ERIC ED608828: Feasible Implementation Strategies for Improving Vocabulary Knowledge of High-Risk Preschoolers: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Trial

2020·0.78 MB·English

by  ERIC

JSLHR
Research Article
Feasible Implementation Strategies
for Improving Vocabulary Knowledge
of High-Risk Preschoolers: Results
From a Cluster-Randomized Trial
Elizabeth Spencer Kelley,a R. Michael Barker,b Lindsey Peters-Sanders,b Keri Madsen,b
Yagmur Seven,b Xigrid Soto,b Wendy Olsen,b Katharine Hull,b and Howard Goldsteinb
Purpose:Many children begin school with limited toteach. Interventionactivitiestookplaceover13weeks,
vocabularies, placing them at a high risk of academic and 36 challenging, academically relevant vocabulary
difficulties. The goal of this study was to examine the words were targeted.
effectsofavocabularyinterventionprogram, StoryFriends, Results:Childreninthetreatmentclassroomslearned
designed to improve vocabulary knowledge of at-risk significantlymorewordsthanchildreninthecomparison
preschool children. classrooms,wholearnedfewtargetwordsbasedon
Method:Twenty-fourearly-childhoodclassroomswere exposure.Largeeffectsizes(meand=1.83)wereevident
enrolledinacluster-randomizeddesigntoevaluatethe asthetreatmentgroupaveraged42%vocabularyknowledge
effectsofarevisedStoryFriendscurriculum.Ineach versus11%inthecomparisongroup,despiteagradual
classroom,threetofourpreschoolerswereidentifiedas declineinvocabularylearningbythetreatmentgroupover
havingpoorlanguageabilities,foratotalof84participants. theschoolyear.
Intreatmentclassrooms,explicitvocabularyinstruction Conclusions:Findingsindicatethatacarefullydesigned
wasembeddedinprerecordedstorybooksandopportunities vocabularyinterventioncanproducesubstantialgainsin
forreviewandpracticeoftargetvocabularywereintegrated children’svocabularyknowledge.TheStoryFriendsprogram
intoclassroomandhomepracticeactivities.Incomparison isfeasiblefordeliveryinearlychildhoodclassroomsand
classrooms, prerecorded storybooks included target effectiveinteachingchallengingvocabularytohigh-risk
vocabulary, but without explicit instruction, and classroom preschoolers.
and home strategies focused on general language SupplementalMaterial:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.
enrichmentstrategieswithoutspecifyingvocabularytargets 13158185
E
arlylanguageskillsareimportantandreliablepre- laterreadingfailureanddiagnosiswithreadingdisability
dictorsoflaterreadingability(NationalEarlyLiter- (Cattsetal.,2002;Scarborough,1998;Sénéchaletal.,2006),
acyPanel,2008;NationalInstituteofChildHealth andchildrenwithlimitedvocabularyknowledgearelikely
andHumanDevelopment,2000).Inparticular,vocabulary tohavecomprehensiondeficits(Elwéretal.,2013;Nation
knowledgeisastrongcontributortoreadingcomprehension etal.,2010).
(LanguageandReadingResearchConsortium&Logan, Althoughsubstantialeffortshavebeendevotedtoim-
2017;Quinnetal.,2015).Childrenwithlimitedlanguage provingorallanguageskillsofyoungchildren,therecontinues
skillsinpreschoolandkindergartenareatahighriskof tobeconcerningevidencethatmanyearlychildhoodsettings
donotprovideadequatesupportforearlylanguagedevelop-
ment(Cartaetal.,2014;Dickinson,2011;Greenwoodetal.,
aDepartmentofSpeech,LanguageandHearingSciences,University 2013;Wright,2012).Inadescriptivestudyof65earlychild-
ofMissouri,Columbia hoodclassrooms,lessthan10%ofobservedintervalsinvolved
bCollegeofBehavioralandCommunitySciences,UniversityofSouth language-focusedteachertalk,andevenfewerintervalsin-
Florida,Tampa volvedvocabulary-focusedteachertalk(Cartaetal.,2014).
CorrespondencetoElizabethSpencerKelley:[email protected] SimilarfindingswerereportedbyDwyerandHarbaugh
Editor-in-Chief:StephenM.Camarata
ReceivedJune4,2020
RevisionreceivedJuly21,2020 Disclosure:ElizabethSpencerKelleyandHowardGoldsteinareauthorsofStory
AcceptedAugust17,2020 FriendspublishedbyPaulBrookesandreceiveroyalties.Theotherauthorshave
https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00316 declaredthatnocompetinginterestsexistedatthetimeofpublication.
JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch (cid:127) 1–18 (cid:127) Copyright©2020AmericanSpeech-Language-HearingAssociation 1
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
(2018);inlow-incomepreschoolclassrooms,teachersocca- familiartopreschoolchildren.Ineach24-dayunit,teachers
sionallyprovidedexplicitvocabularyinstructionwhen targetedbetween50and80words;thus,approximately
deliveringsciencecontentbutneverduringtimefocusedon 20–30newwordsweretaughtinamonth.Otherprograms
reading.Wright(2012)reportedthatexplicitvocabularyin- havefocusedonchallengingwordsunlikelytobeknownby
structionoccurredonlyrarelyacrosskindergartenclassrooms preschoolchildren.Theseprogramsoftenhavefollowed
andlessofteninclassroomsservinglow-incomestudents. guidelinesbyBecketal.(2013)thatarguethatexplicitin-
structionshouldfocusonsophisticatedvocabularywords
withhighutilityforconversationandlaterreading.Within
Vocabulary Intervention in Early Childhood
theseprograms,thereissomevariabilityinthenumberof
Thereiscompellingevidencethatwell-designedvocab- wordsselectedforinstructionwitharangetypicallybe-
ularyinterventionscanimprovetheorallanguageskillsof tweentwotosixperbookandonebookperweek(e.g.,
youngchildren.Inameta-analysisof67vocabularyinter- Coyneetal.,2010;Loftusetal.,2010).
