Oral narrative advantage is maintained five months after intervention on the researcher-designed rubric but not on the norm-referenced TNL-2¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q4 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2025: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q4 i2 The MISL oral narrative advantage was maintained at follow-up (g = .63). → Gillam 2022 q4 i? No significant group differences on the TNL-2 at follow-up, though effect sizes were nontrivial (g = .21 and .11). → Gillam 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Gillam 2022¶

Gillam, S. L., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Fall, A.-M., Israelsen-Augenstein, M., Holbrook, S., Wada, R., Hancock, A., Fox, C., Dille, J., Magimairaj, B. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2022). Improving Oral and Written Narration and Reading Comprehension of Children at-Risk for Language and Literacy Difficulties: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000766

q4 · i2 · causal · r3

Follow-up testing five months after intervention ended in the same RCT. The MISL rubric advantage was maintained, "Hedges ’ g = .63", significant at p < .01.

"At the 5-month follow-up, students who received the SKILL intervention maintained their oral narrative advantage as measured by the MISL oral narrative rubric compared with students in BAU (c20 = 4.09, p , .01; Hedges ’ g = .63)."

Gillam 2022 (2)¶

Gillam, S. L., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Fall, A.-M., Israelsen-Augenstein, M., Holbrook, S., Wada, R., Hancock, A., Fox, C., Dille, J., Magimairaj, B. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2022). Improving Oral and Written Narration and Reading Comprehension of Children at-Risk for Language and Literacy Difficulties: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000766

q4 · i? · causal · r3

Follow-up TNL-2 results in the same RCT showed "no significant group differences" on the norm-referenced measure; the printed effect sizes g = .21 and .11 were descriptive of nontrivial but untested differences.

"However, there were no significant group differences on the norm-referenced measure of narration (TNL-2) that included both production and comprehension components at follow-up, although the effect sizes were nontrivial (Hedge’s g = .21 and .11, respectively)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• SKILL intervention significantly improves oral narrative comprehension and production immediately after treatment in at-risk Grade 1–4 students — related
• Oral narration gains generalize to written narration at posttest and are maintained at follow-up — related