Improving reading comprehension : Effects from interventions

1. Improvingreadingcomprehension: Effects from interventions Monica Melby-Lervåg

3. My talk 1. The foundationofreadingcomprehension 2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia 3. To examinetheeffects from an intervention 4. Effects from interventionsdirectlytargetingreadingcomprehension 5. Effects from interventionstargeting underlying componentsofreadingcomprehension (general cognitiveprocesses, decoding, vocabulary).

4. 1. The foundationofreadingcomprehension

5. Background Reading comprehension = Word decoding Linguistic Comprehension Morphology? working memory? Inference skills? Syntax?

6. The study 198 unselected Norwegian speaking children Assessmentscheme Middleof6th grade Middleof7th grade End of 2nd grade End of 3rd grade Middleof 2nd grade Middleof3rd grade Lervåg & Melby-Lervåg, work in progress

11. Inf. Skills Residual Inference Skills TOWRE B TOWRE A Morph. Gen.. Residual Morpheme Generation Word Decoding Linguistic Comprehension Syntac. Skills Residual Syntactic Skills Vocab. Width Residual Vocabulary Width 3.55** 1.02** 2.21** .735* Vocabulary Definitions Vocab. Def. Residual .622* .614** Listening Recall Working Memory Backward Digit Recall .058* Reading Comprehension Initial Status Reading Comprehension Early Growth Reading Comprehension Later Growth -.20** NARA T1 NARA T2 NARA T3 NARA T4 NARA T5 NARA T6

13. 2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia

14. FAMILY RISK OF DYSLEXIA

15. Study Meta-analysisof studies examiningreadingcomprehension and underlying skills in childrenwithdyslexia (Snowling & Melby-Lervåg, submitted) A systematicsearchdetected 123 studies that used a family risk methodology to studyreadingdisorders

16. Effect size • Effectsize • Cohens d • Exampled = -1.00

17. Results

18. Preschool

19. Primaryschool

21. 3. To examinetheeffects from an intervention

22. Chose a groupofchildren Pretest Posttest Intervention

23. Chose a groupofchildren Pretest Posttest Intervention

24. Randomizethechildren in a training and an interventiongroup Intervention Pretest Chose a groupofchildren No intervention/irrelevant intervention Posttest Posttest Pretest

25. Study: A syntehesisofmeta-analyses Melby-Lervåg, Lervåg & Hulme, work in progress.

26. Method Systematicsearch for reviewsofeducationalinterventionsthat have used a quantitativesummaryofresultsafter 1998 The meta-analysis had to examine an intervention that could in some way inform about amelioration of difficulties related to: Decoding, reading comprehension, language skills, mathematic skills, general learning disorders, attention/hyperactivity, other behavioral/emotional problems or bullying. The meta-analysis had to provide a mean effect size of an academic achievement or behavioral outcome that was based on a group design (i.e. meta-analyses purely based on single case studies were excluded) 70 meta-analyses included, 3145 single studies Melby-Lervåg, Lervåg & Hulme, work in progress.

27. Differences in meaneffectsize for different designs

28. Only 233 ofthe 3145 intervention studies wererandomisedcontrolled trials. Seriousmethodologicalweaknesses, studies not suited to concludeaboutinterventioneffects

29. 5. Effects from interventionstargetingreadingcomprehension or underlying componentsofreadingcomprehension

31. A. Interventionstargetingreadingcomprehensiondirectly

32. Clarke, Snowling, Truelove og Hulme (2010) Compared three interventions for 160 children in 4th grade. Selected on the basis of a reading comprehension screening of 1200 children. Intervention:

33. Results Figure from thepaper:

34. B. InterventionstargetingreadingcomprehensionindirectlythroughDomainGeneral Cognitive Skills

35. Effects from computerisedworkingmemory training

37. Study Redick, Melby-Lervåg & Hulme (work in progress). 2012: 23 studies New study: 82 studies with 102 independentexperiments

38. Inf. Skills Residual Inference Skills TOWRE B TOWRE A Morph. Gen.. Residual Morpheme Generation Word Decoding Linguistic Comprehension Syntac. Skills Residual Syntactic Skills Vocab. Width Residual Vocabulary Width 3.55** 1.02** 2.21** .735* Vocabulary Definitions Vocab. Def. Residual .622* .614** Listening Recall Working Memory Backward Digit Recall .058* Reading Comprehension Initial Status Reading Comprehension Early Growth Reading Comprehension Later Growth -.20** NARA T1 NARA T2 NARA T3 NARA T4 NARA T5 NARA T6

39. Results Meaneffectsize d immediatlyafter training Decoding Studies Treatedcontrols Untreatedcontrols

40. Verbal abilities Meaneffectsize d immediatlyafter training Studies Treatedcontrols Untreatedcontrols

41. Reading comprehension Meaneffectsize d immediatlyafter training Studies Treatedcontrols Untreatedcontrols

42. Similarfindings for auditoryprocessing training

43. C. Interventionstargetingreadingcomprehensionindirectlythroughdecoding/phonologicalawareness

44. Numerousofwellcontrolled studies have shownthatphonologicalawareness in combination with letter knowledge training canimproveworddecoding skills……….. Unfortunatly, not thatmany have reported transfer effects to standardised tests ofreadingcomprehension

45. 10 studies met inclusioncriteria for worddecoding. Effectsweremoderate: 0.47 SD better (95% CI 0.06 to 0.88) Onlythree studies reported data on transfer effects to readingcomprehension: 0.14 SD better (95% CI -0.46 to 0.74)

46. RCTsthatcombinephonologicalawareness/letter knowledge and vocabularyintervention shows promisingeffectsonreadingcomprehension Wolff, 2011 (d = 0.41, lasted at follow up)

47. D. Interventionstargetingreadingcomprehensionindirectlythroughvocabulary/linguisticcomprehension

48. Linguisticcomprehensionintervention Three times a week, (2 x 45 minutes, 1 x 10 min individually). Rogde, Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg (submitted) Narrative skills Dialogicalreading Vocabularyinstruction Expressivelanguagetasks 115 secondlanguagelearnersrandomised in twogroups. Training groupreceived 20 weeksofintervention

49. Vocabulary embedded in the training program d = 0.53** immediatlyafter training, d = 0.44* follow up

50. Distal measures: Do the effects of training transfer to standardized tests of expressive language? d = 0.51** immediatlyafter training, d = 0.28 (p = 0.064) follow up