ventionstudieswithpreschoolandkindergartenchildren, Outcomesofvocabularyinterventionsalsocanbe
Marulis and Neuman (2010) reported large effects for improvedbyincreasinghowmanyofthetaughtwordsare
vocabulary learning (g = 0.88), although effects were much learned.Characteristicsofeffectivevocabularyinterven-
smaller for at-risk children from low-socioeconomic status tionincludeexplicitinstruction,activeengagement,andre-
families (g = 0.77) than for children from middle- to high- peatedexposuretoinstructionaltargets.Incomparisonto
socioeconomic status families (g = 1.35). In many studies, indirectteachingorincidentalexposure,explicitteaching
vocabulary interventions have been delivered in shared read- producesmuchlargergainsonvocabularylearning(Coyne
ing activities with embedded, explicit lessons and have etal.,2007;Justiceetal.,2005).Althoughsomevocabu-
improved vocabulary knowledge of children with large larylearningtakesplacefromincidentalexposure(e.g.,re-
effect sizes (Coyne et al., 2007; Justice et al., 2005; Loftus ceptiveknowledgeofobjectlabels;O’Fallonetal.,2020),
et al., 2010). childrenarerarelyabletodefineorproducewordsforwhich
Although effect sizes havebeen moderateto large theyhavehadonlyincidentalexposure(Coyneetal.,2009;
across studies,an examinationof vocabularygainsin Goldsteinetal.,2016).Activeengagementandgivingchil-
termsof number or percentageof wordslearned reveals drenmanychancestorespondhelpchildrenlearnnew
onlymodestincreasesinvocabularyknowledge.Forexam- words(Dickinson&Smith,1994;Sénéchal,1997).Repeated
ple,inJusticeetal.(2005),childrenlearned2.3–2.7new exposuretoinstructionaltargetsbyrepeatedreadingsofthe
wordsonaverageofthe30wordsincludedintheexplicit storyordiscussionofthevocabularywordsincreasesthe
teachingcondition,andPennoetal.(2002)reportedgains likelihoodthatchildrenwilllearnthosewords(Flacketal.,
of2.7of10explicitlytaughtwords.Coyneetal.(2010)re- 2018;Pennoetal.,2002;Sénéchal,1997;Stahl&Fairbanks,
portedgainsof23%ofpossiblewordpoints,andNeuman 1986).Repeatedexposurescanalsobeachievedwithin
etal.reported gains of between 9% and 14% of words embeddedlessons;inarecentstudyofavocabularyinter-
taughtperunit(Neumanetal.,2011).Instudiesofkinder- ventionforkindergartenchildrenwithlanguagedisorders,
gartenchildrenwithdevelopmentallanguagedisorders, Storkeletal.(2017)identified36asthenumberofexposures
Storkelandcolleagues(Storkeletal.,2019,2017)reported totargetvocabularynecessarytoprovidemaximumgains.
learningof17%–30%ofwordswhendosageandfrequency
ofexposurewereoptimized.Whenvocabularyintervention
Implementation in Educational Settings
studieshaveincludedadelayedposttest,treatmenteffects
areoftenmaintained(Loftusetal.,2010;Neumanetal., Onechallengetoeffectiveorallanguageintervention
2011),butchildrenretainonlyaportionoflearnedwords isimplementationinauthenticeducationdeliverysettings
(e.g.,70%inCoyneetal.,2007;47%inKelleyetal.,2015). (Foorman&Moats,2004).High-fidelityimplementationis
Althoughthesegainsaresignificantandmeaningful,there criticaltotheeffectivenessofinterventionsand,consequently,
is aneed forinterventionsthat can producemorerobust theimprovementofeducationaloutcomes(Justiceetal.,
effects,especiallyforat-riskchildrenwithlimitedorallan- 2008;Kaderavek&Justice,2010;O’Donnell,2008).Effi-
guageskills. cacystudiesinwhichresearchersareinvolvedtoensure
highimplementationfidelityallowinterventionstobeim-
plementedwithprecisionandrigorousstandards.However,
Increasing Effects on Vocabulary Knowledge
wheninterventionsmovetoteacher-implementedsettings,im-
Toincrease effects of interventionsonvocabulary plementationfidelitycanbereduced(Hulleman&Cordray,
knowledge,oneapproach is to simplyteach morewords. 2009).Toaddressthischallenge,itisimportanttoconsider
However,researchhasyettoresolvewhichwordstoteach feasibilityofimplementationfromtheearlieststagesofde-
ortheoptimalnumberofwordstotargetsimultaneously. velopmentandidentifyflexible,effectivestrategiesthatare
Someinterventionprogramsteachawidevarietyofword usefulandfeasibleforteachersandfamiliesinearlychild-
typesandpurposefullyincludeasubstantialproportionof hoodsettings.
wordsthatchildrenarelikelytoknowalready.Forexam- Toincreasefeasibilityofimplementationinearlychild-
ple,Neumanetal.(2011)selectedsetsofvocabularytargets hoodclassrooms,interventionshaveoftenbeendesigned
inwhichmorethan40%ofthewordswerelikelytobe tofitintoexistingroutinesandpracticesofearlychildhood
2 JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch (cid:127) 1–18
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
classrooms.Manysuccessfulinterventionshavetakenad- programwasformulatedthroughpreviousresearchandanit-
vantageofthewidelyusedpracticeofsharedstorybook erativedevelopmentprocessinformedbymultiplestake-
reading(e.g.,Beck&McKeown,2007;Coyneetal.,2007; holders(seeFigure1fortheoryofchange).Contextual
Dickinsonetal.,2019).Othercommonroutinesoftheearly factors(e.g.,demographicsofchildrenandteachers)as
childhoodclassroom(e.g.,rotationsthroughlearningcen- wellascharacteristicsofpreschoolclassroomsandinstruc-
ters,morningmeetings,teacher-ledsmallgroupactivities) tionguideddecisionsaboutthedesignanddeliveryofinstruc-
provideopportunitiestodeliverpracticeorrepeatedexpo- tion.Thestorybookcontextwasselectedbasedonprevious
suretoinstructionaltargets.Forexample,Neumanetal. researchforvocabularyinstructionandasapracticethat
(2011)includedjournalwritingactivitiesaspartofavocab- wouldbereadilyacceptedbypreschoolteachersandincor-
ularyinterventionprogram.Hadleyetal.(2019)embedded poratedintoclassroomroutines.Wedesignedanauto-
vocabularyinstructionintodirectedplayactivitiesandre- matedformatfordeliveryofinstruction,withprerecorded
portedlargetreatmenteffects. storybooksandvocabularylessons,tobeeasytoimplement
Becausethelanguageexperiencesofyoungchildren byeducationalstaffandnotrequiringextensivepreparation
athomeareimportantcontributorstolanguageandliteracy ortraining.Toincreasethepotentialforhigh-fidelityimple-
development(Dickinson&Tabors,1991),effectiveinterven- mentation,wealsotailoredthestructureandlengthofthe
tionscanextendbeyondtheclassroomandincludethefami- sessionstoatypical15-min,small-groupcenterrotation.
liesofyoungchildren.Similartotheclassroom,feasibility Keystakeholderswereengagedinboththedesignandre-
ofimplementationcanbeimprovedbyconsiderationof visionstotheprogram.Byfocusingonfeasibilityofimple-
contexts,practices,androutinesoffamilies.Intervention mentation,thisdevelopmentapproachwasdesignedto
programsthatarecarefullydesignedcanbeeffectivefor produceaninterventionthatwouldbereadilyadoptedand
familieswithlimitedresources(e.g.,Smithetal.,2005;Soto sustainedinavarietyofearlychildhoodsettings(Kelley&
etal.,2020). Goldstein,2015).
