthrough to Literacy program
evaluation.
Greer, R. D., & Yuan, L. (2008). How kids learn to say the darnedest things: The effect of multiple exemplar instruction on the
emergence of novel verb usage. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24(1), 103–121. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393060.
Griffith, P. L., Kimmel, S. J., & Biscoe, B. (2010). Teacher professional development for at-risk preschoolers: Closing the
achievement gap by closing the instruction gap. Action in Teacher Education, 31(4), 41–53.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ915830.
*Guidry, L. O. (2003). A phonological awareness intervention for at -risk preschoolers: The effects of supplemental, intensive,
small-group instruction (UMI No. 3098070) [Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Gust, K. M. (2006). The effects of professional development for early childhood educators on emergent literacy (UMI No.
3209431) [Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
*Haley, A., Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., & Fricke, S. (2017). Oral language skills intervention in pre-school—
a cautionary tale. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52(1), 71–79.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12257.
Hall, A. H. (2012). Exploring the effectiveness of interactive writing in the Head Start preschool setting (UMI No. 3579466)
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Additional source: Hall, A. H., Toland, M. D., Grisham-Brown, J., & Graham, S. (2014). Exploring interactive writing as an
effective practice for increasing Head Start students’ alphabet knowledge skills. Early Childhood Education Journal,
42(6), 423–430. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1043051.
Hargrave, A. C., & Sénéchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies:
The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 75–90.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ633360.
Harmon, M. T. (2009). Use of computer assisted instruction to enhance the emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers (UMI
No. 3371243) [Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Harper, L. J. (2011). Nursery Rhyme knowledge and phonological awareness in preschool children. Journal of Language and
Literacy Education, 7(1), 65–78. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1097164.
*Harris, S. (2010). Early intervention for poverty-stricken children: A study of preschoolers receiving Jumpstart (UMI No.
3528245) [Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Hartford Foundation for Public Giving. (2004). Hartford children are learning by leaps and bounds: Achievements of children
involved in Brighter Futures Child Care Enhancement Project.
http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/wsd/education/bfi.pdf.
Hassinger-Das, B., Ridge, K., Parker, A., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Dickinson, D. K. (2016). Building vocabulary
knowledge in preschoolers through shared book reading and gameplay. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(2), 71–80.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575955.
Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps
young children at risk of reading failure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(2), 338–358.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ951690.
Hayles-Simmonds, D. (2012). The effects of cooperative learning on preschoolers’ literacy and social skills (UMI No. 3499195)
[Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.

REL 2021–084 F-8

Headsprout Early Reading. (2007). Case study: NY students reading above grade level with Headsprout. In Results count:
Outcome data and case studies.
Hilbert, D. D., & Eis, S. D. (2014). Early intervention for emergent literacy development in a collaborative community pre­
kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(2), 105–113. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1036155.
Hindman, A. H., & Wasik, B. A. (2012). Unpacking an effective language and literacy coaching intervention in Head Start:
Following teachers’ learning over two years of training. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 131–154.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ992905.
Hindman, A. H., & Wasik, B. A. (2017). Is dosage important? Examining Head Start preschoolers’ language and literacy learning
after one versus two years of ExCELL. Early Child Development and Care, 187(3-4), 342–357.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1132331.
*Hong, S. Y., & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Two approaches to teaching young children science concepts, vocabulary, and scientific
problem-solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 295–305. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ958051.
*Hsin, Y. W. (2007). Effects of phonological awareness instruction on pre-reading skills of preschool children at-risk for reading
disabilities [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.
Humphrey, K., & Olivier, A. (2014). Investigating the impact of teenage mentors on pre-school children’s development: A
comparison using control groups. Children and Youth Services Review, 44(1), 20–24.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.05.018.
Hunt, A. (2012). “Have you brought your singing voice?” An investigation into whether a small group singing intervention can
improve phonological discrimination in young children [Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff University]. Retrieved January 16,
2019, from https://orca.cf.ac.uk/38789/.
Hurry, J., Sylva, K., & Riley, J. (1999). Evaluation of a focused literacy teaching programme in reception and year 1 classes:
Child outcomes. British Educational Research Journal, 25(5), 637–649. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ627241.
Additional source: Sylva, K., Hurry, J., Mirelman, H., Burrell, A., & Riley, J. (1999). Evaluation of a focused literacy teaching
programme in reception and year 1 classes: Classroom observations. British Educational Research Journal, 25(5),
617–635. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ627240.
Hurtig, R., & Layzer, C. (2007). CLIMBERs second year implementation report. In IES annual performance report.
Hutinger, P., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Johanson, J. (2005). Disseminating and replicating an effective emerging literacy
technology curriculum: A final report. Center for Best Practices in Early Childhood Education.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED489575.
Additional source: Hutinger, P. L., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Johanson, J. (2006). Establishing and maintaining an early
childhood emergent literacy technology curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 39–54.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ767737.
Irlen, S. M. (2003). The impact of video viewing and retelling on preliterate children’s narrative comprehension (UMI No.
3088967) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database.
Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language
complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(3), 157–163.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ732281.
Jackson, B., Larzelere, R., St. Clair, L., Corr, M., Fichter, C., & Egertson, H. (2006). The impact of HeadsUp! Reading on early
childhood educators’ literacy practices and preschool children’s literacy skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(2),
213–226. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ739014.
Jaskolski, J. E. (2013). Effects of phonological awareness training on early childhood educators’ knowledge, instructional
practice, and student outcomes (UMI No. 3589448) [Doctoral dissertation, Cardinal Stritch University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
REL 2021–084 F-9
Johanson, M., & Arthur, A. M. (2016). Improving the language skills of pre-kindergarten students: Preliminary impacts of the
Let’s Know! Experimental curriculum. Child & Youth Care Forum, 45(3) 367–392. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566376.
Johnson, C. (2015). Concepts about print and literacy skill acquisition of preschool students (Order No. 3719069) [Doctoral
dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Justice, L. M. (2000). An experimental evaluation of an intervention to stimulate written language awareness in preschool
children from low-income households (UMI No. 9980417) [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database.
Additional source: 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)1, 17–29. http://doi.org/10.1044/1058­
0360(2002/003).
Justice, L. (2002). Word exposure conditions and preschoolers’ novel word learning during shared storybook reading. Reading
Psychology, 23(2), 87–106. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ648581.
*Justice, L. M., Chow, S. M., Capellini, C., Flanigan, K., & Colton, S. (2003). Emergent literacy intervention for vulnerable
preschoolers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, (12)3, 320–332. http://doi.org/10.1044/1058­
0360(2003/078).
Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A. R., Kadervaek, J. N., & Dynia, J. M. (2015). Print-focused read-alouds in early childhood special
education programs. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 292–311. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1055246.
Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Pence, K. L., & Wiggins, A. (2008). Experimental evaluation of a preschool language curriculum:
Influence on children’s expressive language skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(4), 983–1001.
http://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/072).
Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Cabell, S. Q., Kilday, C. R., Knighton, K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum
supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk: A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41(2), 161–178. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ887632.
*Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Piasta, S. B., Kaderavek, J. N., & Fan, X. (2010). Print-focused read-alouds in preschool
classrooms: Intervention effectiveness and moderators of child outcomes. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41(4), 504–520. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ909127.
Additional source: Hart, S. A., Piasta, S. B., & Justice, L. M. (2016). Do children’s learning-related behaviors moderate the
impacts of an empirically-validated early literacy intervention? Learning and Individual Differences, 50(1), 73–82.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.005.
Additional source: McGinty, A. S., Breit-Smith, A., Fan, X., Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2011). Does intensity matter?
Preschoolers’ print knowledge development within a classroom-based intervention. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 26(3), 255–267. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ924086.
Additional source: Justice, L. M., Kaderavek, J. N., Fan, X., Sofka, A., & Hunt, A. (2009). Accelerating preschoolers’ early
literacy development through classroom-based teacher–child storybook reading and explicit print referencing.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 40(1), 67–85. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ825007.
Additional source: Piasta, S. B., Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2012). Increasing young children’s contact
with print during shared reading: Longitudinal effects on literacy achievement. Child development, 83(3), 810–820.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ965180.
Kaiser, A., Dickinson, D., Roberts, M., Darrow, C., Freiberg, J., & Hofer, K. (2011, March). The effects of two language-focused
preschool curricula on children’s achievement through first grade. Paper presented at the Fourth Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness Conference, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED518192.
Kaminski, R. A., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2017). Early literacy intervention for preschoolers who need Tier 3 support. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 36(4), 205–217. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1129310.

