The authors report a systematic meta-analytic review of the relationships among 3 of the most widely studied measures of children's phonological skills (phonemic awareness, rime awareness, and verbal short-term memory) and children's word reading skills The review included both extreme group studies and correlational studies with unselected samples (235 studies were included, and 995 effect sizes were calculated) Results from extreme group comparisons indicated that children with dyslexia show a large deficit on phonemic awareness in relation to typically developing children of the same age (pooled effect size estimate: -137) and children matched on reading level (pooled effect size estimate: -057) There were significantly smaller group deficits on both rime awareness and verbal short-term memory (pooled effect size estimates: rime skills in relation to age-matched controls, -093, and reading-level controls, -037; verbal short-term memory skills in relation to age-matched controls, -071, and reading-level controls, -009) Analyses of studies of unselected samples showed that phonemic awareness was the strongest correlate of individual differences in word reading ability and that this effect remained reliable after controlling for variations in both verbal short-term memory and rime awareness These findings support the pivotal role of phonemic awareness as a predictor of individual differences in reading development We discuss whether such a relationship is a causal one and the implications of research in this area for current approaches to the teaching of reading and interventions for children with reading difficulties

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/138/2/322.pdf

Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review.

Objectives To update a 2004 systematic review of health care service use and health outcomes related to differences in health literacy level and interventions designed to improve these outcomes for individuals with low health literacy. Disparities in health outcomes and effectiveness of interventions among different sociodemographic groups were also examined. Data sources We searched MEDLINE®, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, PsychINFO, and the Educational Resources Information Center. For health literacy, we searched using a variety of terms, limited to English and studies published from 2003 to May 25, 2010. For numeracy, we searched from 1966 to May 25, 2010. Review methods We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, abstractions, quality ratings, and strength of evidence grading. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We evaluated whether newer literature was available for answering key questions, so we broadened our definition of health literacy to include numeracy and oral (spoken) health literacy. We excluded intervention studies that did not measure health literacy directly and updated our approach to evaluate individual study risk of bias and to grade strength of evidence. Results We included good- and fair-quality studies: 81 studies addressing health outcomes (reported in 95 articles including 86 measuring health literacy and 16 measuring numeracy, of which 7 measure both) and 42 studies (reported in 45 articles) addressing interventions. Differences in health literacy level were consistently associated with increased hospitalizations, greater emergency care use, lower use of mammography, lower receipt of influenza vaccine, poorer ability to demonstrate taking medications appropriately, poorer ability to interpret labels and health messages, and, among seniors, poorer overall health status and higher mortality. Health literacy level potentially mediates disparities between blacks and whites. The strength of evidence of numeracy studies was insufficient to low, limiting conclusions about the influence of numeracy on health care service use or health outcomes. Two studies suggested numeracy may mediate the effect of disparities on health outcomes. We found no evidence concerning oral health literacy and outcomes. Among intervention studies (27 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 cluster RCTs, and 13 quasi-experimental designs), the strength of evidence for specific design features was low or insufficient. However, several specific features seemed to improve comprehension in one or a few studies. The strength of evidence was moderate for the effect of mixed interventions on health care service use; the effect of intensive self-management inventions on behavior; and the effect of disease-management interventions on disease prevalence/severity. The effects of other mixed interventions on other health outcomes, including knowledge, self-efficacy, adherence, and quality of life, and costs were mixed; thus, the strength of evidence was insufficient. Conclusions The field of health literacy has advanced since the 2004 report. Future research priorities include justifying appropriate cutoffs for health literacy levels prior to conducting studies; developing tools that measure additional related skills, particularly oral (spoken) health literacy; and examining mediators and moderators of the effect of health literacy. Priorities in advancing the design features of interventions include testing novel approaches to increase motivation, techniques for delivering information orally or numerically, "work around" interventions such as patient advocates; determining the effective components of already-tested interventions; determining the cost-effectiveness of programs; and determining the effect of policy and practice interventions.

/pdf/health-literacy-interventions-and-outcomes-an-updated-chswt8nilu.pdf

Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review.

The cradle of thought : exploring the origins of thinking

Effective programs for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis

Background: This study compares the efficacy of two school-based intervention programmes (Phonology with Reading (P + R) and Oral Language (OL)) for children with poor oral language at school entry. Methods: Following screening of 960 children, 152 children (mean age 4;09) were selected from 19 schools on the basis of poor vocabulary and verbal reasoning skills and randomly allocated to either the P + R programme or the OL programme. Both groups of children received 20 weeks of daily intervention alternating between small group and individual sessions, delivered by trained teaching assistants. Children in the P + R group received training in letter-sound knowledge, phonological awareness and book level reading skills. Children in the OL group received instruction in vocabulary, comprehension, inference generation and narrative skills. The children’s progress was monitored at four time points: pre-, mid- and post-intervention, and after a 5-month delay, using measures of literacy, language and phonological awareness. Results: The data are clustered (children within schools) and robust confidence intervals are reported. At the end of the 20-week intervention programme, children in the P + R group showed an advantage over the OL group on literacy and phonological measures, while children in the OL group showed an advantage over the P + R group on measures of vocabulary and grammatical skills. These gains were maintained over a 5-month period. Conclusions: Intervention programmes designed to develop oral language skills can be delivered successfully by trained teaching assistants to children at school entry. Training using P + R fostered decoding ability whereas the OL programme improved vocabulary and grammatical skills that are foundations for reading comprehension. However, at the end of the intervention, more than 50% of at-risk children remain in need of literacy support. Keywords: Early intervention, oral language, phonological awareness, early literacy, RCT.

/pdf/improving-early-language-and-literacy-skills-differential-1zxuhnlsyx.pdf

Improving early language and literacy skills: differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention

Background: This study evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention for reading-delayed children in Year-1 classes Methods: A sample (N ¼ 77) of children drawn from 14 schools representing those with the weakest reading skills were randomly allocated to one of two groups A 20-week intervention group received the intervention for two consecutive 10-week periods, while a 10-week intervention group only received the intervention for the second 10 weeks of the study The programme was delivered in daily 20-minute sessions that alternated between small group (N ¼ 3) and individual teaching The programme combined phoneme awareness training, word and text reading, and phonological linkage exercises Results: The children receiving the intervention during the first 10-week period made significantly more progress on measures of letter knowledge, single word reading, and phoneme awareness than children not receiving the intervention However, the children who only received the intervention during the second 10-week period made rapid progress and appeared to catch up with the children who had been given the more prolonged intervention Failure to respond to the intervention was predicted by poor initial literacy skills and being in receipt of free school meals Conclusion: A reading intervention programme delivered on a daily basis by trained teaching assistants is an effective intervention for children who show reading delays at the end of their first year in school However, around one-quarter of the children did not respond to this intervention and these children would appear to need more intensive or more prolonged help to improve their reading skills Keywords: Reading intervention, remedial teaching, reading difficulties, randomised controlled trial

Efficacy of small group reading intervention for beginning readers with reading‐delay: a randomised controlled trial

Background. It is widely recognized that effective interventions for poor reading involve training in phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge, linked in the context of reading books. From the applied perspective, it is important to gather data on the effectiveness of different forms of implementation of literacy support within this framework.

Aim. We evaluate the effectiveness of the UK Early Literacy Support (ELS) programme (Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2001) relative to a programme of Reading Intervention based on ‘sound linkage’ (Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994).

Sample. The sample comprised 128 6-year-old children, from 16 primary schools in a Local Education Authority (LEA) in the north of England.

Method. The children were nominated as in need of special help by their class teachers and allocated to one of the two programmes.

Results. After controlling for a difference in spelling ability at the start of the intervention, it was found that both groups of children made equivalent and significant gains in reading and spelling that were maintained at follow-up. The standardized scores were in the average range. Regression analyses confirmed the importance of initial reading ability as well as letter identification, phoneme manipulation, and sound linkage in predicting progress in learning to read and to spell.

Conclusion. The ELS programme provides a cost effective method of boosting 6-year-old children's reading to an average level.

Evidence for the effectiveness of the Early Literacy Support programme.

This study evaluated two 20-week reading interventions for pupils entering secondary school with reading difficulties. The interventions were delivered by trained teaching assistants (three 35-min sessions per week). 287 pupils (ages 11–13) from 27 schools were randomly allocated to three groups: reading intervention (targeting word recognition and decoding skills), reading intervention plus comprehension, or a waiting list control group. Neither intervention produced statistically significant gains in word reading but the reading intervention plus comprehension intervention produced significant gains in reading comprehension (d = 0.29) and vocabulary (d = 0.34). Further evaluations of methods to improve word reading in this population are needed.

/pdf/reading-intervention-for-poor-readers-at-the-transition-to-103osiz6b9.pdf

Reading Intervention for Poor Readers at the Transition to Secondary School

A Reading and Language Intervention for Children with Down Syndrome

Reading with Vocabulary Intervention: Evaluation of Instruction for Treatment Non-responders.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Glynnis Smith

Author Tools

Chat about Author