Charlie Greenwood, Elizabeth Spencer, Howard Goldstein, & Judy Carta Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood Division of Early Childhood.

Charlie Greenwood, Elizabeth Spencer, Howard Goldstein, & Judy Carta

Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood

Division of Early Childhood

October 30, 2012

Using Programmatic Research to Develop

Feasible, Effective Language and Early

Literacy Interventions

http://www.crtiec.org

CRTIEC

IES Research and Development Center funded in 2008 Objectives

Conduct a focused program of research to develop and evaluate intensive interventions for preschool language and early literacy skills that supplement core instruction

Develop and validate an assessment system aligned with these interventions for universal screening and progress monitoring

Carry out supplementary research responsive to the needs of early childhood education and special education practitioners and policy makers.

Provide outreach and leadership Annual Preschool RTI Summit Website and Resources (http://www.critec.org)

3

DynamicMeasurement GroupSupporting School Suc cess One Step at a Time

The Forest Friends

Acknowledgments

In addition to the authors, this work has been coordinated by: Gabriela Guerrero, along with Jane Atwater, Tracy Bradfield, Annie Hommel, Naomi Schneider, Sean Noe, Alisha Wackerle-Hollman, and a host of dedicated research assistants, students, and postdocs at University of Kansas, University of Minnesota, the Ohio State University, and the Dynamic Measurement Group.

We want to acknowledge the partnership of the many early education programs that collaborated with us on this important study.

Big Idea!

Studies Should Build on Each Other! Research is a process where one

conducts several studies programmatically to nail down an effect and reveal the extensions and limitations of an intervention (Robinson, 2004)

Today’s Topic: Programmatic Intervention Development Research

Overview (Greenwood) Tier 2 Intervention Design Planning

Phase: Goldstein/Spencer Iterative Testing and Development

Phase: Goldstein/Spencer Efficacy and Effectiveness Phase:

Greenwood/Goldstein Implications/Discussion (Carta)

Challenges Young Children Face?

Many children enter kindergarten with limited oral language skills that place them at risk for later reading difficulties (Dickinson & Snow, 1997)

These children become struggling readers because they lack the necessary language and early literacy experiences needed to learn these skills prior to kindergarten.

What Should We Teach in Preschool?

Adequate early literacy experience before kindergarten enables children to acquire knowledge of two related domains of information needed to learn to read. First, children need sources of information that will

directly support their understanding of the meaning of print in school. 1. These are: vocabulary knowledge, oral language skills,

language comprehension, and conceptual knowledge leading to reading comprehension (Biemiller, 2006).

Second, children need familiarity with the alphabet, the ability to translate print into sounds and sounds into print (Treiman, Tincoff, & Richmond-Welty, 1997), and print awareness (Badian, 2000)

Challenges Preschools Face?

The field continues struggling to improve instructional quality and outcomes for all children (Justice, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008; Greenwood, Carta, Atwater et al., 2012)

The field is just beginning to consider intentional instruction and differentiating instruction for individual children (NAEYC, DEC, & NHSA, 2012)

There is a lack of evidence-based Tier 2 and 3 interventions and aligned measurement tools for screening and progress monitoring (Greenwood, Bradfield et al., 2011)

Is There a Solution?: RTI and Multi-Tiered Support Systems

Universally screen frequently to identify children not making expected progress

Provide these children more intensive supplementary (Tier 2) or alternative (Tier 3) experiences

Monitor progress and adapt instructional support as needed

Improve the quality of Tier 1, core instruction in the language and early literacy

How is CRTIEC Approaching It?

Developing evidence-based practice through programmatic research? Interventions developed teach skills with

evidence that they are precursors of later learning to read

Interventions are delivered through practices containing effective components

Efficacy of the intervention is confirmed by testing in rigorously designed studies

Measures are developed with evidence of sensitivity, validity, accuracy, and reliability

IES Programmatic Research

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4 Goal 5

Exploration Development/Innovation

Efficacy/Replication

Scale Up Measurement

Explore the association between (a) education outcomes and alterable factors and (b) conditions that may mediate or moderate these relations

Develop new interventions based on a theoretical framework through a process of test, evaluate, improve and retest (i.e., iterative development

Evaluate fully developed interventions in authentic educational settings

Evaluations to determine whether or not fully developed interventions are effective when they are implemented under conditions that would be typical if a school district or other education delivery setting were to implement them as routine practice

Research to develop and validate (a) new measures and to (b) adapt and improve original measures for broader use in educational settings

Tier 2 Intervention: Design and Planning Phase

Tier 2 Embedded Storybook Interventions

As part of an RTI model, there is a need for high-quality interventions to improve early language and literacy skills for preschool children who are falling behind.

