Story Friends produced no group differences on distal standardized language measures (PPVT-IV, CELF-P)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 causal r1–r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Neither norm-referenced measure was influenced by group after accounting for pretest scores; both groups gained approximately 0.5 SD. → Goldstein et al. 2016

q3 i? On the PPVT-IV there was no significant group × time interaction, and the posttest between-group effect size was small (d = 0.22). → Kelley 2015

q3 i? On the CELF-P2 there was no significant effect for group or time and no significant treatment-by-time interaction (posttest d = 0.23). → Kelley 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Goldstein et al. 2016¶

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://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-15-0227

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Linear mixed models of posttest PPVT-IV and CELF-P gains in the cluster randomized trial found no group effects; the authors attribute both groups' gains to general Tier 1 pre-K instruction, citing similar gains reported by Greenwood et al. (2013).

"After accounting for initial differences in pretest scores, neither norm-referenced language measure (PPVT-IV, CELF-P) was influenced by group. However, both groups made gains in standard scores of approximately 0.5 SD"

Kelley 2015¶

Kelley, E. S., Goldstein, H., Spencer, T. D., & Sherman, A. (2015). Effects of automated Tier 2 storybook intervention on vocabulary and comprehension of preschool children with limited oral language skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.004

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Mixed 2 × 2 ANOVA on PPVT-IV standard scores (pretest, posttest) in the randomized group design. Both groups improved over time but the groups did not diverge; the article reports the posttest between-group effect was small (d = 0.22).

"There was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 16) = 34.21, p ≤ 0.001, /DC1/SUB2 = 0.68, but no significant group × time interaction, F(1, 17) = 0.28, p = 0.60."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Embedded vocabulary lessons in prerecorded storybooks produce large vocabulary learning gains relative to hearing the same stories without lessons — related
• World of Words showed no statistically significant effects on the Woodcock-Johnson Picture Vocabulary Subtest or the PPVT-IV — related
• Educators reported high satisfaction with Story Friends, but some found repeated listens and scheduling challenging — related
• Story Friends produced no significant group effect on total story comprehension, but a significant group × time interaction emerged on inferential questions — related
• Dosage and preintervention language skills showed little moderation of vocabulary treatment effects — related
• SBI shows no treatment effects on the Process and Applications subtest of the GMADE — related
• Tier-2 vocabulary intervention had no effect on standardized measures of overall vocabulary knowledge (posttest PPVT) — related