REL 2021–084 F-10

Katsipataki, M. (2013). Can motor skills training improve academic performance? A structured motor skills intervention for
young children (UMI No. 1651900430) [Doctoral dissertation, Durham University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global.
*Kelley, E. S., Goldstein, H., Spencer, T. D., & Sherman, A. (2015). Effects of automated Tier 2 storybook intervention on
vocabulary and comprehension learning in preschool children with limited oral language skills. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 31(1), 47–61. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577028.
*Kelley, E. S., & Kinney, K. (2017). Word learning and story comprehension from digital storybooks: Does interaction make a
difference? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(3), 410–428. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141523.
Khan, K. Nelson, K., Whyte, E. (2014). Children choose their own stories: the impact of choice on children’s learning of new
narrative skills. Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 949–962. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000160.
Kidd, J. K., Pasnak, R., Curby, T. W., Ferhat, C. B., Gadzichowski, K. M., Gallington, D. A., & Machado, J. (2010, March). Cognitive
underpinnings of preschool literacy and numeracy. Paper presented at the Third Annual Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness Conference, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512662.
Additional source: Kidd, J. K., Curby, T. W., Boyer, C. E., Gadzichowski, K. M., Gallington, D. A., Machado, J. A., & Pasnak,
R. (2012). Benefits of an intervention focused on oddity and seriation. Early Education & Development, 23(6), 900–
918. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ981625.
Kim, H. W. (1997). Effect of independent reading time in day care classrooms (Order No. 9840313) [Doctoral dissertation, The
University of Tennessee, Knoxville]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Kim, Y. G., & Phillips, B. (2016). Five minutes a day to improve comprehension monitoring in oral language contexts: An
exploratory intervention study with prekindergarteners from low-income families. Topics in Language Disorders, 36(4),
356–367. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575735.
Kinder, K. A. (2011). Comparing the effects of descriptive comments versus descriptive comments plus prompted trials on
children’s letter naming (UMI No. 3442189) [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
Kirk, E. W. (1999). Dictation and dramatization of children’s own stories: the effects on frequency of children’s writing activity
and development of children’s print awareness (UMI No. 9950364) [Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Kirk, S. M., Vizcarra, C. R., Looney, E. C., & Kirk, E. P. (2014). Using physical activity to teach academic content: A study of the
effects on literacy in head start preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(3), 181–189.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1036253.
Klein, E. R., Geiss, D., Kushner, R., & Hill, D. (2003, April). The early childhood inclusion support program: Incorporating discrete
skills into comprehensive units for learning. Paper presented at the Thirteen Annual American Educational Research
Association Conference, Chicago, IL. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED477634.
Knuth, A. S. (2015). Teaching 4 year-old kindergarten students to think-aloud as a means of measuring their listening
comprehension: A feasibility study (Order No. 3723424) [Doctoral dissertation, Cardinal Stritch University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Kong, N. Y. (2013). The effectiveness of a supplemental pre-kindergarten vocabulary intervention (UMI No. 3559085) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Koutsoftas, A. D., Harmon, M. T., & Gray, S. (2009). The effect of Tier 2 intervention for phonemic awareness in a response-
to-intervention model in low-Income preschool classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(2),
116–130. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ838183.
*Kruse, L. (2013). Small groups, big gains: Efficacy of a tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with preschoolers using a
multiple-baseline design (UMI No. 3673735) [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database.

