Early Intervention for Emergent Literacy Developmentin a Collaborative Community Pre-Kindergarten

Dana D. Hilbert • Sarah D. Eis

Published online: 24 April 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The purpose of this study was to describe the

characteristics and findings of an early literacy intervention

program implemented to facilitate the development of

critical emergent literacy skills among children identified

as low-income and at-risk in the context of collaborative,

pre-kindergarten/Head Start classrooms. Using data from a

sample of pre-Kindergartners (n = 154), the intervention

reveals the effectiveness of early literacy intervention in

the areas of vocabulary, phonological awareness, and print

knowledge. The study suggests the possibility of prevent-

ing literacy delays and referrals for specialized, special

education services for young children through early inter-

vention at the preschool level.

Keywords Emergent literacy � Early literacy � Preschool �Pre-Kindergarten � Intervention

Introduction

The opportunity to successfully develop emergent literacy

skills is vital for a young child’s future academic success.

Emergent literacy skills include phonological awareness,

vocabulary, letter naming, and word manipulation (Missall

et al. 2006; Whitehurst and Lonigan 1998). Such skills

provide a young child with a greater chance to successfully

learn to read (Callaghan and Madelaine 2012). However,

research has revealed that there is a high level of variability

in the early literacy skills of young children, especially

between children from a low socio-economic status as

compared to children from a middle-to-high socio-eco-

nomic status (Chatterji 2006). Children from middle-

income homes demonstrate higher outcomes on phonolog-

ical awareness tasks than children from lower-income

homes (Lonigan et al. 1999). Children who begin their

kindergarten year with a delay in emergent literacy skills

are likely to continue to be delayed as compared to typically

developing peers (Bierman et al. 2008; Snow et al. 1998).

Storch and Whitehurst (2002) reported that phonological

awareness, along with print knowledge, impact a young

child’s ability to learn to read in Kindergarten. The National

Early Literacy Panel (2008) reported that phonological

awareness measured in Kindergarten or earlier was found to

be one the most robust predictors of later decoding, reading

comprehension, and spelling skills. Therefore, it is imper-

ative to identify effective emergent literacy intervention

models so that the trajectory can be influenced prior to

children beginning Kindergarten, allowing all children the

opportunity to become good readers.

Previous research in early intervention for emergent

literacy has produced encouraging outcomes; however,

most studies used professionals—other than the classroom

teacher, such as Speech-Language Pathologists, graduate

assistants, trained interventionists, and the researchers

themselves—to implement intervention programs (Lefeb-

vre et al. 2011; VanDerHeyden et al. 2007; Vadasy et al.

2006; Justice et al. 2003). Previous research has shown,

in a broad range of settings and protocols, the potential

of early intervention on emergent literacy development

Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s10643-013-0588-3) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

D. D. Hilbert (&)

Cameron University, 2800 West Gore Blvd, 1078i NB, Lawton,

OK 73505, USA

e-mail: dhilbert@cameron.edu

S. D. Eis

Spring Independent School District, 5926 Vinland Shores Ct.,

Spring, TX 77379, USA

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113

DOI 10.1007/s10643-013-0588-3

(Hindson et al. 2008; Roth et al. 2002, Koutsoftas et al. 2009).

Justice et al. (2003) studied the outcomes of a 12-week

intervention conducted by speech-language pathologist/

reading specialist. Gains were found in the growth of emer-

gent literacy skills in the intervention group. Another study

conducted by Justice et al. (2010) found that children in

classrooms using Read It Again-Prek! (RIA) outperformed

children in comparison classrooms on standardized measures

of grammar, vocabulary, print knowledge, rhyme, and allit-

eration skills at the end of the school year. RIA is a free

curricular supplement available for early childhood profes-

sionals. RIA was developed to facilitate the development of a

young child’s language and literacy skills in four key areas:

vocabulary, narrative, phonological awareness, and print

knowledge. The program allows for a flexible implementation

schedule and modification to meet the needs of the individual

learner. The study’s results were encouraging, but general-

ization is limited secondary to the non-representation of stu-

dents who are English language learners and the lack of

diversity in the intervention classroom.

VanDerHeyden et al. (2007) determined that some early

literacy skills (alliteration and rhyming) were positively

impacted by brief interventions. The study utilized the

alliteration and rhyming probes from the Individual

Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs) to assess

participants over time with a 3-week test–retest model.