TheStoryFriendsprogramhasbeendevelopedand
StoryFriends:TheoryofChangeandPreviousStudies evaluated in aseries of studies(summarizedinKelley &
TheStoryFriendsprogramisasupplementalvocabu- Goldstein,2015).Thefindings fromearly efficacy studies
laryprogramdesignedforimplementationinearlychildhood usingsingle-caseexperimentaldesigns(Kelleyetal.,2015;
classrooms.ThetheoryofchangefortheStoryFriends Spenceretal.,2012)andcross-sitereplications(Greenwood
Figure1.TheoryofchangefortheStoryFriendsprogram.
Kelleyetal.:FeasibleImplementationStrategies 3
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
etal.,2016)informedrevisionsandrefinementstothepro- Friends intervention package. The foundation of the effi-
gram,whichwasthenevaluatedinacluster-randomized cacy component of our study was the automated listening
trialin32classroomswith195participants(Goldsteinetal., centerconditionsthatsoughttocontrolthedosageofexpo-
2016).Inthecluster-randomizedtrial,large,significanttreat- suretoprerecordedstorybookswithandwithoutexplicit
menteffectswereobservedforthelearningoftargetvocabu- vocabularyinstruction.Theimplementationcomponent
larywords.Participantsinthetreatmentclassroomslearned focusedonstrategiesthatcouldbeimplementedflexibly
anaverageof3.4wordpointsofapossible12perunit,with acrossthedayintheclassroomandathome.Materials
largeeffectsizesof0.70(Cohen’sf2).Fidelityofimplemen- andtrainingsoughttofacilitatethoseinteractionsbetween
tationwashigh,andteachersratedtheprogramhighlyfor childrenandadults,butdosagevariedlargelyunderthe
acceptabilityandfeasibilityofuse. controloftheadults.
Intherandomizedcontrolledtrial(RCT),participants Thestudyusedacluster-randomizeddesignwithchil-
intheexperimentalconditionlearnedanaverageof28.3% drennestedinclassrooms.Preschoolclassroomswereran-
oftargetvocabulary.Althoughthispercentageishigher domlyassignedtothetreatmentorcomparisoncondition
thaninothersimilarstudiesofvocabularyintervention,it usingrankedpairs.Participatingclassroomswererank-
isconsistentwiththecommonfindingthatchildrenlearn orderedbyresearchstafffamiliarwiththeclassroomson
onlyasmallpercentageofvocabularywordstaught.Thus, threecriteria:(a)theextenttowhichtheclassroomswere
weresolvedthatthenextiterationoftheStoryFriends responsiveandfacilitativeoftheStoryFriendsprogram,
programshouldfocusoninstructionalstrategiesthatcould aswellasgeneraladministrativeinfrastructureandre-
improvestudentlearning.Twospecificareasofimprove- sources;(b)proportionoflow-incomefamiliesservedat
mentweretargeted:increasingthenumberofwordstaught thecenter;and(c)thequalityoftheclassroomstructure
(Peters-Sandersetal.,2020)andprovidingopportunities includingthepresenceofplannedactivitiesandroutines.
forreviewandpracticeintheclassroom(Sevenetal.,2020) Usingtherankedlist,classroomswerepaired(e.g.,1and2,
andathome(Sotoetal.,2020).AswithpreviousStory 3and4)andmembersofeachpairwererandomlyassigned
Friendswork,thedevelopmenteffortscontinuedtofocus totreatmentorcomparisonconditions.
onhigh-fidelityimplementationinauthenticeducational
settings.
Setting
Participantswereteachers and children in24early
The Current Study
childhoodclassrooms in two states (seven classroomsin
Thepurposeofthecurrentstudywastoevaluatethe Missouriand 17 in Florida).Classrooms selectedserved
effectsoftherevisedStoryFriendsprogramonvocabulary primarilychildrenfromfamilieswithlowincomesandin-
knowledgeofpreschoolchildren.Wesoughttoaddress cludedfull-dayandhalf-dayprogramsinsession4–5days
two importantchallenges identified inprevious research: per week;19classrooms were5daysperweek,and five
themodestnumberofwordslearnedandthefeasibilityof classroomswere4 daysper week.
implementationineducationalsettings.Ourpreviousstudies
haveestablished theefficacy of theautomatedlistening
Participants
centers.Inthisstudy,therevisedStory Friends program
doubled thenumber of vocabulary targetsper book and Informedconsentdocumentsweresharedwithfami-
included materials to facilitatereviewandpracticestrate- liesinthe24classrooms.Becausethefamilystrategieswere
gies acrossthedayin theclassroomandathome. availableonlyinEnglish,childreninfamilieswhodidnot
Thefollowingresearchquestionswereaddressed: speaksomeEnglishwerenotincluded.Weusedteacher
reporttoidentifyfamilieswhospokesufficientEnglishto
1. WhataretheeffectsoftheStoryFriendsprogramon
participate.Wesoughttoidentifychildrenwithorallanguage
preschoolers’learningoftargetvocabularywords?
skillsbelowageexpectationswhocouldbenefitfromthe
2. Are observed treatment effects moderated by pre- StoryFriendsintervention.Basedonourpreviousresearch,
interventionlanguagescoresorinterventiondosage? wedeterminedthatchildrenwithlowtobelow-average
3. Towhatextentisvocabularyknowledgeretainedaf- orallanguageskillsweregoodcandidates,whereaschildren
terintervention? withverylimitedorallanguagewereunlikelytolearnfrom
listeningtostoriesandinstructionthattheydidnotfully
4. Towhatextentistheprogramimplementedasin-
comprehend.
tended,andwhatareparentandteacherratingsof
Forparticipantswhoreturnedsignedconsents,we
theprogram?
consideredinformationfromtheOralLanguagescreening
measuresoftheIndividualGrowthandDevelopmentIndi-
Method cators(IGDIs;Bradfieldetal.,2014);ameasureofrecep-
tivevocabulary,thatis,thePeabodyPictureVocabulary
Experimental Design
Test–FourthEdition(PPVT-4;Dunn&Dunn,2007);and
ThisstudyrepresentsaHybridType2study(Curran anomnibusmeasureoforallanguage,thatis,theClinical
etal.,2012)in which we combined an examination of EvaluationofLanguageFundamentalsPreschool—Second
both treatment efficacy and implementation of the Story Edition(CELF-P2;Wiigetal.,2004),toidentifyparticipants
4 JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch (cid:127) 1–18
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Figure2.CONSORTdiagramshowingtheflowofparticipantsthroughouttheexperiment.