REL 2021–084 F-11

 Additional source: Kruse, L. G., Spencer, T. D., Olszewski, A., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Small groups, big gains: Efficacy of a
tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with preschoolers with early literacy deficits. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 24(2), 189–205. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577029.
Kuamoo, M. (2008). An evaluation of quality in early education: The role of curriculum and teacher-child outcomes (UMI No.
3310906) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Lafferty, A. E., Gray, S., & Wilcox, M. J. (2005). Teaching alphabetic knowledge to pre-school children with developmental
language delay and with typical language development. Journal of Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(3), 263–
277. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ751619.
Laing, S. P., & Espeland, W. (2005). Low intensity phonological awareness training in a preschool classroom for children with
communication impairments. Journal of Communication Disorders, 38(1), 65–82. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ731774.
*Lane, C., Prokop, M. J. S., Johnson, E., B., Podhajski, & Nathan, J. (2014). Promoting early literacy through the professional
development of preschool teachers. Early Years, 34(1), 67–80. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1024475.
*Langan, R. (2010). Reducing the synonym effect: The impact of increased engagement on children’s word learning during
book reading (UMI No. 1483531) [Master’s thesis, Villanova University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Blewitt, P., & Langan, R. (2016). Learning words during shared book reading: The role of extratextual
talk designed to increase child engagement. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150(1), 404–410.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.06.009.
Language and Reading Research Consortium, Arthur, A. M., & Davis, D. L. (2016). A pilot study of the impact of double-dose
robust vocabulary instruction on children’s vocabulary growth. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(2),
173–200. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1096950.
Language and Reading Research Consortium, Jiang, H., & Davis, D. (2017). Let’s know! Proximal impacts on prekindergarten
through grade 3 students’ comprehension-related skills. The Elementary School Journal, 118(2), 177–206.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1162540.
Lawson, L. A. (2013). A response to intervention model for prekindergarten to increase school readiness (UMI No. 3613022)
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Lechago, S. A., Carr, J. E., Kisamore, A. N., & Grow, L. L. (2015). The effects of multiple exemplar instruction on the relation
between listener and intraverbal categorization repertoires. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 31(1), 76–95.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1062551.
Lee, S. G. (1999). Intervention strategies to enhance phonological ability in preschool age children (UMI No. 1399401)
[Master’s thesis, Southwest State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Lee, W., & Pring, T. (2016). Supporting language in schools: Evaluating an intervention for children with delayed language in
the early school years. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 32(2), 135–146. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1103212.
Legg, V. A. (2005). Early screening for potential literacy difficulties and intervening in nursery/reception (UMI No. U5944B8)
[Doctoral dissertation, University College, London]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Leung, C. B. (2008). Preschoolers’ acquisition of scientific vocabulary through repeated read-aloud events, retellings, and
hands-on science activities. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 165–193. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ790593.
*Lima, O. K. A. (2008). Proximal processes in preschoolers’ word learning from classroom storybook sessions: Effects of teacher
elaboration and child attention (UMI No. 3362854) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database
Linebarger, D. L., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2009). TV as storyteller: How exposure to television narratives impacts at-risk
preschoolers’ story knowledge and narrative skills. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 47–69.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ874496.

REL 2021–084 F-12

*Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects of two shared-reading interventions
on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(4), 306–322.
http://doi.org/10.1177/105381519902200406.
*Lonigan, C. J., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., Cantor, B. G., Anthony, J. L., & Goldstein, H. (2003). A computer-assisted instruction
phonological sensitivity program for preschool children at-risk for reading problems. Journal of Early Intervention, 25(4),
248–262. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ674627.
*Lonigan, C. J., Farver, J. M., Phillips, B. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2011). Promoting the development of preschool children’s
emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development
models. Reading and Writing, 24(3), 305–337. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ915825.
Lonigan, C. J., & Phillips, B. M. (2012, March). Comparing skills-focused and self-regulation focused preschool curricula:
Impacts on academic and self-regulatory skills. Paper presented at the Sixth Society for Research on Educational
Effectiveness Conference, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530178.
*Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Clancy, J. L., Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Assel, M., Taylor, H. B., Klein, A., Starkey, P., Domitrovich,
C. E., Eisenberg, N., Villiers, J., Villiers, P., & Barnes, M. (2015). Impacts of a comprehensive school readiness curriculum
for preschool children at risk for educational difficulties. Child Development, 86(6), 1773–1793.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1079878.
*3Lonigan, C. J., & Phillips, B. M. (2016). Response to instruction in preschool: Results of two randomized studies with children
at significant risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 114–129.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086979.
*Lonigan, C. J., Purpura, D. J., Wilson, S. B., Walker, P. M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J. (2013). Evaluating the components of an
emergent literacy intervention for preschool children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 114(1), 111–130. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1006636.
Additional source: Lonigan, C. J. (2007). Vocabulary development and the development of phonological awareness skills
in preschool children. In R. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for
reading comprehension (pp. 15–31). The Guilford Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED492062.
Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention
for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263–290.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ574139.
Lovelace, S., & Stewart, S. R. (2007). Increasing print awareness in preschoolers with language impairment using non-
evocative print referencing. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 38(1), 16–30.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ756208.
*Lovelace, T. S. (2008). The effects of explicit phonological awareness instruction on the prereading skills of preschool children
at risk for reading failure: Comparing single and multiple skill instructional strategies [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio
State University]. Retrieved August 3, 2018, from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.
Lust, C. A., & Donica, D. K. (2011). Effectiveness of a handwriting readiness program in Head Start: A two-group controlled
trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(5), 560–568. http://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2011.000612.
*Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2011). Efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for the development of early literacy skills in
young children. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 172–196. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ920179.
MacKay, T., & Watson, K. (1999). Literacy, social disadvantage and early intervention: Enhancing reading achievement in
primary school. Educational and Child Psychology, 16(1), 30–36.
https://login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/619421463?accountid=4840.

3 This manuscript includes two studies that were reviewed as separate studies. Both studies were rated as meeting the evidence standards.
REL 2021–084 F-13
Macziewsi, A. L. (2012). Handwriting without Tears®: Understanding the effects on cognitive and motor skill development
(UMI No. 1039651208) [Master’s thesis, Southwest Minnesota State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
*Majsterek, D. J., Shorr, D. N., & Erion, V. L. (2000). Promoting early literacy through rhyme detection activities during Head
Start circle-time. Child Study Journal, 30(3), 143–143. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ626919.
*Mannes, T. J. (2013). The effect of tier one literacy practices on preschoolers emergent literacy skills (UMI No. 3591959)
[Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Marra, G. R. (2014). Vocabulary growth using nonfiction literature and dialogic discussions in preschool classrooms (UMI No.
3629795) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Martin, K., Emfinger, K., Snyder, S., & O’Neal, M. (2007). Results for year 2 of an Early Reading First project. Journal of Research
in Childhood Education, 22(2), 125–140. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ929647.
Martin, M. E., & Byrne, B. (2002). Teaching children to recognise rhyme does not directly promote phonemic awareness.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 561–572. http://doi.org/10.1348/00070990260377523.
Maryland State Department of Education. (2015). The association between Judy Center Services and kindergarten readiness.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572303.
Mashburn, A., Justice, L. M., McGinty, A., & Slocum, L. (2016). The impacts of a scalable intervention on the language and
literacy development of rural pre-kindergartners. Applied Developmental Science, 20(1), 61–78.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086729.
Maslanka, P., & Joseph, L. M. (2002). A Comparison of two phonological awareness techniques between samples of preschool
children. Reading Psychology, 23(4), 271–288. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ658877.
*Massetti, G. M. (2009). Enhancing emergent literacy skills of preschoolers from low-income environments through a
classroom-based approach. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 554–569. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ867982.
Additional source: Massetti, G. M. (2002). Dynamic assessment as an intervention for emergent literacy in Head Start
(UMI No. 3077745) [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
Maxwell, K., Bryant, D., & Miller-Johnson, S. (1999). A six-county study of the effects of Smart Start child care on kindergarten
entry skills. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED433154.
Maxwell, M. (2010). Effects of the Pre-K Handwriting Without Tears® program on handwriting readiness skills of preschoolers
with pre-writing deficits in a rural eastern North Carolina Head Start program (UMI No. 840545123) [Master’s thesis, East
Carolina University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
McCabe, A., Boccia, J., Bennett, M. B., Lyman, N., & Hagen, R. (2010). Improving oral language and literacy skills in preschool
children from disadvantaged backgrounds: Remembering, writing, reading (RWR). Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 29(4), 363–390. http://doi.org/10.2190/IC.29.4.f.
McCollom, P. (2000). Effects of phonemic awareness training and the influence of phonemic skills on early reading success
with pre-school and kindergarten children (UMI No. 3030634) [Doctoral dissertation, Howard University]. from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
McGeown, S. P., Johnston, R. S., & Medford, E. (2012). Reading instruction affects the cognitive skills supporting early reading
development. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 360–364. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ971825.
McGivern, R. F., Hilliard, V. R., Anderson, J., Reilly, J. S., Rodriguez, A., Fielding, B., & Shapiro, L. (2007). Improving preliteracy
and premath skills of Head Start children with classroom computer games. Early Childhood Services: An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Effectiveness, 1(1), 71–81. http://curriculumtechnologies.com/files/kinder-game-research.pdf.
McGuinness, C., Sproule, L., Bojke, C., Trew, K., & Walsh, G. (2014). Impact of a play-based curriculum in the first two years
of primary school: Literacy and numeracy outcomes over seven years. British Educational Research Journal, 40(5), 772–
795. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1043600.