Thirty-five preschool-age children identified as being at-

risk for learning difficulties participated in a 5-week

intervention program in classroom-wide and individual

formats that targeted phonemic awareness skill develop-

ment. The intervention consisted of stimulus cards for

alliteration and rhyming, with a target (picture) stimulus at

the top of the card and two response (picture) choices at the

bottom. The intervention cards were similar to the assess-

ment cards except that the stimulus cards had only two

target stimulus pictures whereas the assessment probe had

three pictures at the bottom. Participants named the stim-

ulus items on the card, identified the correct response (with

scripted feedback for correct/incorrect responses) and then

proceeded to the next card. The intervention program was

conducted by graduate students in school psychology and

occupational therapy.

Ziolkowski and Goldstein (2008) found that emergent

literacy skills for children at-risk for reading disorders

improved when embedding a phonological awareness

intervention into repeated storybook readings. Readings

were conducted over a 13-week period by graduate stu-

dents in speech, language and pathology. The interventions

occurred three times a week, focusing on rhyming and

alliteration (initial letter-sound knowledge). Vadasy

et al. (2006) described an 18-week intervention program

implemented by paraprofessionals in Kindergarten class-

rooms for students at-risk for reading difficulties. The

intervention in the study targeted code-oriented phonemic

skills and the alphabet code through integrated and explicit

instructional methods (letter-sound correspondence, pho-

neme segmenting, word reading and spelling, irregular

words, phoneme blending, alphabet naming and assisted

oral reading). Students participated in 30-min, individual

tutoring sessions outside of the regular classroom setting.

Students who participated in the instruction demonstrated

significant growth in the target areas as measured by

the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS).

Bailet et al. (2009) reported that children in the inter-

vention program, implemented by project-trained teachers

in a pre-Kindergarten setting, made gains in reading pre-

paredness, and made significant progress in catching up to

typical peers. Children in the study participated in eighteen,

30-min lessons in a pre-Kindergarten setting over a 9-week

period that targeted rhyming, alliteration, syllable count-

ing/segmentation, and onset-rime in a developmentally

appropriate manner (Bailet et al. 2009). Roth et al. (2002)

found significant improvement in the rhyming ability of

preschoolers who participated in the Promoting Awareness

of Sounds in Speech (PASS) program administered by

graduate students. Participants completed the intervention

individually for 30 min, 3 days per week over a period of

6–8 weeks. PASS consist of 5 instructional objectives

focused on rhyming (matching, elimination, judgment with

pictures, judgment without pictures and production).

In 2011, Lefebvre et al., conducted 40 sessions (4 ses-

sions/week for 10 weeks) of shared storybook readings

(SSR) implemented by a trained speech-language pathol-

ogist in the classroom, focusing on the facilitation of

vocabulary, phonological awareness and print awareness

skills. Lefebvre et al. (2011) found that the intervention

group outperformed the control group in phonological

awareness; however, not on vocabulary and print

awareness.

Similarly, Yurick et al. (2012) in a study of the effec-

tiveness of the Early Reading Intervention (ERI) curricu-

lum with at-risk Kindergarten students (n = 38) taught by

instructional assistants revealed gains in word attack and

letter-word identification, as measured by the Woodcock

Johnson III Test of Achievement. The word attack

assessment measures the participant’s skill in applying

phonic and structural analysis skills to the pronunciation of

nonsense printed words, whereas the letter-word identifi-

cation requires the participant to identify a list of letters/

words.

Identifying interventions that are developmentally

appropriate for young children, effective, and able to be

implemented in typical early childhood classrooms by an

early childhood teacher is vital so that such interventions

can be within reach of early childhood programs serving

106 Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113

123

preschool children. The study seeks to contribute the lit-

erature regarding the prevention of reading difficulties in

pre-Kindergarten children by investigating the benefits of a

regular education early literacy intervention program on

the development of preschool children’s early literacy

skills. Specifics of the intervention have been included in

detail to determine the interventions which result in

improved emergent literacy skills (NELD 2008). As

Lefebvre et al. (2011) suggested, the intervention focus

was on closing the gap between at-risk preschoolers. In

addition, the research was conducted in typical pre-Kin-

dergarten classrooms so that the results can be generalized

and reproduced. The focus of this research study was on

answering the following questions:

1. Does the selected early literacy intervention lead to

gains in early literacy and language skill development

as compared to the regular pre-Kindergarten curricu-

lum alone?

