Improving reading comprehension: Effects from interventions Monica Melby-Lervåg

Improving reading comprehension: Effects from interventions

Monica Melby-Lervåg

My talk1. The foundation of reading comprehension 2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia3. To examine the effects from an intervention4. Effects from interventions directly targeting reading comprehension 5. Effects from interventions targeting underlying components of reading comprehension (general cognitive processes, decoding, vocabulary).

1. The foundation of reading comprehension

Background

Reading comprehension = Word decoding Linguistic Comprehension

working memory?

Inference skills?

Morphology?

Syntax?

The study

198 unselected Norwegian speaking children

Assessment scheme

Middle of 2nd grade

End of 2nd

grade

Middle of 3rd grade

End of 3rd

grade

Middle of 6th grade

Middle of 7th grade

Lervåg & Melby-Lervåg, work in progress

NARA T2 NARA T3 NARA T4 NARA T5 NARA T6NARA T1

Morpheme Generation

Syntactic Skills

Vocabulary Width

Inference Skills TOWRE A TOWRE B

Listening Recall

Backward Digit Recall

Vocabulary Definitions

Vocab. Width

Residual

Syntac. Skills

Residual

Morph. Gen..

Residual

Inf. Skills Residual

Vocab. Def.

Residual

Linguistic Comprehension

Word Decoding

Working Memory

Reading Comprehension

Initial Status

Reading Comprehension

Early Growth

Reading Comprehension

Later Growth

3.55**

2.21**.735*1.02**

.614**

-.20**

.622*

.058*

2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia

FAMILY RISK OF DYSLEXIA

StudyMeta-analysis of studies examining reading comprehension and underlying skills in children with dyslexia (Snowling & Melby-Lervåg, submitted)

A systematic search detected 123 studies that used a family risk methodology to study reading

disorders

Effect size

Effect size

Cohens d

Example d = -1.00

Results

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Family risk children without dyslexia vs controls not at –risk

Toddlers (1- 3.5 years)

Articulatory accuracy Expressive language Receptive language

Family risk children with dyslexia vs controls not at –risk

Gro

up d

iffer

ence

d (S

TD u

nits

)

Preschool

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Family risk children with dyslexia vs controls not at –risk

Family risk children with out dyslexia vs controls not at –risk

Articulatory accuracy

Receptive vocabulary

grammar Phoneme awareness

Rapid naming

Gro

up d

iffer

ence

d (S

TD u

nits

)

Primary school

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3Family risk children with dyslexia vs controls not at –risk

Family risk children with out dyslexia vs controls not at –risk

Expressive vocabulary

Phoneme awareness

Rapid naming

Word decoding

Reading comprehension

Gro

up d

iffe

renc

e d

(ST

D u

nits

)

3. To examine the effects from an intervention

PretestChose a group of children

Intervention Posttest

PretestChose a group of children

Intervention Posttest

PretestChose a group of children

Intervention

PosttestNo intervention/irrelevant intervention

Randomize the children in a training and an intervention group

Posttest

Pretest

Study:

A syntehesis of meta-analyses

Melby-Lervåg, Lervåg & Hulme, work in progress.

MethodSystematic search for reviews of educational interventions that have used a quantitative summary of results after 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.

Differences in mean effect size for different designs

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

RCT QED with control group

No control group

Mea

n ef

fect

siz

e in

met

a-an

alys

es

Only 233 of the 3145 intervention studies were randomised controlled trials.

Serious methodological weaknesses, studies not suited to conclude about

intervention effects

5. Effects from interventions targeting reading comprehension or underlying components of

reading comprehension

A. Interventions targeting reading comprehension directly

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:1. Linguistic comprehension

2. Reading comprehension 3. Combined

-Vocabulary (60 new words)-Narratives-Oral language use-Listening comprehension

-Meta-cognitive strategies (repeated reading, thinking aloud, visualisation) -Use of these strategies when reading text and in questions -Inferences, rcognise and use- Narratives and txt production

A combination (50/50 %).