(seeCONSORTtable,Figure2).First,alleligiblechildren wereselected.Insomecases,whenmorethanfourchildren
completedthetwoIGDIOralLanguagescreeningmeasures: scoredinthisrange,weaskedteacherstogiveinputon
PictureNamingandWhichOneDoesn’tBelong.IGDIs whichchildrenwouldbethemostappropriatecandidates
wereadministeredindividuallytochildrenusingtabletcom- (e.g.,childrenwithregularattendance).Inrarecases,we
puters.OnthePictureNamingIGDI,childrenwereasked extendedtherangeslightlyhighertoidentifyasufficient
toverballylabelasetof15pictures.OntheWhichOne numberofchildreninaclassroom(i.e.,twochildrenwere
Doesn’tBelongIGDI,childrenwerepresentedwiththree includedwithscoresbetween93and106).Table1includes
pictures(e.g.,bus,butterfly,andcar)andaskedtoselect samplecharacteristics.
thepicturethatdidnotbelong.Childrenwhoscoredbelow Theselectedgroupofparticipantsincluded84children,
benchmarkoneitherofthetwomeasuresremainedinthe 43boysand41girls,withanaverageageof54months
poolofpotentialcandidates. (range:45–63months).Familieswereaskedtocompletea
Next,childrenweregiventhePPVT-4andCELF-P2. briefsurveytoprovidedemographicinformation;75%of
Ourinclusionarycriteriawerestandardscoresoneitherthe familiesreturnedthesurvey,butnotallfamiliescompleted
PPVT-4orCELF-P2between0.5and2SDsbelowthe allitems.ThemajorityofchildrenwereBlack(47%,n=30)
normativemean(70–92).Ineachclassroom,threetofour orWhite(21%,n=13);theremainingchildrenwerere-
childrenwhometthesecriteriawereselectedasparticipants. portedtobeAsian,AmericanIndian,NativeHawaiian,
Inmostclassrooms,thefirstchildrenwhometthesecriteria orOtherPacificIslander;30%werereportedtobeHispanic
Kelleyetal.:FeasibleImplementationStrategies 5
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Table1.Samplecharacteristicsbyexperimentalgroups. learnabouttheprogram.Thesemeetingswereconducted
withsmallgroupsofteachersorindividualteachersatcon-
Group venienttimes.Researchstaffusedtheteacher’smanualto
Treatment Comparison guideaconversationthatincludedabriefoverviewofthe
purposeoftheprogram,proceduresforthelisteningcen-
Variable M(SD) M(SD)
ters,useofclassroomstrategies,anddeliveryofhomestrat-
Children(n) 41 43. egies.Researchstaffandteachersalsodiscussedstrategies
Ageatstart(months) 55.32(4.30) 53.79(4.29) forimplementation,suchasfindingalocationandtimefor
CELF-P2pretest 80.45(8.61) 79.72(10.02) thelisteningcenter.
PPVT-4pretest 89.90(8.44) 87.72(7.23)
PPVT-4posttest 93.32(9.85) 92.23(9.16)
TreatmentClassrooms
Note. CELF-P2=ClinicalEvaluationofLanguageFundamentals Automatedlisteningcenters.Theprimaryinstruction
Preschool—SecondEdition(Wiigetal.,2004);PPVT-4=Peabody oftheStoryFriendsprogramwasdeliveredinsmall-group
PictureVocabularyTest–FourthEdition(Dunn&Dunn,2007).
listeningcenters.Listeningcentermaterials includedsets
of Forest Friends storybooks, headphones,an mp3player
withStory Friends audio files,and asplitter.TheForest
orLatino;and35%indicatedthatalanguageotherthan Friendsbookseries includes13books:oneintroductory
Englishwasspokeninthehome,with17%offamilies book,nineinstructionalbooks,andthreereviewbooks.
reportingthatSpanishwasspoken.Threefamiliesreported Thebooksareorganizedintounits of threeinstructional
thattheirchildhadanindividualizededucationplan,and books and areviewbook. Eachbook features thesame
eightfamiliesreportedhavingconcernsabouttheirchild’s animalcharacters with colorfulillustrationsand rhyming
development. story text. The books are 9–11 min long. Children lis-
Ofthefamilieswhoreportedannualhouseholdin- tened to prerecorded storybooks withembeddedlessons
come(n=60),30%reportedincomebelow$20000,47% for four challenging vocabularywords,doubling that of
reportedincomebetween$20000and$50000,and23% our previous RCT. Challenging vocabulary words were
reportedanincomeofmorethan$50000.Just32families 19verbs(e.g.,agree,protect),16adjectives(e.g.,powerful,
providedinformationabouteducationoftheprimarycare- delighted),andonenoun(i.e.,accident).Wordswerese-
giver,whichrangedfromsomehighschooltoagraduate lectedtobenewwordsforpreschoolchildrenwithlimited
orprofessionaldegree,whereas53%ofprimarycaregivers vocabulary, to be relatively high-frequency words that
hadeducationofhighschoolorless,19%hadsomecollege wouldlikelyoccuragaininconversationswithadults,and
oranassociate’sdegree,16%hadabachelor’sdegree,and tobeabletobetaughtwellintheprerecordedlessons(i.e.,
13%hadagraduateorprofessionaldegree. couldbedefinedinsimple,child-friendlyterms).