2. Is an early intervention program targeting pre-literacy

skill development implemented by pre-Kindergarten

teachers effective?

To answer these questions, we utilized a quantitative

research design within a community collaboration pre-

Kindergarten program. Although the sample is relatively

small and geographically restricted, the study participants

are representative of the population and the implementation

process was monitored to help assure treatment fidelity.

Method

Study Design

The study utilized a quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test

design including an experimental and a control group. The

experimental group included preschool children from a

low-income background who participated in the experi-

mental intervention program that targeted print knowledge,

vocabulary, narrative skills and phonological awareness.

The control group included preschoolers who did not

receive any specific intervention. Nine classrooms of

children from a collaborative community-based preschool

program participated in the study. The preschool program

is a collaboration between the local education agency

(public school) and the community Head Start program.

Participants

Classrooms

The study was conducted at a collaborative, full-day pre-

school program administered through the local public

school and the local Head Start in a Midwestern city with

population of approximately 100,000. Each classroom

implements the High Scope program as its core curriculum.

Children are eligible to participate in the collaboration

preschool if they are receiving social security benefits (SSI)

or temporary aid to needy families (TANF); if their family

income before taxes is below 100 % of the Federal Poverty

Guidelines (FPG); or if they are in foster care (regardless of

family income). In addition, children must reside within the

local school district.

Recruitment

All children attending the preschool were eligible to par-

ticipate in the study. Parents of children in the program

were recruited verbally and received a written description

of the program prior to signing consent. Of the children

eligible to participate (n = 180), 154 children participated

in the entire program (86 %). Over the course of the study,

twenty-six children left the preschool. New students

enrolled, but the students were not included in the study

secondary to missing initial assessments.

Children

Children were not excluded if they received speech-lan-

guage pathology services through the Head Start program

or were on an Individualized Education Plan through the

LEA. Children’s native language was not an exclusion

factor. Ages of the children as of the first day of the study

ranged from 4 years and 1 month, to 5 years and 4 months,

with a mean of 4.756 and SD of .4035. Ethnicity makeup of

all participants was identified per parent report, with 63 %

Caucasian, 20.8 % African American, 1.9 % Native

American, and 22 % reported as Other. Parents reported

7.1 % of the population to be of bilingual status and

63.6 % of the population had attended a Head Start class in

the previous school year. (Refer to Table 1).

The intervention group was not representative of the

participants as the children were identified for the inter-

vention group based on their performance on the pre-

assessment and teacher observation, not by personal

characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, or language. All

children whose families signed the informed consent forms

were assessed using the Individual Growth and Develop-

ment Indicators (IGDIs). The IGDIs consists of three

probes targeting Alliteration, Rhyming and Picture Nam-

ing. The three lowest scores for Picture Naming were used

to determine intervention group participants. In the case of

a tie, the student’s teacher determined which student would

participate in the intervention group, based on observations

Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113 107

123

of the child during the first weeks of school. Teacher report

has shown correlation with direct measures of emergent

literacy skills (Cabell et al. 2009).

Teachers

Administration of the intervention program and progress

monitoring was conducted by each of the nine female

classroom teachers, whose ages ranged from approximately

21–49 years. Seven of the teachers identified themselves as

being of White/Caucasian descent, one as White/Native

American, and one as Hispanic. Only one of the nine

teachers identified herself as bilingual. Teachers’ overall

years of experience ranged from 2 to 20 years (M = 8.33;

SD = 5.08). The teachers’ experience within the school

district ranged from 2 to 9 years (M = 5.72 years;

SD = 2.77). The teachers’ experience with Head Start

ranged from 2 to 15 years (M = 5.75; SD = 4.30). Seven

of the nine teachers were certified in Early Childhood

Education through the state Subject Area Test only. (Refer

to Table 2).

Setting

The current study was conducted in a full day, community

collaboration early childhood site (pre-kindergarten), serv-

ing 180 students. The preschool program is collaboration

between the local education agency (public school) and the

community Head Start program. Classes are 6 h a day,

Monday through Friday, with before and after child care

offered. Each class was composed of 20 students, with one

state certified Early Childhood Education teacher and one

teacher’s assistant provided by the local school district.