REL 2021–084 F-14

McIntosh, B., Crosbie, S., Holm, A., Dodd, B., & Thomas, S. (2007). Enhancing the phonological awareness and language skills
of socially disadvantaged preschoolers: An interdisciplinary programme. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 23(3),
267–286. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ775704.
Additional source: O’Connor, M., Arnott, W., McIntosh, B., & Dodd, B. (2009). Phonological awareness and language
intervention in preschoolers from low socio-economic backgrounds: A longitudinal investigation. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 767–782. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ879358.
McLaclan, C., & Arrow, A. (2014). Promoting alphabet knowledge and phonological awareness in low socioeconomic child
care settings: A quasi experimental study in five New Zealand centers. Reading and Writing, 27(5), 819–839.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1038888.
*McLeod, R. H., Hardy, J. K., & Kaiser, A. P. (2017). The effects of play-based intervention on vocabulary acquisition by
preschoolers at risk for reading and language delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 39(2), 147–160.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1140020.
McManis, M. H., & McManis, L. D. (2016). Using a touch-based, computer-assisted learning system to promote literacy and
math skills for low-income preschoolers. Journal of Information Technology Education, 15(1), 409–429.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113038.
Meyers, C., McLaughlin, T. F., Derby, M., Weber, K. P., & Robison, M. (2015). The effects of “Handwriting without Tears®” on
the handwriting skills of appropriate size, form, and tool for a four year-old boy with a developmental delay. The Journal
of Special Education Apprenticeship, 4(2), 1–12. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1127775.
Miguel, C. F., Petursdottir, A. I., & Carr, J. E. (2005). The effects of multiple-tact and receptive-discrimination training on the
acquisition of intraverbal behavior. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 27–41. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ846316.
Mihai, A. (2015). Enhancing early literacy teaching and learning in Head Start: The impact of a repeated book reading
approach (UMI No. 3703261) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Mincic, M. S. (2009). Dialogic reading with emotion-laden storybooks: Intervention methods to enhance children’s emergent
literacy and social-emotional skills (UMI No. 3364575) [Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Modica, A. N. (2009). Using a play intervention to improve the skills of children with a language delay (UMI No. 3341998)
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Moore, M. M. (2003). Combining phonological awareness and explicit instructional practices for preschoolers in Head Start
(UMI No. 3106291) [Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.
Morris, T., & Leavey, G. (2006). Promoting phonological awareness in nursery-aged children through a Sure Start Early
Listening programme. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14(2), 155–168. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ737232.
Mukerjee, J. (2002). Promoting young children’s literacy through teacher friendly book reading procedures (UMI No. 3076105)
[Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Mulvey, N. (2014). The effects of explicit story grammar instruction on the narrative skills of preschool children (UMI No.
3680905) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Murphy, M. M. (2007). Enhancing print knowledge, phonological awareness, and oral language skills with at-risk preschool
children in Head Start classrooms (UMI No. 3271904) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska–Lincoln].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Murray-Ward, M. (2000). El Centrito interim grant report for the period of July 1, 1999 to December 31, 1999 (Report No.
109). California Lutheran University, Educational Research and Leadership Institute.
Nancollis, A., Lawrie, B. A., & Dodd, B. (2005). Phonological awareness intervention and the acquisition of literacy skills in
children from deprived social backgrounds. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(4), 325–335.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ741301.
REL 2021–084 F-15
*Nelson, J. R., Sanders, E. A., & Gonzalez, J. (2009). The efficacy of supplemental early literacy instruction by community-
based tutors for preschoolers enrolled in Head Start. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 1–25.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ877224.
Nelson, S. D. (2016). The effects of an integrated rhythmic and literacy intervention on the development of phonological
awareness and rhythm skills of preschoolers (Order No. 10246496) [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(3), 286–311.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ587549.
Additional source: Black, L. (2001). Effects of the Books Aloud Program on preschool children’s narrative competence
(UMI No. 3031500) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Neuman, S. B. (2017). The information book flood: Is additional exposure enough to support early literacy development?
The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 1–27. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1162722.
Neuman, S. B., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Developing vocabulary and conceptual knowledge for low-income preschoolers: A design
experiment. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 103–129. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ950695.
Neuman, S. B., Kaefer, T., & Pinkham, A. M. (2016). Improving low-income preschoolers’ word and world knowledge. The
Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 652–674. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1103949.
Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers’ word
knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster-randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 249–272.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ935112.
*Neuman, S. B., Pinkham, A., & Kaefer, T. (2015). Supporting vocabulary teaching and learning in prekindergarten: The role
of educative curriculum materials. Early Education and Development, 26(7), 988–1011.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070888.
*Neumann, M. M., Hood, M., & Ford, R. M. (2013). Using environmental print to enhance emergent literacy and print
motivation. Reading and Writing, 26(5), 771–793. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1000168.
New Haven Public Schools. Controlled study: Concepts about print assessment-entering kindergarten, Fall 2002. Breakthrough
to Literacy.
Nicolopoulou, A. (2002). Peer-group culture and narrative development. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Talking to
adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition (pp. 117–152). Erlbaum.
Nicolopoulou, A., de Sá, A. B., Ilgaz, H., & Brockmeyer, C. (2009). Using the transformative power of play to educate hearts
and minds: From Vygotsky to Vivian Paley and beyond. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(1), 42–58.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ910725.
Additional source: Nicolopoulou, A., Cortina, K. S., Ilgaz, H., Cates, C. B., & de Sá, A. B. (2015). Using a narrative-and play-
based activity to promote low-income preschoolers’ oral language, emergent literacy, and social competence. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 31(2), 147–162. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.006.
*Noe, S., Spencer, T. D., Kruse, L., & Goldstein, H. (2014). Effects of a tier 3 phonological awareness intervention on
preschoolers’ emergent literacy. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34(1), 27–39.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1022226.
Noel, M. J. (2013). Does medium matter? increasing preschoolers’ vocabulary during shared storybook reading using
electronic and print formats (Order No. 1542566) [Master’s thesis, Western Carolina University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database.
Nolan, J. P. (2016). Implementation of iPads for at-risk pre-kindergarten students (Order No. 10139651) [Doctoral dissertation,
Concordia University–Chicago]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