In the instructional books, each vocabulary word
The Story Friends Program wastaughtintwoembeddedlessons,firstwhentheword
occurredinthestorytextandthesecondimmediatelyafter
Inthecurrentstudy,theStoryFriendsprogram in-
thestory ended.Forthechallenging vocabulary words,
cluded three components: automated listening centers,
each embedded lessonincluded explicit teachingofthe
classroom strategies, and home strategies. Procedures
wordanda simpledefinition,asupportivestorycontext,
andmaterialsforeachcomponentaredescribedbelow(see
child-friendlyexamples,andmultipleopportunitiestore-
SupplementalMaterialS1forfigureoflisteningcenterar-
spond.SamplelessonsareprovidedinTable2.Thepattern
rangement,examplestorybooks, classroom,andhome
ofinstructionallanguagewasconsistentacrossembedded
strategy materials).Each classroom was provided with a
lessons;somevariationwas necessarytoaccommodate
binderthatincludedateacher’smanualandattendanceand
teachingofdifferentvocabularytargets.Intheinstructional
fidelitychecklists.
books, each target vocabulary word was presented 13–
15timesandthesimpledefinitionwaspresented7–8times.In
StudyActivities eachreviewbook,thetargetvocabularywordwaspresented
Teachersandother educationalstaffwere responsi- 3timesandthedefinitionwaspresented2times.Thus,achild
blefor deliveringtheintervention.Research staff assisted whoreceivedtheintendeddosageofthreelistenstoeachin-
teachers by providingmaterials,helpingwithscheduling, structionalandreviewbookheardeachtargetvocabulary
and troubleshooting equipment.Research staff werere- word48–54timesandeachdefinition27–30times.
sponsibleforadministrationofall assessmentsandcon- Childrenlistenedinsmallgroupsofthreetofourchil-
ducted periodicobservations of theclassroom and drenunderheadphoneswithanadultfacilitatorpresent.
listening centers.Research staff deliveredmaterials for
Thefacilitatorwasnotexpectedtoprovideadditionalin-
each unit (approximatelymonthly).
struction;instead,theroleofthefacilitatorwastohelp
guidechildrenatthelisteningcenter(e.g.,keepheadphones
IntroductiontotheProgram on,stayonthecorrectpage).Insomeclassrooms,theteacher
Teachersandothereducationalstaffparticipatedin wasthefacilitator.Inotherclassrooms,teacherassistants
abrief(lessthananhour)meetingwithresearchstaffto orclassroomvolunteersfacilitatedthelisteningcenter.
6 JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch (cid:127) 1–18
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Table2.Sampleexplicit,embeddedlessonsforvocabularywords.
Lesson Example Explanation
Embeddedlesson– Pablomustpreparetoleave.Hehastogetready. Eachembeddedlessonincludesmultipleopportunitiesto
duringstory Prepare.Sayprepare.[pause]Preparemeansto respond,indicatedbypausesinthescript.Children
getready.Tellme,whatwordmeanstogetready? weregivenanopportunitytorepeattheword,saythe
[pause]Prepare.Greatwork!Ibetyouhaveto wordinresponsetothedefinition,andprovidethe
preparetogotoschoolinthemorning.Maybe definition.Storycontext,asimpledefinition,andmultiple
yougetreadybyeatingbreakfastandgetting child-friendlyexampleswereincludedineachlesson.
dressed.Nowlifttheflap.[Pictureofaboyputting
schoolsuppliesinhisbackpack]Lookatthisboy
puttinghissuppliesinhisbackpack.Heisgetting
readytoleaveschool.Heispreparingtogohome.
Tellme,whatdoespreparemean?[pause]Toget
ready.Awesomejob!
Embeddedlesson– Lookatthepictureofthewomanpreparingfood. Thesecondembeddedlessonwaspresentedimmediately
afterstory [Pictureofawomanchoppingvegetables]Sheis afterthestoryandincludedanadditionalchild-friendly
gettingreadyfordinner.Sheispreparingfoodfor context.Childrenweregivenanopportunitytorepeat
herfamily.Sayprepare.[pause]Prepare.Tellme, thewordandtoprovidethedefinition.
whatdoespreparemean?[pause]Togetready.
Waytogo!
Classroomstrategies.Thepurposeoftheclassroom Teacherslearnedabouttheclassroomstrategiesdur-
strategieswastoencourageteacherstoprovideopportu- ingtrainingandfromtheteacher’smanual.Weprovided
nitiesforinstructionandpracticeoftargetedvocabulary recommendationsforhowteacherswouldusethematerials,
wordsduringdailyclassroomroutines.Weanticipatedthat includingguidanceabouthowoftentopracticewords.For
children’s learning would be increased if teachers and example,wesuggestedthatteachersusetheStoryFriends
children used the words taught in the automated listen- WeeklyWordCharttopracticeeachwordatleastonceper
ing centers in meaningful classroom contexts. Classroom dayandusetheStoryFriendsReviewBoardtoreviewall
strategies were developed in an iterative process using in- previouslytaughtwordsonceaweek.However,teachers
formation from teacher focus groups and development wereencouragedtousethematerialsinthewaysthatworked
studies (Seven et al., 2020). The classroom strategies were bestfortheirclassroomroutines.Theintentionwastoprovide
designed to be easy to use, adaptable, and readily incor- teacherswithavarietyofmaterialsandstrategiesthatcould
porated into typical classroom routines with minimal de- bereadilyincorporatedintoclassroomroutinesandeasily
mands on teachers. sharedwithfamilies.
TheclassroomstrategymaterialsincludedTeacher Homestrategies.Thegoalofthehomestrategieswas
PromptCards,aStoryFriendsWeeklyWordChart,anda toencouragefamiliesandchildrentotalkaboutanduse
StoryFriendsReviewBoard.ThegoaloftheTeacherPrompt the targeted vocabulary words at home, and they were
CardsandtheStoryFriendsWeeklyWordChartwasto intendedto befeasible foruseby families aspart of daily
increasethefrequencyofpracticeopportunitiesforthe conversations or brief activities. Similar to the classroom
wordstaughtthatweek.Foreachbook,teachersreceived strategies,weanticipatedthatlearningwouldbeimproved
apromptcardforthefourwordstaughtthatweek.The ifchildrenhadfrequentopportunitiestohearandusethe
promptcardincludedthetaught,child-friendlydefinition words.Thehomestrategiesandmaterialsweredeveloped
andfiveexamplesofsentencesthatteacherscoulduseto inaseriesofsingle-casedesignstudies(Sotoetal.,2020).