The literacy intervention itself was provided by each

classroom teacher within each individual classroom. Stu-

dents and the teacher worked in a small group setting

during center time while the remainder of the class worked

at other centers and were supervised by the classroom

assistants. Teachers completed the IGDIs progress moni-

toring one-on-one with each student in within the school

building, as did the researchers, when administering the

Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) to the partici-

pants in the intervention group. The TOPEL is a stan-

dardized assessment that assesses a child’s print

knowledge, ability to define vocabulary orally and pho-

nological awareness skills.

Materials

Read It Again Pre-K! (RIA) was selected as the interven-

tion because of its focus on developing the skills of nar-

rative, vocabulary, print knowledge, and phonological

awareness, which research studies have found to be among

of the most important for preparing young children for later

reading success (National Early Literacy Panel 2008).

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants, number and percentage

Characteristics Intervention group

(n = 23)

Control group

(n = 131)

Number of males 10 (43.5 %) 66 (50.4 %)

Number of females 13 (56.5 %) 65 (49.6 %)

Ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 10 (43.5 %) 87 (66.4 %)

African American 3 (13.0 %) 29 (22.1 %)

Hispanic 10 (43.5 %) 12 (9.2 %)

White/Native American 0 (0 %) 3 (2.3 %)

Average age 4.7 years 4.8 years

Child’s primary language

English 14 (60 %) 129 (98 %)

Spanish 9 (40 %) 2 (2 %)

Head start previous year?

Yes 12 (52.2 %) 86 (65.6 %)

No 11 (47.8 %) 45 (34.4 %)

IEP? 2 (8.7 %) 13 (12.7 %)

Table 2 Characteristics of the teachers

Characteristics Teachers (n = 9)

Female 9

Race/ethnicity

White, non-Hispanic 7

African American 0

Hispanic 1

White/Native American 1

Teaching experience

Number of years teaching 8.3 years average

Number of years teaching preschool 5.75 years average

Education

Bachelor in Elementary Education 3

Bachelor in Early Childhood Education 2

Bachelor in Psychology 1

Bachelor in Communications 1

Bachelor in Biology 1

Bachelor in Human Ecology 1

Teaching certification

Traditional Early Childhood 2

Test-only Early Childhooda 7

a The state in which the study was conducted allows for an Early

Childhood Teaching Certification to be issued to candidates who have

a valid teaching certification in any subject area plus pass a

50-question Early Childhood exam

108 Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113

123

Further, the design of the program is based on knowledge

of the effectiveness of using systematic and explicit

instruction presented in a manner that is highly meaningful

to young children to support language and literacy devel-

opment (Justice and Ezell 2002). Additional benefits of the

program are its ease of administration, minimal time and

training requirements, and affordable cost.

RIA is a free curricular supplement featuring 60 lessons,

each approximately 20–30 min in duration. The program

typically requires the early childhood educator to provide

two lessons a week, making RIA adaptable in a variety of

early childhood settings. Read it Again Pre-K! utilizes the

repeated use of children’s storybooks to facilitate the

development of language and literacy skills in young

children. Key concepts are repeated over multiple weeks,

providing multiple opportunities for young children to

acquire, practice and use literacy and language.

Measures

Individual Growth and Development Indicators

The IGDIs are standardized assessment tools created specifi-

cally for measuring and monitoring the progress of children

ages three to five (Early Childhood Research Institute on

Measuring Growth and Development 1998). It was selected

as a measurement tool due to its ability to identify children

at-risk, evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention and suit-

ability for repeated use over a short period of time. Additional

benefits of using the IGDIs were that administration is quick

and efficient and required little training. The IGDIs consist of a

set of Picture Naming cards, Alliteration cards, and Rhyming

cards, as well as a set of scripted administration instructions.

Additional materials necessary included a timer and a place to

document student performance.

Test of Preschool Early Literacy

The Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL) was

selected for its utility as a standardized measure in iden-

tifying children who are at-risk of developing early literacy

problems and for intervention progress monitoring in the

form of a pre-and post-test. It measures print knowledge,

definitional vocabulary phonological awareness, and com-

bines the subtest scores into a composite score that best

represents the child’s emergent literacy skills.

The internal consistency/reliability of the items on the

TOPEL was computed at the age intervals of 3, 4, and 5 years

using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The average of the three

coefficient alphas as well as the corresponding average

standard errors of measurement are as follows, respectively,

for each subtest or composite score: Print knowledge (95 and

3), Definitional Vocabulary (94 and 4), Phonological

Awareness (87 and 5), and Early Literacy Index (96 and 3).