REL 2021–084 F-16

Notari-Syverson, A. (1999). Supporting early literacy development in young children with disabilities: A comprehensive
interactive emergent literacy curriculum for preschoolers (Final report to the U.S. Department of Education). Washington
Research Institute.
Nuspl, J. J. (2006). An investigation of teaching phonemic awareness to preschoolers with and without prior syllable instruction
(UMI No. EP25471) [Master’s thesis, University of Wyoming]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*O’Leary, R. (2017). Do spellings of words and phonemic awareness training facilitate vocabulary learning in preschoolers?
(Order No. 10275850) [Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.
*Olszewski, A. (2015). Modeling alphabet skills as instructive feedback within a phonological awareness curriculum (Order
No. 3738434) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Olszewski, A., Soto, X., & Goldstein, H. (2017). Modeling alphabet skills as instructive feedback within
a phonological awareness intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(3), 769–790.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577034.
Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2010). Teacher mentoring and early literacy learning: A case study of a mentor-coach initiative.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(4), 311–317. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ867591.
Osley, K. R. (2009). A head start in reading for children in a Head Start preschool program (UMI No. 1472594) [Master’s thesis,
University of North Texas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Pacchiano, D. M., Whalen, S. P., Horsley, H. L., & Parkinson, K. (2016, March). Efficacy study of a professional development
intervention to strengthen organizational conditions and effective teaching in early education settings. Paper presented
at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Spring 2016 Conference, Washington, DC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED567221.
Paciga, K. A. (2011). Preschoolers’ listening comprehension of digital storybooks [Doctoral dissertation).
https://indigo.uic.edu/handle/10027/8305.
Palmisano, L. A. (2010). Effects of phonological awareness and print referencing treatment programs on the early literacy
skills of preschool children with language impairments (UMI No. 1479500) [Master’s thesis, William Paterson University
of New Jersey]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Palmiter, A. B. W. (2013). The effects of adult scaffolding and child executive functioning skills on vocabulary learning during
shared book reading (UMI No. 3585307) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Notre Dame]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
*Patchan, M. M., & Puranik, C. S. (2016). Using tablet computers to teach preschool children to write letters: Exploring the
impact of extrinsic and intrinsic feedback. Computers & Education, 102(1), 128–137.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.007.
Paulson, L. H., Kelly, K. L., Jepson, S., van den Pol, R., Ashmore, R., Farrier, M., & Guilfoyle, S. (2003). The effects of an early
reading curriculum on language and literacy development of Head Start children. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 18(3), 169–178. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ751923.
Additional source: Van den Pol, R. (2003). The Montana Early Literacy Project—building language and literacy skills during
the early childhood years: Preparing children with disabilities for success in early elementary school. Montana
University, Missoula Division of Educational Research and Services. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED477973.
Pederson, T. N. (2017). Implementing a five-week summer program as an intervention to kindergarten readiness (Order No.
10272703) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Pelletier, J., Reeve, R., & Halewood, C. (2006). Young children’s knowledge building and literacy development through
Knowledge Forum. Early Education and Development, 17(3), 323–346. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ757522.

REL 2021–084 F-17

*Penuel, W. R., Bates, L., Gallagher, L. P., Pasnik, S., Llorente, C., Townsend, E., Hupert, N., Dominguez, X., & VanderBorght,
M. (2012). Supplementing literacy instruction with a media-rich intervention: Results of a randomized controlled trial.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 115–127. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ947504.
Additional source: Penuel, W. R., Pasnik, S., Bates, L., Townsend, E., Gallagher, L. P., Llorente, C., & Hupert, N. (2009).
Preschool teachers can use a media-rich curriculum to prepare low-income children for school success: Results of a
randomized controlled trial. Education Development Center and SRI. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506950.
Additional source: Penuel, W. R., Bates, L., Townsend, E., Gallagher, L. P., Pasnik, S., & Llorente, C. (2010, March). A
media-rich curriculum for improving early literacy outcomes of low-income children: Evaluation results for the" Ready
to Learn" initiative. Paper presented at the Third Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Conference,
Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512719.
Petursdottir, A. I. (2006). An evaluation of intraverbal training and listener training for teaching categorization skills (UMI No.
3234887) [Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Petursdottir, A. I., Carr, J. E., & Michael, J. (2005). Emergence of mands and tacts of novel objects among preschool children.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 59–74. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ846319.
Phelps, S. (2003). Phonological awareness training in a preschool classroom of typically developing children (UMI No.
1413452) [Master’s thesis, East Tennessee State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Phillips, B. M. (2014). Promotion of syntactical development and oral comprehension: Development and initial evaluation of
a small-group intervention. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 63–77. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1019082.
*Phillips, B. M., Tabulda, G., Ingrole, S. A., Burris, P. W., Sedgwick, T. K., & Chen, S. (2016). Literate language intervention with
high-need prekindergarten children: A randomized trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(6),
1409–1420. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1124170.
Pianta, R., Hamre, B., Downer, J., Burchinal, M., Williford, A., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Howes, C., La Paro, K., & Scott-Little, C.
(2017). Early childhood professional development: Coaching and coursework effects on indicators of children’s school
readiness. Early Education & Development, 28(8), 956–975. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1154491.
*Piasta, S. B. (2008). Developing emergent literacy skills: The impact of alphabet instruction (UMI No. 3340751) [Doctoral
dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Learning letter names and sounds: Effects of instruction, letter
type, and phonological processing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(4), 324–344.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ876203.
*Pietrangelo, D. J. (1999). Outcomes of an enhanced literacy curriculum on the emergent literacy skills of Head Start
preschoolers (UMI No. 9927614) [Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, State University of New York]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Podhajski, B., & Nathan, J. (2005). Promoting early literacy through professional development for childcare providers. Early
Education and Development, 16(1), 1–5. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ757473.
*Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Kim, M., & Simmons, L. (2011).
The effects of an intensive shared book-reading intervention for preschool children at risk for vocabulary delay.
Exceptional Children, 77(2), 161–183. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918889.
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development
intervention on Head Start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 299–312.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ884844.
*Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008a). Bright Beginnings and Creative Curriculum: Vanderbilt
University. In Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009). U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.

