Shared story reading was always implemented as one component of a multi-component intervention package, so component contributions are unknown¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In every reviewed study shared story reading was embedded in a package including task analysis, systematic prompting, and adapted literature, and it is not known how much any single component contributed to the practice's success. → Melissa E. Hudson and David W. Test 2011

Evidence¶

Melissa E. Hudson and David W. Test 2011¶

Melissa E. Hudson and David W. Test. (2011). Evaluating the Evidence Base of Shared Story Reading to Promote Literacy for Students With Extensive Support Needs. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1-2), 34-45. http://www.education.uncc.edu/access/

q2 · i? · review · r3

Limitation analysis in the review's discussion, drawing on the Browder et al. (2007), Browder, Mims et al. (2008), and Mims et al. (2009) studies. The review states shared story reading "was one component of an interven- tion package in each study" and that component contributions remain unknown.

"Although most shared story reading procedures included a task analysis, sys- tematic prompfing, and adapted literature, it is not known how much any one of these components or combinations of components contributed to the success of the practice."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• When implemented alone, neither Literature Logs nor Instructional Conversations produced statistically significant comprehension effects, in contrast to the combined intervention — a broader claim this one bears on