Test–retest reliability for each of the subtest and composite

scores was as follows: Print Knowledge, 89; Definitional

Vocabulary, 81; Phonological Awareness, 83; Early Literacy

Index, 91 (Lonigan et al. 2007). Interscorer Difference reli-

ability for each of the subtest and composite scores was as

follows: Print Knowledge, 96; Definitional Vocabulary, 97;

Phonological Awareness, 97; Early Literacy Index, 98.

Overall, the TOPEL scores indicate a high level of reliability

across all three reliability measures.

An item analysis was conducted using the entire nor-

mative sample and item discrimination coefficients were

calculated. Results indicated that 100 % of the median item

discrimination indexes were .38 or greater with median

item difficulties from .20 to .84. These scores provide

evidence of content validity or that the TOPEL covers a

representative sample of early literacy abilities. To mea-

sure criterion-prediction validity, data were collected on

six different criterion measures and compared to the

TOPEL. In all but one comparison, the TOPEL subtests

and composite reveals large to very large relationships with

the criterion measures, providing evidence of the validity

of the TOPEL in measuring early literacy skills. Construct-

identification validity was also measured for three different

age intervals and, as expected, found that performance on

the TOPEL is related to age. Scores were also measured for

six different subgroups, two gender groups, three ethnic

groups, and two Hispanic language groups. As expected,

the average scores for each group, with the exception of the

bilingual children, were in the average range, whereas the

bilingual children scored in the below average range.

Overall the TOPEL is considered to be a valid measure of

children’s early literacy abilities.

Assessment and Scoring Procedures

IGDIs. Two different measures were used throughout

various stages of the intervention. First, universal screening

data was collected after the first 6-weeks of school using

the Individual Growth and Development Indicators

(IGDIs). The IGDIs include three sets of stimulus cards that

measure: Picture Naming (1 min probe), Rhyming (2 min

probe), and Alliteration (2 min probe). These probes were

administered to each student individually by the classroom

teachers prior to the intervention as a way to screen for

students to be targeted for the interventions. The lowest

performing students on the measure of Picture Naming in

each classroom were proposed for the intervention group.

The classroom teacher determined the students to partici-

pate in the intervention program, considering the formal

assessment as well as informal assessments. Teachers

administered the same probes to all of the students again at

the mid-point and the end of the intervention.

Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113 109

123

TOPEL. After intervention groups were selected, the

researchers administered the standardized TOPEL to each

student in the intervention group individually at private

locations within the school building prior to the start of the

intervention program. The researchers are both profes-

sionals (Speech-Language Pathologist and School Psy-

chologist) trained and experienced in test administration,

scoring, and interpretation of norm-referenced tests.

Procedures

The intervention program was organized into sixty indi-

vidual lessons, conducted over 23 weeks (2–3 lessons per

week). Materials for the intervention included a binder that

contained the 60 pre-developed and printed lesson plans

that included explicit instructions, scaffolding strategies,

implementation notes for teacher reflection, a ‘‘Pupil Pro-

gress Checklist’’ for each student in the group, and the

fifteen story books that accompanied the lessons. During a

time of their choice, each teacher implemented the lesson

with the intervention students in a small group within the

classroom while the classroom teaching assistant super-

vised the remainder of the class. The intervention sessions

lasted between 20–30 min. Each lesson was built around

the reading of one of the story books and included activities

for the teacher to complete before, during, and after reading

the stories to the participants. Activities focused on two

objectives from the areas of print knowledge, vocabulary,

phonological awareness, and narrative. In addition, each

lesson also included scaffolding strategies and examples

for ideas about adapting the activities to diverse learners

(Appendix A in ESM).

Treatment Fidelity

Intervention fidelity was improved through a structured

implementation schedule that each classroom teacher fol-

lowed and through meetings with researchers. Each class-

room teacher and the building administrators received a

written schedule that displayed what lessons should be

taught each week. Teachers completed progress logs after

each lesson. Classroom teachers, building administrators

and the researchers met every 3–4 weeks to discuss

implementation, student progress and to answer questions

that arose concerning lessons, assessment or other progress

monitoring.