REL 2021–084 F-18

 Additional source: Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D. C., Hurley, S. M., Hofer, K. G., & Bilbrey, C. (2009, March). Effects of a literacy
focused curriculum and a developmental curriculum on school readiness and subsequent state achievement test
outcomes in rural prekindergarten classrooms. Paper presented at the Second Annuals Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness Conference, Washington, DC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED514947.
*Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008b). Creative Curriculum: University of North Carolina at
Charlotte. In Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009). U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
*Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008c). Creative Curriculum with Ladders to Literacy: University of
New Hampshire. In Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
*Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008d). Curiosity Corner: Success for All Foundation. In Effects of
Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 75–83). U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008f). Early Literacy and Learning Model: University of North
Florida. In Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 99–108). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
*Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008g). Language-Focused Curriculum: University of Virginia. In
Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 109-116). U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
*Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008h). Literacy Express and DLM Early Childhood Express
Supplemented with Open Court Reading Pre-K: Florida State University. In Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on
School Readiness (NCER 2008-2009) (pp. 117–130). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Research.
Additional source: Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., & Menchetti, J. C. (2006, July). Impact of preschool literacy curricula:
Results of a randomized trial. Paper presented in the Thirteenth Annual Society for the Scientific Study of Reading
Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
*Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008i). Project Approach: Purdue University/University of
Wisconsin. In Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 143–151). U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008j). Project Construct: University of Missouri-Columbia. In Effects
of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 153–161). U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008k). Ready, Set, Leap!: University of California, Berkeley. In Effects
of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER No. 2008-2009) (pp. 164–172). U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Research.
*Price-Mohr, R., & Price, C. (2017). Gender differences in early reading strategies: A comparison of synthetic phonics only
with a mixed approach to teaching reading to 4–5 year-old children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(5), 613–620.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0813-y.
Rahn, N. L. (2013). A comparison of word learning in 3-year-old children at-risk for language and literacy difficulties in two
conditions: Dialogic reading and activity-based intervention (UMI No. 3567464) [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Raisner, J. C. (2002). The effect of rhythmic music activities upon language acquisition with four -year -old children (UMI No.
276061300) [Doctoral dissertation, Temple University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Raisor, L. J. (2006). A comparison of phonological awareness intervention approaches (UMI No. 3217598) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Cincinnati]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
REL 2021–084 F-19
Rasberry, J. E. (2004). Early childhood literacy enrichment training of teachers and of three and four year olds in a preschool
setting (UMI No. 3133955) [Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.
Razgunas, R. M. (2007). Levels of abstraction in shared book-reading with Head Start preschoolers with speech-language
impairment (UMI No. 1449958) [Master’s thesis, Wayne State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Register, D. (2001). The effects of an early intervention music curriculum on prereading/writing. Journal of Music Therapy,
38(3), 239–248. http://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/38.3.239.
Riches, N. G., Tomasello, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2005). Verb learning in children with SLI: Frequency and spacing effects.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1397–1411. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742741.
Riley, J., Burrell, A., & McCallum, B. (2004). Developing the spoken language skills of reception class children in two
multicultural, inner-city primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 657–672.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ680385.
Ritblatt, S., Longstreth, S., Hokoda, A., Cannon, B. N., & Weston, J. (2013). Can music enhance school-readiness
socioemotional skills? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(3), 257–266.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2013.796333.
*RMC Research Corporation. (2003). Ready, Set, Leap! Program: Newark prekindergarten study 2002-2003 final report.
Roskos, K. A., Sullivan, S., Simpson, D., & Zuzolo, N. (2016). E-books in the early literacy environment: Is there added value for
vocabulary development? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(2), 226–236.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1094809.
Roskos, K., & Burstein, K. (2011). Assessment of the design efficacy of a preschool vocabulary instruction technique. Journal
of Research in Childhood Education, 25(3), 268–287. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ929310.
Roth, F. P., Troia, G. A., Worthington, C. K., & Dow, K. A. (2002). Promoting awareness of sounds in speech: An initial report
of an early intervention program for children with speech and language impairments. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(4),
535–565. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716402004034.
Additional source: Roth, F. P., Troia, G. A., Worthington, C. K., & Handy, D. (2006). Promoting Awareness of Sounds in
Speech (PASS): The effects of intervention and stimulus characteristics on the blending performance of preschool
children with communication impairments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(2), 67–88.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ786197.
*Russell, J. (2005). An investigation of preschool oral language improvements through Ladders to Literacy [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire].
*Ruston, H. P., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2010). Effects of a conversation intervention on the expressive vocabulary
development of prekindergarten children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 303–313.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ892596.
*Sa, A. (2012). Fostering preschoolers’ narrative comprehension through inference making and story reenactment training
(UMI No. 3542680) [Doctoral dissertation, LeHigh University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Salaway, J. L. (2008). Efficacy of a direct instruction approach to promote early learning (UMI No. 3303027) [Doctoral
dissertation, Duquesne University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Schryer, E., Sloat, E., & Letourneau, N. (2015). Effects of an animated book reading intervention on emergent literacy skill
development: An early pilot study. Journal of Early Intervention, 37(2), 155–171.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1053815115598842.
*Schwanenflugel, P. J., Hamilton, C. E., Neuharth-Pritchett, S., Restrepo, M. A., Bradley, B. A., & Webb, M. Y. (2010). PAVEd
for success: An evaluation of a comprehensive preliteracy program for four-year-old children. Journal of Literacy
Research, 42(3), 227–275. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ897192.