practicethewordsindailyclassroomconversations.For Homestrategymaterialsincludedafamilytraining
example,fortheworddelighted,thepromptcardincluded video,take-homematerials,andcommunicationviaBloomz,
sentencessuchas“Iamdelightedtoseeyoudoingagood aweb-basedcommunicationplatform.Thefamilytraining
job.”and“Youaresmilingbecauseyouaredelighted.” videopresentedabriefoverviewofimportanceofvocabu-
TheStoryFriendsWeeklyWordChartwasaposterand laryinchildren’sfutureacademicsuccessandprovided
Velcro-backedcardsforeachwordwiththetaughtdefinition informationabouttheStoryFriendsprogram.Examples
andanillustrationfromthebook.Teacherscouldtrackwhen ofthehomestrategymaterialswerepresentedalongwith
ateacherorchildusedthewordinclassroomconversations videoexamplesofanadultpracticingthetargetvocabu-
byaddingacardtothecolumnforthatvocabularyword. lary.Thevideowasapproximately8minlongandwas
TheStoryFriendsReviewBoardwasdesignedtofunction sharedwithfamiliesinanumberofways.Familiescould
asa“wordwall”topromotereviewandpracticeofallthe receivealinktothevideoviaBloomz,andthelinkwas
wordstaught.TeachersreceivedaposterandVelcro-backed includedonflyersgiventoparentsandpostedintheclass-
cardsforeachwordintheForestFriendsserieswiththe room.Thevideoalsowasdownloadedontotabletcom-
taughtdefinition,anillustrationfromthebook,andapho- putersandsharedwithfamiliesatpickupanddrop-offand
tographofareal-lifecontext. homevisits.
Kelleyetal.:FeasibleImplementationStrategies 7
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
Take-homematerialsweredesigned toencourage StoryFriendsprogram.Teachersincomparisonclassrooms
families and children tousethetaught vocabulary words. receivedtrainingandmaterialsdesignedtopromoteoverall
Materialsincluded stickers,necklaces,and familydiary languageenrichment,asopposedtotheemphasisonex-
forms.Stickersincludedanillustrationfromthestoryand plicitvocabularyinstructionintreatmentclassrooms.In
apromptfor onetarget word(e.g., “Askmewhat brave thecomparisonclassrooms,childrenparticipatedinsmall-
means”).Necklacesincluded alaminated card withstory grouplisteningcentersandlistenedtoStoryFriendsbooks,
illustrations foreach of the fourwordstaught that week butwithoutexplicit,embeddedlessons.Thus,childrenin
andthewordsandtaughtdefinitionsprintedon theback. thecomparisonclassroomswereexposedtothesametargeted
Familydiaryformswerelaminatedcardsdesignedtohang vocabularyinthecontextofastory,butnotaugmentedwith
ondoors or the rearviewmirrorof cars.Each formin- explicitinstruction.Classroomandhomestrategiesempha-
cluded 12 boxes that families couldmark eachtimethey sizedlanguageenrichmentviainteractive,sharedstorybook
practiced avocabulary word. reading.Teachersandfamilieswereprovidedwithabrief
Tofacilitatecommunicationwithfamilies,teachers videopresentation,availableinmultipleformats(i.e.,Power-
andparentswereencouragedtosetupaBloomzaccount Pointpresentationfile,ahandout,andaYouTubevideo)
thatcouldbeaccessedonacomputeroraphonewithIn- thattaughtinteractive,sharedreadingstrategies.Contentfor
ternet connection.Teachers created avirtualclassroom thepresentationwasadaptedfromresearchondialogicread-
and shared an electroniclinkwithfamilies.Families who ing(Whitehurstetal.,1988;Zevenbergen&Whitehurst,
joinedthevirtualclassroomcouldreceiveautomateddaily 2003)andemphasizedstrategiessuchasaskingquestions
reminders that said, “Don’t forgetto practiceyourchil- andprovidingopportunitiesforchildrentoresponddur-
dren’swordstoday.” Teachers also used Bloomzto share ingsharedreading.Familiesincomparisonclassrooms
alibraryofbriefvideoclipsdesignedtoextendthevocabu- wereinvitedtoparticipateinBloomztoreceiveautomated
laryinstructionforeachbook.Threevideoswerecreated messages(e.g.,reminderstoreadwiththeirchild).Similar
foreachbook;eachvideoincludedastorybookillustration totreatmentclassrooms,veryfewfamiliesparticipatedin
orphotographrelatedtoatargetvocabularyword.The Bloomz.Wecreatede-mailtemplatesforteacherstosend
firstvideoincludedpromptsforyes/noquestionsrelatedto toparentsthatfocusedoninteractivebookreading.
theword’smeaning (e.g.,When youwatch your favorite
cartoon, areyoudelighted?).Thesecond videoincluded
Outcome Measures
promptsforactivities oropen-ended questions related to
thetarget vocabulary(e.g.,Askyourchildto giveyoua Theprimaryoutcomemeasurewasaresearcher-created
bigsmile.Say“Wow!Youlook delighted.You lookreally proximalmeasure:theUnitVocabularyTest.TheUnitTest
happy.).Thethirdvideo includedprompts forusingthe assesseddefinitionalknowledgeoftargetvocabularyusinga
targetvocabularywordinasentence(e.g.,“Askyourchild rigoroustestofchildren’svocabularyknowledge.Thedefini-
tousedelightedinasentence.Ifyourchilddoesnotknowa tionaltaskprovidesseveraladvantagestoapicture-pointing
sentencesay”;“Theboywasdelightedtoeatyummycake! orotherreceptivemeasure.First,thedefinitionaltaskassesses
Delightedmeansreallyhappy!”).Then,theymustworkto- rich,decontextualizedwordknowledgethatcontributesto
gethertomakeanothersentence. avarietyoflanguageskills(e.g.,readingcomprehension).
Theoriginalplanwasforfamiliestoreceivetextmes- Second,thedefinitionaltaskhasbeenwidelyusedinprevi-
sagesandaccessvideoclipsviaBloomz.However,within ousresearch,includingourown,allowingforcomparisons
thefirstmonthofintervention,itwasapparentthatfew oftreatmenteffectsacrossstudies.Third,thedefinitional
familieschosetoenrollinBloomz.Toprovideanalterna- taskwasastraightforward,feasiblemeasureforuseby
tivetoBloomz,wepreparedbriefe-mailtemplateswith teachersinfuturescale-upuseoftheprogram.Finally,
promptsandlinkstothevideoclipsthatteacherscould thedefinitionaltaskwasmostappropriateforthetypeof
sendtofamilies. wordstargeted;mostStoryFriendsvocabularywords(e.g.,
Classroomteachersdistributedthehomematerials. protect,brave,search)werenoteasilyrepresentedbypic-
Similartotheclassroomstrategies,teachersreceivedtraining turesthatcouldbereliablyrecognizedbypreschoolers.