Data Analysis

To compare the relative effects of the intervention pro-

gram, three one-way mixed-groups analysis of variance

(ANOVA) with an a level of .05 were conducted. The

independent variable (between subjects variable) was the

type of group, control or experimental. The dependent

variables (within subjects variables) were the pre-/post-test

scores on picture naming, alliteration and rhyming. To

compare the performance of the experimental group pre-/

post-intervention, dependent t-tests were conducted on

TOPEL test scores. Significance level for all statistical tests

was established at a = .01.

Results

Picture Naming

Results of ANOVA for the IDGI were provided in Table 3.

For the subtest of Picture Naming, the initial mean score

for the control group was 17.34 (SD = 6.511) and the

mean score for the intervention group was 7.39

(SD = 4.906). As shown in Table 3, children in the

experimental group had, on average, scores lower than

those in the control group on the pre-test. On the post-

intervention testing, the mean score for the control group

was 23.22 (SD = 6.230) and the mean score for the

intervention group was 27.00 (SD = 6.536). There was no

significant interaction between the groups over time (pre-/

post scores), Wilks’ Lambda = .894, F (1, 152) = 18.008,

p = .000, partial eta squared = .106. The main effect

comparing the two groups (control and intervention) was

significant, p = .000, partial eta squared = .165, suggest-

ing a large difference in the effectiveness of the

intervention.

Table 3 Results of one-way, mixed-group analysis of variance of IGDIs

IGDIs Control group (n = 131) Intervention group (n = 23) p* g2

Pre Post Pre Post

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Picture naming 17.34 (6.511) 23.22 (6.230) 7.39 (4.906) 27.00 (6.536) .000 .165

Alliteration 2.39 (3.792) 8.50 (7.065) .57 (1.532) 7.22 (5.648) .133 .015

Rhyming .87 (1.967) 5.27 (5.163) .57 (1.502) 4.57 (4.043) .435 .004

* p \ .01

110 Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113

123

Alliterations

For the subtest of Alliterations, the initial mean score for

the control group was 2.39 (SD = 3.792) and the mean

score for the intervention group was .57 (SD = 1.532). As

shown in Table 3, children in the experimental group had,

on average, scores lower than those in the control group on

the pre-test. On the post-intervention testing, the mean

score for the control group was 8.50 (SD = 7.065) and the

mean score for the intervention group was 7.22

(SD = 5.648). There was no significant interaction

between the groups over time (pre-/post scores), Wilks’

Lambda = .999, F (1, 152) = .154, p = .696, partial eta

squared = .001. The main effect comparing the two groups

(control and intervention) was also not significant,

p = .133, partial eta squared = .015, suggesting a non-

significant difference in the effectiveness of the interven-

tion concerning alliterations.

Rhyming

For the subtest of Rhyming, the initial mean score for the

control group was .87 (SD = 1.967) and the mean score for

the intervention group was .57 (SD = 1.502). As shown in

Table 3, children in the experimental group had, on aver-

age, scores lower than those in the control group on the

pre-test. On the post-intervention testing, the mean score

for the control group was 5.27 (SD = 5.163) and the mean

score for the intervention group was 4.57 (SD = 4.043).

There was no significant interaction between the groups

over time (pre-/post scores), Wilks’ Lambda = .999, F (1,

152) = .122, p = .727, partial eta squared = .001. The

main effect comparing the two groups (control and inter-

vention) was not significant, p = .435, partial eta

squared = .004, suggesting a non-significant difference in

the effectiveness of the intervention program targeting

rhyming.

TOPEL

Results of paired-samples t-tests conducted to evaluate the

impact of the intervention on students’ scores on the TO-

PEL were given in Table 4. In the composite score (Early

Literacy Index) a statistically significant increase from Pre-

Intervention (M = 77.64, SD = 9.927) to Post-Interven-

tion (M = 86.36, SD = 8.044), t (13) = 4.453, p \ .005

(two-tailed) was observed. The mean increase in TOPEL

scores was 8.72 with a 95 % confidence interval ranging

from 12.942 to 4.487. The eta squared statistic (.60) indi-

cated a large effect size. The vocabulary subtest scores

from Pre-Intervention (M = 83.64, SD = 14.752) to Post-

Intervention (M = 94.50, SD = 12.895), t (13) = 3.952,

p \ .005 (two-tailed) were determined to be statistically

significant. The mean increase in TOPEL scores was 10.86

with a 95 % confidence interval ranging from 16.792 to

4.922. The eta squared statistic (.55) indicated a large

effect size. Scores on the Print Knowledge subtest were

also statistically significant with Pre-Intervention (M =

90.21, SD = 9.175) to Post-Intervention (M = 99.79,

SD = 11.437), t (13) = 4.258, p \ .001 (two-tailed). The

mean increase in TOPEL scores was 9.58 with a 95 %

confidence interval ranging from 14.427 to 4.716. The eta

squared statistic (.58) indicated a large effect size.