REL 2021–084 F-20

*Scott, D. D. (2005). Investigating the behavioral outcomes of an early literacy intervention for at-risk preschool children (UMI
No. 3177496) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Senechal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive
vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 123–138. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ547516.
Shaller, G. E. (2005). Teaching and tracking emergent literacy instruction in head start (UMI No. 305366129) [Doctoral
dissertation, Stony Brook University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
*Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Effects of a milieu teaching strategy in a storybook context on the acquisition, maintenance, and
generalization of expressive language by young children with developmental disabilities (Order No. 9801786) [Doctoral
dissertation, The Ohio State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Shute, R., & Miksad, J. (1997). Computer assisted instruction and cognitive development in preschoolers. Child Study Journal,
27(3), 237–253. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ554378.
Small, S. (2013). Will implementing a research based DESE approved early childhood program have an effect on the school
readiness of prekindergarten students (Order No. 3606176) [Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses database.
Smith, C., & Fluck, M. (2000). (Re-) Constructing pre-linguistic interpersonal processes to promote language development in
young children with deviant or delayed communication skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(3), 369–389.
http://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158182.
Smith, E. J., Pellin, B. J., & Agruso, S. A. (2003). Bright Beginnings: An effective literacy-focused PreK program for educationally
disadvantaged four-year-old children. Educational Research Service, 1–104. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED478648.
Smith, R. (2015). Assessing vocabulary of children: Investigating the evaluation and instruction of basic concepts (UMI No.
1587241) [Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Smith, S. H. (1998). The effects of a whole language method of instruction and an integrated phonics method of instruction
on the reading achievement of inner-city preschool pupils (UMI No. 9826788) [Doctoral dissertation, The George
Washington University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Standley, J., & Hughes, J. (1997). Evaluation of an early intervention music curriculum for enhancing pre-reading and writing
skills. Music Therapy Perspectives, 15(2), 79–86. http://doi.org/10.1093/mtp/15.2.79.
*Stanton-Chapman, T. L. (2004). Building social communication skills during peer interaction using storybooks (UMI No.
3127279) [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Stanton-Chapman, T. L., Kaiser, A. P., & Wolery, M. (2006). Building social communication skills in
Head Start children using storybooks: The effects of prompting on social interactions. Journal of Early Intervention,
28(3), 197–212. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ743116.
*Stanton-Chapman, T. L., Denning, C. B., & Jamison, K. R. (2012). Communication skill building in young children with and
without disabilities in a preschool classroom. The Journal of Special Education, 46(2), 78–93.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ972255.
Stanton-Chapman, T. L., Kaiser, A. P., Vijay, P., & Chapman, C. (2008). A multicomponent intervention to increase Peer-
directed communication in Head Start children. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(3), 188–212.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ821302.
Starnes, L. P. (2017). Effects of social-emotional education on pre-kindergarten student academic achievement (Order No.
10680463) [Doctoral dissertation, Liberty University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Stockard, J. (2009). Promoting early literacy of preschool children: A study of the effectiveness of Funnix Beginning Reading
(Technical Report No. 2009-1). National Institute of Direct Instruction. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ908028.

REL 2021–084 F-21

Storie, S., Coogle, C. G., Rahn, N., & Ottley, J. R. (2017). Distance coaching for pre-service teachers: Impacts on children’s
functional communication in inclusive preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(6), 735–743.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1156735.
Strand, P. S., & Cerna, S. (2010). The effects of a data dissemination strategy on the letter naming and object counting skills
of preschoolers attending Head Start. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19(4), 289–305. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ907398.
Syring, L. K. (2008). Phoneme identity in preschool and its role in kindergarten reading readiness (UMI No. 304836583)
[Master’s thesis, Southwest Minnesota State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
*Talley, S., Lancy, D. F., & Lee, T. R. (1997). Children, storybooks and computers. Reading Horizons, 38(2), 116–128. Retrieved
March 13, 2018, from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol38/iss2/7/.
*Thompson, P. S. (2015). Scaffolding emergent literacy skills in pre-kindergarten through writing instruction (UMI No.
3702167) [Doctoral dissertation, Middle Tennessee State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Trotti, J., Hendricks, R., & Bledsoe, C. (2017). Emergent literacy development and computer assisted instruction. SRATE
Journal, 26(1), 30–39. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1134394.
Tsitiridou-Evangelou, M. (2001). Evaluation of the effects of a pre-school intervention on literacy development in children
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford].
Tyler, A. A., Gillon, G., Macrae, T., & Johnson, R. L. (2011). Direct and indirect effects of stimulating phoneme awareness vs.
other linguistic skills in preschoolers with co-occurring speech and language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders,
31(2), 128–144. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ927248.
Additional source: Sweat, L. M. (2004). Comparing the effects of morphosyntax and phonology intervention on final
consonant clusters in finite morphemes and final consonant inventories (UMI No. 1414481) [Master’s thesis,
University of Nevada, Reno]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L. C. (2002). Efficacy and cross-domain effects of a
morphosyntax and a phonology intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(1), 52–66.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ653786.
Additional source: Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Paul, K. (2003). Effects of a cycled morphological intervention on
selected suppletive BE forms. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17(1), 25–42.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0269920021000051517.
*Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L. C. (2003). Outcomes of different speech and language goal attack strategies.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1077–1094. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ823316.
Additional source: Meyer, C. M. (2000). The relationship of various predictors to phonological change following treatment
(UMI No. 1399579) [Master’s thesis, University of Nevada, Reno]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Tyler, A. A., Osterhouse, H., Wickham, K., Mcnutt, R., & Shao, Y. (2014). Effects of explicit teacher-implemented phoneme
awareness instruction in 4-year-olds. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 25(7-8), 493–507.
http://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2014.927004.
Ukrainetz, T. A., Nuspl, J. J., Wilkerson, K., & Beddes, S. R. (2011). The effects of syllable instruction on phonemic awareness
in preschoolers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 50–60. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ906814.
Vajcner, T. (2015). Dialogic reading using social-emotional themed storybooks: Impact on preschoolers’ emergent literacy and
emotion knowledge (Order No. 10145267) [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R. B., & McFadden, T. U. (1998). A study of classroom-based phonological awareness training for
preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7(3), 65–76.
http://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0703.65.