andinformationinthemanualthatdescribedtheintended Participantswereaskedtorespondtoanopen-ended
use,aswellasstrategiesfordistributingthematerials.Re- definitionalitem(Tellme,whatdoeslostmean?).Ifchildren
searchstaffworkedwithteacherstoensurethatallfamilies didnotrespondcorrectly,asentence-lengthpromptspecific
hadanopportunitytowatchthetrainingvideoandencour- tothetargetvocabularywordwasadministered(Inthestory,
agedteacherstodistributethehomematerialstofamilies theForestFriendswerelost.Lostmeans…).Responseswere
bysendinghomestickersornecklaceseachday.However, scoredona3-pointscale:2pointswereawardedfora
teacherswerefreetoadaptuseofhomematerialsaccording completedefinition,eitherthetaughtdefinitionorarea-
towhatworkedbestfortheirclassroom. sonabledefinitioninthechild’sownwords,orforanaccu-
ratesynonym;1pointwasawardedforapartialdefinition,
ComparisonClassrooms forusingthetargetwordinameaningfulsentenceorphrase,
Ratherthanabusiness-as-usualcontrolcondition,the orforprovidinganexampleoftheword;and0pointswere
comparisonconditioninthecurrentstudywasdesigned awardedforanincorrect,unrelated,or“Idon’tknow”re-
toprovideanactivecontrolandrobustcomparisontothe sponse.Childrenwhorepeatedthesentence-lengthprompt
8 JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch (cid:127) 1–18
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
weregivenascoreof0.Forexample,fortheworddelighted, feedbackoradditionalinstructionprovidedbytheteachers
responsesof“reallyhappy,”“happy,”or“thrilled”received andinterruptionstothelisteningcenterintreatmentclass-
2points.Responsesof“Iwasdelightedatthatparty”or rooms.TheobservationformisavailableinSupplemental
“delightedtoeatthatcupcake”received1point.Responses MaterialS2.
of“bedelighted”or“Ilikeit”received0points.Ourscor- For the classroom strategies and homestrategies,
ingapproachwasdesignedtoprovideaconservativeesti- the manual and training provided general guidance on a
mateofchildren’sknowledge.Forexample,achildwho varietyofwaystoreviewthetargetwordsandtheirmean-
responded“Ilikeit”mayhavehadsomepartialknowledge ings.However,wedidnot providespecificexpectations
ofdelightedthatwasnotcapturedinourscoring. (e.g.,requiringaregularlyscheduledclassroomactivityora
Atpretest,all36challengingvocabularywordswere frequencyofreview).Thus,ratherthanfidelity,wesought
assessed.Attheendofeachunit,approximatelymonthly, togatherinformationaboutfeasibilityanduse.Forthe
learningofthe12taughtvocabularywordsfromthatunit classroomstrategies,weaskedteacherstoself-reporttheir
wasassessed.Themaximumscoreforeachend-of-unittest practiceeventsdailyontheStoryFriendschart,totakea
was24(2points per12words).To assess retention, six pictureoftheircharteachweek,andtoshareitwithus.
vocabularywordsfromUnit1wereincludedattheUnit3 Researchstaffalsokeptarecordofanyuseofclassroom
posttest.Toidentifyitemsfortheretentiontest,weexam- strategiesobservedduringfidelityobservationsaswellas
inedlearningfromUnit1andchosethewordsmostfre- duringothervisitstoclassroomsorincludedincommunica-
quentlylearned.Oneachposttestassessment,wordswere tionwithteachers.
presentedintwocounterbalancedordersandparticipants
wererandomlyassignedtoeachform.
Social Validity Assessment
Attheendofthestudy,wegatheredfeasibilityand
Postintervention Measures
implementationinformationfromparticipatingteachers
At theendof intervention,children wereadminis- andfamiliesthroughsocialvaliditysurveys.Teachersrated
teredthePPVT-4.Although wedidnot anticipatetreat- theirlevelofagreementwithstatementsthatpertainedto
ment effectsonthePPVT-4becauseitdid not test words theirperceptionoftheStoryFriendsprogram(e.g.,“The
thatwetaught,themeasureprovidedan opportunityto interventionisagoodwaytoaddresslanguagedelays”),
describethereceptivevocabularyskills of childrenat the theeaseofimplementation(e.g.,“Theamountoftimere-
endof thestudy. quiredtouseStoryFriendsisreasonable),andthefrequency
withwhichtheyutilizedtheclassroomandhomeextension
materials(e.g.,“Isentvocabularynecklaceshomeweekly”).
Dosage and Implementation Fidelity
Teacherrespondedonascaleof1(stronglydisagree)to6
Inthecurrentstudy,theStoryFriendsprogramwas (stronglyagree).Thesurveyincludedopen-endedquestions
implementedasaninterventionpackagethatincludedthe aboutexperienceswiththelisteningcenters,classroomand
automatedlisteningcenters,classroomstrategies,andhome homestrategies,andwhatteachersmightchangeaboutthe
strategies.Wesetclearexpectationsforimplementationof program.
thelisteningcenters;theintendeddosagewasforachild For thehomestrategies,parents wereasked to re-
tolisten3timesinaweektoeachinstructionalorreview spond to similar typesof questionsrating their levelof
book,foratotalof12listensperunit(threelistenseach agreementabouttheirperceptionoftheStoryFriendspro-
tothreeinstructionalbooksandonereviewbook).During gram (e.g.,“Mychildis motivatedtoparticipateinthe
teachertraining,researchstaffemphasizedtheimportance Story Friends homeactivities”;“I wouldbeexcitedtouse
oftherepeatedreadings.Teacherswereaskedtocomplete Story Friends inthefuture”) and aboutthefrequency of
dailyattendanceandproceduralfidelitychecklists.Thefi- implementation(e.g.,“MychildcamehomewearingStory
delitychecklistincludedsixitemsrelatedtothedeliveryof Friendsnecklaces”). The survey included several open-
thelisteningcenters(i.e.,eachchildhadabook,eachchild endedquestionsaboutthehomeprogram(e.g.,frequency
hadheadphones,correctaudiowasplayed,entireaudio ofpractice)andwayswecouldimprovethehomeexten-
wasplayed,childrenwereprovidedwithreinforcement, sioncomponent.
andanadultwaspresentinthelisteningcenter).Thefidel-
itychecklistisavailableinSupplementalMaterialS3.