Overview of design and development work on interventions feasible for high fidelity implementation in preschool classrooms.

How findings from early efficacy studies have informed our development.

To effectively implement response to intervention in early childhood…

…how should we design Tier 2 interventions?

We need interventions that work in classrooms…

…and that don’t place additional demands on teachers.

Children learn best when we teach explicitly…

… and when we give children opportunities to respond.

So we designed an intervention.

Story Friends Program

Small groups of children participate in ‘listening centers.’

Prerecorded storybooks and explicit embedded lessons are delivered under headphones.

Multiple listens provide repeated exposures to instruction and many opportunities to respond.

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

Ellie’s First Day Leo’s Brave Face Jungle Friends Go to the Beach

Vocabulary Words

enormous brave soaked

different grin gorgeous

Comprehension Questions How do you think Ellie

feels about meeting new friends? [Why?]

How do you think Leo feels about going to the

dentist? [Why?]What do you think will happen in this story?

Where did Ellie go in our story?

What did Leo learn from the

dentist?

How did Tanisha feel when the wave knocked

over her sandcastle?

At the end of the story, Ellie was happy. Why was

Ellie happy?

At the beginning of the story, Leo was afraid of the dentist. What do you do when you

are afraid?

Do you think the Jungle Friends will go to the beach again? [Why or

why not?]

enormous, different brave, grin soaked, gorgeous

reckless, ignore unusual, greet ill, discover

leap, pause speedy, unique ridiculous, tumble

The Forest Friends are thrilled! They are excited to go to the carnival. Thrilled. Say thrilled. (2) Thrilled means excited. Tell me, what word means excited? (2) Thrilled! Good work! When are you thrilled? (2) What about… when you get a present! …Or your friends come over to play! I bet that makes you feel excited. Now, lift the flap. Look! These boys are at a birthday party. They are excited. They are thrilled! Tell me, what does thrilled mean? (3) Excited! That’s right.

Marquez Monkeys Around

The friends all tried to help Ellie Elephant. Why did they help Ellie? (3) Because she couldn’t get out by herself. She was stuck! The friends were worried, so they worked together to get Ellie out.

Measures of instructional content are administered periodically.

Tier 2 Intervention: Iterative Testing and Development Phase

Timeline

Year 1, 2008-2009: intervention development Year 2, 2009-2010: pilot study Year 3, 2010-2011: early efficacy study with

single case design, implemented by research staff

Year 4: 2011-2012: early efficacy study, group design with embedded single case design, implemented by research staff

Year 5: 2012-2013: efficacy trial with randomized cluster design, implemented by classroom staff

2010-2011

Year 3 VC Early Efficacy Study

Participants

9 preschool children in 3 classrooms were identified with limited oral language skills in fall.

Multiple gating procedures for identification that included a teacher survey, Picture Naming IGDI 2.0, norm-referenced tests.

Characteristics of Participants

School Child Age GenderPicture Naming

2.0PPVT-IV CELF-P2

School A

A1 4;9 Female 6 80 86

A2 4;9 Male 10 78 88

A3 4;6 Male 7 88 77

School B

B1 4;11 Male 5 83 73

B2 4;10 Female 9 87 86

B3 4;11 Female 6 96 90

School C

C1 4;10 Male 11 83 90

C2 4;5 Male 6 80 94

C3 4;3 Female 5 84 94

PPVT-IV: M = 84.3, Range 78 – 96; CELF-P2: M = 86.4, Range 73 - 94

Method

Single-case repeated acquisition design Intervention was 9 books with embedded

vocabulary and comprehension lessons. Implemented by research staff Measures:

Mastery monitoring probes at pretest and posttest for each book

2 outcomes: Vocabulary and Comprehension

Mastery Monitoring Items and Scoring

Taught Vocabulary Maximum score at pretest and posttest

was 4 Untaught Vocabulary

Maximum score at pretest and posttest was 2

2 points possible per word "Tell me, what does enormous mean?“

"Really big" 2 points “means a big building” 1 points “I don’t know” 0 points

Mastery Monitoring Items and Scoring

Comprehension Maximum score at pretest and posttest

was 6. Three 2-point comprehension questions

"At the end of the story, Ellie is happy. Why is Ellie happy?“ “Because she made new friends” 2

points “Because she likes playing” 1 point “Her big” 0 points

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90

1

2

3

4

Book

Mas

ter

Mon

itor

Sco

re

Child A2

Posttest

Pretest

Untaught Word

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child A1

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child A2Posttest

Pretest

ControlWord

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child A3

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child B1

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child B2

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child B3

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child C1

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child C2

0

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

ChildC3

School A

School B

School C

Book

Mas

tery

Mon

itori

ng P

robe

Sco

re

Year 3 Results: Vocabulary

Year 3 Results: Vocabulary

Average number of words learned (per child) = 8.11, Range 3 - 13

Average number of children who learned each word = 4.06, Range 0 – 8

Lowest “unusual” - no children learned Highest “ill” – 8 children learned

Year 3 Results: Comprehension

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child A1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child A2

Posttest

Pretest

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child A3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child B1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child B2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child B3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child C1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child C2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Child C3

School A

School B

School C

Books

Mas

tery

Mon

itorin

g Pro

be S

core

for C

ompr

ehen

sion

Year 3 Results: Comprehension

Criterion for treatment effect: Pretest-posttest difference of at least 2

Treatment effects for most participants for many books (Range: 0 - 6 books).

Average gain score per book was 1.1 points (SD = 1.66, Range = -4 - 4)

We learned a lot…

…but there was still work to be done.

Revisions for Year 4

Replaced 5 words, rewrote 1 story, revised 7 embedded lessons.

Words that were replaced were the lowest performing words (e.g., unusual).

Lessons that were revised were for lower performing words and were based on observations from the facilitators. EXAMPLE: picture for ‘ridiculous’ was

changed from an illustration in the story to a photo of a ridiculous dog. (next slide)

Revisions for Year 4

Inclusion of simple unit review books Repeat of lessons from a set of 3 books

Development of Unit Tests Measure of vocabulary learning in 3 books plus a

review book Designed to be administered ~ once per month

Refinements to training materials, staff manuals, fidelity procedures, scoring reliability

Development of the Assessment of Story Comprehension

Year 4 Study

Randomized group design with embedded single case design

3 classrooms with 6 children in each, children randomly assigned to treatment or delayed treatment.

Intervention implemented by research staff

Year 4 Participants

N = 18; 11 girls, 7 boys African American Recruited from public pre-K settings Identified as having limited oral

language skillsPPVT-IV CELF-P

M Range M Range

Treatment 83.44 77-90 89.11 79-98

Comparison

83.44 78-89 83.89 67-96

No significant difference between groups on these measures.

Year 4 Measurement

Group Design Unit Test of vocabulary words taught in 3

books Assessment of Story Comprehension

Embedded Single Case Design Mastery Monitoring Probes administered at

pretest and posttest for each book.

Year 4 Results: Vocabulary

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

UT1 Pre UT1 Post UT2 Pre UT2 Post UT3 Pre UT3 Post

Participant Comparison

ANOVA of gain scores for each Unit Test Significant differences favoring the

treatment group at each time point Average gain of 4.44 – 6.33 points per

Unit Test Effect sizes between 1.37 – 2.84

Year 4 Results: Vocabulary

Word Level Data from Year 4

Average number of words learned (per child) = 10, Range 3-17

Average number of children who learned each word = 4.94, Range 4-8.

Lowest “enormous”, “brave”, “soaked”, comfort” “speedy” “ridiculous - 3 children learned

Highest “ill” – 8 children learned

Year 4 Results: Comprehension

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

ASC Pre ASC 2 ASC 3 ASC Post

Participant Comparison

Tier 2 Intervention: Efficacy and Effectiveness Phase

Efficacy and Effectiveness Phase

Kansas cross-site replication of the Tier 2 Ohio Vocabulary/Comprehension intervention

Can others using the same intervention replicate similar results with another group of children identified with weak skills? Ohio produces original intervention and

findings Kansas seeks to replicate

Participants: 2010-11 Replication Sample(s)

State Classrooms

Children Non-WhiteNon-

English Home

Language

Individual

Education

Program

Ohio 3 9 8 0 0

Kansas

3 9 8 5 3

Total 6 18 16 5 3Note. Both samples were predominately non-White. The KS participants included dual language learners and students with IEPs

Student Risk Status at Start

State Measure M Range

Ohio Vocabulary IGDI (Max = 15) 7.2 of 15

5-11

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (M = 100, SD = 15)

84.3 78-96

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) (M = 100, SD = 15)

86.4 73-94

Kansas

Vocabulary IGDI (Max = 15) 7.3 of 15

5-13

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (M = 100, SD = 15)

86.9 73-107

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) (M = 100, SD = 15)

72.6 50-102

Note. IGDI = Individual Growth and Development Indicator

Lower Language

Tier 2 Vocabulary and Comprehension Storybooks with Embedded Instruction Intervention

Organization of Replicaiton Results

Mean Results Across Storybooks Mean acquisition of words taught and

comprehension before and after the listening intervention across storybooks

Cumulative Word Mastery View Students with the Best and Worst

response to intervention Overall Effect Size

Mean Cumulative Mastery of All Vocabulary Taught

MasteryGoal

Least and Most Responsive Student

Overall Effect Sizes

Ohio Standard Mean Difference (SMD)1

1. Vocabulary, d = 1.712. Comprehension, d  = 0.59

Kansas Standard Mean Difference (SMD)1. Vocabulary, d = 1.522. Comprehension, d  = 0.57

Note. [d = ((Xafter – Xbefore)/SDbefore)]

Note. 1Spencer et al. (in press)

Evidence Produced

The Vocabulary and Comprehension Tier 2 intervention was fully developed, implementable with fidelity

Efficacy was demonstrated in Kansas in replication by a different team in different schools, serving children with weak skills including some dual language learners and students with IEPs

A range of student response to the intervention was observed

Future work needs to focus on achieving larger student effects demonstrating similar findings with implementation by

preschool personnel in larger samples

Year 5 Story Friends Efficacy Trial

2012-2013 school year, 24 classrooms in OH, 8 in KS

Cluster randomized design: classrooms randomly assigned to Treatment and Comparison Treatment: Story Friends Program Comparison: Story Friends books with no

embedded interventions Implemented by educational staff Research staff provides assistance to

teachers and administers assessments

Implications

• New evidence-based interventions are not developed in a single stand alone study!

• Instead, intervention development requires an iterative process that includes planning, piloting, evaluation, improvement and re-testing prior to testing at large scale.

Programmatic research: What did we learn along the way?

Pilot: Intervention was feasible. Efficacy studies with single-case design in

OH: Intervention produced weekly vocabulary gains across multiple children.

Replication of single case design studies in KS: Intervention resulted in the same effect (weekly vocabulary gains) in another location

Efficacy group design with researchers as implementers: Children in intervention group did better than controls on standardized measures.

Efficacy group design with teachers as implementers: Children in intervention group did better than controls on standardized measures.

Next step: An independent evaluation of effectiveness showing that the intervention works.

At each step we learn something that we move forward to the next.

Value of Replication Studies

Replication helps us test whether the intervention is effective when implemented by different researchers; external validity of the intervention

Replication helps us see if intervention can systematically be changed and whether effects still hold up: How much can you vary an intervention and still see positive outcomes?

Replication is an important step prior to large scale up.

But replication studies are still fairly rare

Implications: Importance of Programmatic Research

• This type of programmatic research is important for at least three big reasons:• It makes it more likely that only our

strongest interventions will be going forward for large efficacy and effectiveness trials.

• It minimizes the risk of weak interventions being tested in large scale studies.

It reinforces the idea that educational researchers should be aiming to nail down an intervention’s effect and extend the effect to different learning environments and student characteristics.