REL 2021–084 F-22

van Kleeck, A., Vander, W. J., & Hammett, L. (2006). Fostering literal and inferential language skills in Head Start preschoolers
with language impairment using scripted book-sharing discussions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
15(1), 85–95. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ902765.
Vasilyeva, M., Huttenlocher, J., & Waterfall, H. (2006). Effects of language intervention on syntactic skill levels in preschoolers.
Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 164174. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ733858.
Vatalaro, A., Culp, A. M., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Barnes, A. C. (2015). A quasi-experiment examining expressive and receptive
vocabulary knowledge of preschool Head Start children using mobile media apps. Early Childhood Education Journal,
46(4), 451–466. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1181438.
Vecchiotti, S. (2004). Two-year program evaluation of the Jumpstart program in New York City (UMI No. 3125031) [Doctoral
dissertation, Fordham University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Vera, D. J. (2007). The use of popular culture environmental print to increase the emergent literacy skills of prekindergarten
children in one high-poverty urban school district (UMI No. 3270408) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University].
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Vera, D. (2011). Using popular culture print to increase emergent literacy skills in one high-poverty
urban school district. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 11(3), 307–330. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ938739.
Villaurrutia, A. (2004). The effect of scaffolding on children’s oral language development (UMI No. 1423643) [Master’s thesis,
The University of Texas–Pan American]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Wahlstrom, K., Hornbacher, J., & Rader, S. (2007). Bloomington/Richfield—Early Reading First Get Ready Centers of Excellence
year II report. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Waldron-Soler, K. M. (2001). Effects of the "Language for Learning" curriculum on the receptive language, expressive
language, and social interaction skills of preschoolers with and without disabilities (UMI No. 3051947) [Doctoral
dissertation, Washington State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Waldron-Soler, K. M., Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Warner, D. A., Tso, M. E., Warner, D.
A., & Miller, D. E. (2002). Effects of a 15-week Language for Learning implementation with children in an integrated
preschool. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 75–86. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ651887.
*Walsh, B. (2009). Novel word learning of preschoolers enrolled in Head Start regular and bilingual classrooms: Impact of
adult vocabulary noneliciting questions during shared storybook reading (UMI No. 3384573) [Doctoral dissertation, Texas
Woman’s University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Walsh, B. A., & Rose, K. K. (2013). Impact of adult vocabulary noneliciting and eliciting questions on
the novel vocabulary acquisition of preschoolers enrolled in Head Start. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,
27(1), 31–45. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED530807.
*Walsh, B. A., & Blewitt, P. (2006). The effect of questioning style during storybook reading on novel vocabulary acquisition
of preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(4), 273–278. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ747238.
Wardi-Zonna, K. (1997). The efficacy of early intervention with preschool children at multiple risk (UMI No. 9822193) [Doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Washington, K. N., Warr-Leeper, G., & Thomas-Stonell, N. (2011). Exploring the outcomes of a novel computer-assisted
treatment program targeting expressive-grammar deficits in preschoolers with SLI. Journal of Communication Disorders,
44(3), 315–330. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ925765.
Additional source: Washington, K. N., & Warr-Leeper, G. A. (2013). Visual support in intervention for preschoolers with
specific language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 33(4), 347–365. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1063095.
Additional source: Washington, K. N. (2013). The association between expressive grammar intervention and social and
emergent literacy outcomes for preschoolers with SLI. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(1), 113–
125. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1005166.

REL 2021–084 F-23

*Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: interactive book reading and language development in
preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 243. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ638739.
Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2011). Improving vocabulary and pre-literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers through teacher
professional development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 455–469. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ926124.
Additional source: Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2014). Understanding the active ingredients in an effective preschool
vocabulary intervention: An exploratory study of teacher and child talk during book reading. Early Education and
Development, 25(7), 1035–1056. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1033999.
Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on Head Start children
and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 63–74. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ734340.
Weisberg, D. S., Ilgaz, H., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Nicolopoulou, A., & Dickinson, D. K. (2015). Shovels and swords: How
realistic and fantastical themes affect children’s word learning. Cognitive Development, 35(1), 1–14.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.11.001.
Weiss, M. (2008). Increasing receptive, expressive, and overall language skills in language-delayed preschool students (UMI
No. 3346418) [Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz, M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an
emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 261–
272. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.261.
Additional source: Zevenbergen, A. A., Whitehurst, G. J., & Zevenbergen, J. A. (2003). Effects of a shared-reading
intervention on the inclusion of evaluative devices in narratives of children from low-income families. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(03)00021-2.
Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (2007). Young children at risk of literacy difficulties: Factors predicting recovery
from risk following phonologically based intervention. Journal of Research in Reading, 30(3), 249–269.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ771925.
Whiting, E. M. (2006). Enhancing Head Start children’s early literacy skills: an investigation of intervention outcomes (UMI No.
3261877) [Doctoral dissertation, Wichita State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Whitlow, C. K. G. (2003). Video self-modeling as an intervention for specific language impairment in preschoolers (UMI No.
3095690) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Memphis]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Wilcox, M. J., Gray, S. I., Guimond, A. B., & Lafferty, A. E. (2011). Efficacy of the TELL language and literacy curriculum for
preschoolers with developmental speech and/or language impairment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(3), 278–
294. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ924085.
Wilhjelm, K. N. (2004). Contexts for facilitating emergent literacy in typically developing preschoolers (UMI No. 1418663)
[Master’s thesis, East Tennessee State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Williams, S. E., & Horst, J. S. (2014). Goodnight book: Sleep consolidation improves word learning via storybooks. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5(184), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00184.
*Willoughby, D., Evans, M. A., & Nowak, S. (2015). Do ABC eBooks boost engagement and learning in preschoolers? An
experimental study comparing eBooks with paper ABC and storybook controls. Computers & Education, 82(1), 107–117.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.008.
Additional source: Evans, M. A., Nowak, S., Burek, B., & Willoughby, D. (2017). The effect of alphabet eBooks and paper
books on preschoolers’ behavior: An analysis over repeated readings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40(1), 1–
12. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.02.002.
*Witt, E. N. (2000). Effects of reading styles on African-American preschoolers of disadvantage (UMI No. 9998719) [Doctoral
dissertation, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.

REL 2021–084 F-24

*Wyant, A. B. (2008). What type of extra-textual input is optimal for preschoolers’ vocabulary learning during storybook
reading? (UMI No. 1454132) [Master’s thesis, Villanova University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Xuan, Y. (2007). Hybrid intervention to facilitate preschool children’s narrative development (UMI No. 3380802) [Doctoral
dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Yeh, S. S., & Connell, D. B. (2008). Effects of rhyming, vocabulary, and phonemic awareness instruction on phoneme
awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 243–256. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ791317.
*Yeh, S. S. (2003). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching phonemic awareness to children in Head Start. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 513–529. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ778645.
Yoder, P., Camarata, S., & Gardner, E. (2005). Treatment effects on speech intelligibility and length of utterance in children
with specific language and intelligibility impairments. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 34–49.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ743068.
Youngblood, C. K. (2017). Kindergarten literacy readiness before and after HighScope implementation (Order No. 10253695)
[Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Zhou, N. (2014). Effects of multimedia story reading on preschoolers’ vocabulary learning, story comprehension and reading
engagement (UMI No. 3669649) [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
Additional source: Zhou, N., & Yadav, A. (2017). Effects of multimedia story reading and questioning on preschoolers’
vocabulary learning, story comprehension and reading engagement. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 65(6), 1523–1545. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1162090.
Ziolkowski, R. A., & Goldstein, H. (2008). Effects of an embedded phonological awareness intervention during repeated book
reading on preschool children with language delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 31(1), 67–90.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ818317.
Ziolkowski, R. A. (2004). Effects of an emergent literacy intervention for children with language impairments from low income
environments (UMI No. 3160696) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database.
Zoll, S. M. (2012). From “at risk” to “at promise”: An evaluation of an Early Reading First project (UMI No. 3522948) [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Rhode Island]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
*Zucker, T. A., Solari, E. J., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (2013). Effects of a brief tiered language intervention for
prekindergartners at risk. Early Education & Development, 24(3), 366–392. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1010582.

REL 2021–084 F-25