Scoring Reliability
Researchstaffobservedlisteningcentersapproximately
oncepermonth(~3timesperclassroom)toassessprocedural A trainedmember of theresearchteam scored all
fidelityandtodescribethelisteningcenters.Observations measures.For theCELF-P2andPPVT-4,each protocol
lastedbetween20and30minandwerescheduledattimes was scored by aprimary scorer and thencheckedby a
convenientfortheteachers.Theobservationformincluded secondscorer.Thesmallnumberofdisagreementswasre-
itemsrelatedtoprocedures(e.g.,eachchildusedheadphones, solvedbyathirdscorer.
correctaudiowasplayed,environmentwasquietwithfew FortheUnitVocabularyTest,aprimaryscorerat
distractions).Observationsalsoprovidedinformationto eachsitescoredallmeasuresandasecondscorerindepen-
describethelisteningcenters,includinguseofpositive dentlyscoredapproximatelyonethirdofallmeasuresto
Kelleyetal.:FeasibleImplementationStrategies 9
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
evaluatescoringreliability.Scorerswereblindedtocondi- Forthecomparisongroup,35of43students(81%)
tion(treatment,comparison)andtotime(pretest,posttest). hadcompletedataatpreandpost.Fourstudentsfromtwo
Detailedscoringguidesforeachunitwerecreatedtofacili- differentclassroomsweremissingpreandpostdatafrom
tatereliablescoring.Thescoringguideincludeddetailed thelastthreebooks(7,8,and9),andfourstudentsfrom
criteriaforassigningascoreaswellasmultipleexamples threedifferentclassroomsweremissingpreandpostdata
foreachwordandeachscoringcategory.Priortoscoring, fromsixbooks(4,5,6,7,8,and9).Again,however,the
researchassistantsatbothsitesreviewedscoringcriteria overallmissingdataratewaslow.Dataweremissingfrom
andscoringguidesandcompletedatrainingset. only72ofthe774observations(9.3%of9books×2obser-
Item-by-itemcomparisonswereconductedtodetermine vationseach×43participantsinthecomparisongroup).
agreement.Scoringreliabilitywascalculatedbydividingthe Weconductedaseriesoftteststotestfordifferences
totalnumberofagreementsbythesumofagreementsplus betweenchildrenwhoweremissingdataandchildrenwith
disagreementsandmultiplyingby100.Atpretest,therewere completedataonkeyvariables,reportedinthe Appendix.
ahighnumberof0-pointanswers(e.g.,“Idon’tknow”), Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthechildren
makingscoringagreementmorelikely.Thus,agreement withmissingdataandthosewithcompletedataontheIGDI
forpretestandposttestwasexaminedseparately.Atpre- PictureNaming,PPVT-4priortointervention,PPVT-4
test,meanagreementwas97.8%(range:96%–100%).At followingintervention,ortheaveragewordscoresacross
posttest,meanagreementwas92.9%(range:87.5%–100%). theninebooksatpre-orpostintervention,andeffectsizes
weresmallorless.Therewasasignificantdifferenceon
theCELF-P2priortointervention,t(79)=−2.16,p<.05,
Data Analysis
withthechildrenwithcompletedatahavingaslightlyhigher
Thepurposeofthecurrentstudywastoexaminethe score(M=80.71,SD=9.03)thanchildrenwhohadmissing
effectsoftherevisedStoryFriendsprogramonthevocabu- data(M=74.36,SD=9.25),representingamediumto
laryknowledgeofpreschoolchildren.Theprimaryoutcome largedifference,d=0.69.Importantly,therewerenosignif-
waswordscoreearnedbyeachparticipantatpreandpostfor icantdifferencesintermsofwordscoresasafunctionof
eachbooktaught,derivedfromUnitTests.Foreachbook, missingdata.
childrencouldearnamaximumof8points(2pointsperword
forfourwords).Eachparticipanthadapreandpostscorefor
Data Screening and Descriptive Results
eachbook,foratotalof18scores.Moreover,inadditionto
therepeatedmeasuresofpreandpostacrosstheninebooks, Independentanddependentmeasureswereevaluated
thedataweremultilevel,withchildrennestedwithinclass- todetermineappropriatenessfortheproposeddataanaly-
rooms.Assuch,weemployedamultilevelmodeling(MLM) ses.AvisualinspectionofthedistributionsoftheIGDI
approachtoanalyzethedatathatallowedforaccounting PictureNaming,CELF-P2,pre-interventionPPVT-4,pre-
oftheclusteringofdata(i.e.,childrennestedwithinclass- interventionwordscore,andpostinterventionwordscore
rooms).Thisapproachallowedustoanalyzeallavailable indicatedthatallvariableswereapproximatelynormally
datawithoutremovingindividualchildrenorobservations distributed.Means,standarddeviations,medians,andskew
whenoneormoredatapointsmayhavebeenmissing.All statisticsforthesevariablesarepresentedinTable3.Again,
dataanalyseswereconductedusingJMPPro14.3. thesestatisticsconfirmtheresultsofthevisualinspection;
ahighdegreeofskewisindicatedbyskewnessvaluesless
than−2orgreaterthan2(George&Mallery,2016).
Results Next,weconductedaseriesofbetween-subjectsttests
totestfordifferencesbetweenthetreatmentandcomparison
Missing Data
groupspriortointervention,reportedinTable4.There
PriortoMLManalysis,missingdatapatterns,bro- werenosignificantdifferencesbetweentreatmentand
kendownbyinterventiongroup,wereexaminedusingthe
Missing Data Pattern routine in JMP Pro 14.3. For the
Table3.Distributionalcharacteristicsofindependentanddependent
Story Friends treatment group, 35 of 41 students (85%)
variables.
had complete data at pre and post.At post, one student
was missing data for the last three books (7, 8, and 9), Variable M SD Mdn Skew
and a second student from a different classroom was
missing data for the last six books (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9). CELF-P2 79.85 9.26 81 −0.10
Atpre,threestudentsfromtwodifferentclassroomswere PrePPVT-4 88.72 7.86 88 0.26
Prewordscore 0.36 0.40 0.22 1.65
missing for all nine books, and a fourth student from a
Postwordscore 2.04 1.87 1.28 1.02
third classroom was missing data for the last four books
(6,7, 8, and 9). Overall, however, the missing data rate Note. CELF-P2=ClinicalEvaluationofLanguageFundamentals
fortheStoryFriendstreatmentgroupwasverylow.Data Preschool—SecondEdition(Wiigetal.,2004);PPVT-4=Peabody
PictureVocabularyTest–FourthEdition(Dunn&Dunn,2007);Pre
weremissingforonly40ofthe738observations(5.4%of
wordscore=pretestscoreperbookoutof8possiblepoints;Post
9books ×2 observationseach ×41 participants in the wordscore=posttestscoreperbookoutof8possiblepoints.
treatment group).
10 JournalofSpeech,Language,andHearingResearch (cid:127) 1–18
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Elizabeth Kelley on 11/13/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions