Story Friends produced no significant group effect on total story comprehension, but a significant group × time interaction emerged on inferential questions¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? On the ASC total score there was no significant effect for group and no significant group × time interaction, though a significant effect of time emerged. → Kelley 2015 q3 i3 On ASC inferential questions there was no main effect of group or time but a significant group × time interaction (η2 = 0.23). → Kelley 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

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 ANOVA on the Assessment of Story Comprehension, a researcher-made curriculum-based measure with nine parallel unfamiliar stories, administered approximately monthly to both groups (n = 9 per group). No significant group × time interaction on total score.

"For the ASC total score, there was no significant effect for group, a significant effect of time [F(3, 48) = 4.05, p = 0.01, /DC1/SUB2 = 0.20], and no significant group × time interaction."

Kelley 2015 (2)¶

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 · i3 · causal · r1

Mixed 2 × 4 ANOVA on the four inferential ASC questions (maximum 8 points) in the same group design. The significant group × time interaction had η2 = 0.23 as printed; the article hypothesized group differences would emerge on inferential questions because the program targeted them.

"For inferential questions, there was no main effect of group or time, but a significant group × time interaction [F(3, 48) = 4.86, p ≤ 0.01, /DC1/SUB2 = 0.23]."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Inferencing — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Embedded comprehension lessons did not improve story comprehension relative to story exposure alone — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Story Friends produced no group differences on distal standardized language measures (PPVT-IV, CELF-P) — related