Results

Figure from the paper:

B. Interventions targeting reading comprehension indirectly through Domain

General Cognitive Skills

Effects from computerised working memory training

Study

Redick, Melby-Lervåg & Hulme (work in progress). 2012: 23 studies

New study: 82 studies with 102 independent experiments

NARA T2 NARA T3 NARA T4 NARA T5 NARA T6NARA T1

Morpheme Generation

Syntactic Skills

Vocabulary Width

Inference Skills TOWRE A TOWRE B

Listening Recall

Backward Digit Recall

Vocabulary Definitions

Vocab. Width

Residual

Syntac. Skills

Residual

Morph. Gen..

Residual

Inf. Skills Residual

Vocab. Def.

Residual

Linguistic Comprehension

Word Decoding

Working Memory

Reading Comprehension

Initial Status

Reading Comprehension

Early Growth

Reading Comprehension

Later Growth

3.55**

2.21**.735*1.02**

.614**

-.20**

.622*

.058*

ResultsDecoding

Studies

Treated controls

Untreated controls

Mean effect size d immediatly after training

Verbal abilities

StudiesMean effect size d immediatly after training

Treated controls

Untreated controls

Reading comprehensionStudies Mean effect size d immediatly after

trainingTreated controls

Untreated controls

Similar findings for auditory processing training

C. Interventions targeting reading comprehension indirectly through decoding/phonological awareness

Numerous of well controlled studies have shown that phonological awareness in combination

with letter knowledge training can improve word decoding skills………..

Unfortunatly, not that many have reported transfer effects to standardised tests of reading comprehension

10 studies met inclusion criteria for word decoding. Effects were moderate: 0.47 SD better (95% CI 0.06 to 0.88)

Only three studies reported data on transfer effects to reading comprehension: 0.14 SD better (95% CI -0.46 to 0.74)

RCTs that combine phonological awareness/letter knowledge and vocabulary

intervention shows promising effects on reading comprehension

Wolff, 2011(d = 0.41, lasted at

follow up)

D. Interventions targeting reading comprehension indirectly through

vocabulary/linguistic comprehension

Linguistic comprehension intervention

Three times a week, (2 x 45 minutes, 1 x 10 min individually).

Rogde, Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg (submitted)

Dialogical readingNarrative skills

Expressive language tasks

Vocabulary instruction

115 second language learners randomised in two groups. Training group received 20 weeks of intervention

Vocabulary embedded in the training program

0

1

2 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Group CONTROL

Group TRAINING

d = 0.53** immediatly after training, d = 0.44* follow up

Distal measures: Do the effects of training transfer to standardized tests of expressive language?

0

1

2 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Group CONTROL

Group TRAINING

0

1

2 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Group CONTROL

Group TRAINING

d = 0.51** immediatly after training, d = 0.28 (p = 0.064) follow up

Distal measures: Do the effects of training transfer to standardized tests of receptive language?

0

1

2 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Group CONTROL

Group TRAINING

0

1

2 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Group CONTROL

Group TRAINING

d = 0.02 immediatly after training, d = 0.06 follow up

My talk1. The foundation of reading comprehension 2. Reading comprehension and dyslexia3. To examine the effects from an intervention4. Effects from interventions directly targeting reading comprehension 5. Effects from interventions targeting underlying components of reading comprehension (general cognitive processes, decoding, vocabulary).

Take-home message 1From family risk studies of dyslexia it is clear that children with dyslexia have impared word decoding and reading comprehension skills. From an early age they also have poor phonological awareness and often also broader language skills.

From longitudinal studies we know that vocabulary, grammar skills and word decoding are uniqly related to the growth in reading comprehension.

Thus, for interventions to be succsessfull they should focus on these areas.

Take-home message 2

Effects on reading comprehension can be obtained by interventions either focusing on reading comprehesion directly (strategies etc), through linguisitc comprehension/vocabulary or through decoding/phonological awareness. But…Effects are not easily obtained. Requires hard and systematic work over time.

Take-home message 3

Reading comprehension is the ultimate goal of literacy. Therefore more studies should focus on this and measure this with standardised tests that has good psychometric properties.

There is a great need in education for high quality randomised intervention studies. Many studies have used poor designs, too few participants and interventions lacking a theoretical and empirical rationale. This has given us misleading results and lead us astray.

Foto: Kathrine Nordli, «Airborne»

Thank you for the attention!