Scores on the Phonological Awareness subtest revealed

an increase in the TOPEL scores from Pre-Intervention

(M = 72.07, SD = 9.571) to Post-Intervention (M =

73.57, SD = 11.487), t (13) = .570, p \ .100 (two-tailed),

though this was not statistically significant. The mean

increase in TOPEL scores was 1.50 with a 95 % confidence

interval ranging from 7.188 to 4.188. The eta squared

statistic (.026) indicated a very small effect size.

Discussion

Early childhood educators have long desired to level the

playing field for young children deemed ‘‘at-risk’’ for

delays in the development of fundamental skills necessary

for success in our society. The results of this study indicate

that, at least in terms of emergent literacy skills, educators

can close the gap prior to the beginning of formal reading

instruction. The study investigated the effects of an emer-

gent literacy program on preschool children considered at-

risk for literacy skill development. Data were collected on

intervention and control group children concerning picture

naming, alliterative and print knowledge as measured by

the IGDIs. Additional data were collected on the control

group children concerning phonological awareness,

vocabulary and print knowledge as assessed by the

TOPEL. The results of the student showed a statistically

significant increase in picture naming in the intervention

group as compared to the control group. The results also

Table 4 Results of t-tests of Test of Preschool Early Literacy scores

of intervention group

TOPEL Intervention group (n = 23)

Pre Post p* g2

M (SD) M (SD)

Early literacy index 77.64 (9.927) 86.36 (8.044) .005 .6

Phonological

awareness

72.07 (9.571) 73.57 (11.487) .100 .026

Vocabulary 83.64 (14.752) 94.50 (12.895) .005 .55

Print knowledge 90.21 (9.175) 99.79 (11.437) .001 .58

* p \ .01

Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113 111

123

revealed statistically significant increases in vocabulary

and print knowledge within the intervention group itself.

Although the intervention group scores did not exceed the

scores of the control group significantly in the area of

alliteration, the gains clearly indicate that with continued

intervention, the group may meet and exceed controls.

This study supports previous work by Justice et al.

(2010) concerning the effectiveness of the RIA program;

however, for this study, RIA was used as a Tier 2 inter-

vention (Barnett et al. 2007), not a classroom-wide cur-

riculum. One of the strengths of this study is its

implementation by early childhood educators in the tea-

cher’s classrooms. Training of the teachers was limited to

1-h at the beginning of the school year, plus monthly dis-

cussions during staff meetings. Previous research con-

cerning emergent literacy had utilized highly-trained

teachers (Bailet et al. 2009; Justice et al. 2010) or other

professionals (VanDerHeyden et al. 2007; Lefebvre et al.

2011) in the implementation of their programs. In addition,

all children were eligible to participate, including children

with disabilities and children who are English-language

learners, which is a more typical pre-Kindergarten class

composition.

The results show that the RIA intervention was more

effective than the control instruction in improving the

scores for vocabulary and alliteration for at-risk pre-Kin-

dergarten children. These findings are consistent with

previous research by VanDerHeyden et al. (2007) and

Bailet et al. (2009) concerning the effectiveness of inter-

ventions targeting early literacy skills. When comparing

the intervention group to the control group, the study found

statistical significance in the area of picture naming. Unlike

a similar study conducted by Lefebvre et al. (2011), our

study found significant gains in vocabulary skills as com-

pared to the control group as well as within the intervention

group itself. However, no difference was found in the

acquisition of alliteration skills and rhyming as compared

to the control group. While descriptive statistics clearly

revealed growth in the areas of alliteration (control v.

intervention), it was not at a significant level.

Further analysis within the intervention group demon-

strated statistically significant growth in the areas of

vocabulary and print knowledge, as measured by the TO-

PEL. This is consistent with the results from the compar-

ison with the control group in the area of picture naming.

Little growth was noted in the area of phonological

awareness in the intervention group, when assessed by the

TOPEL. This finding is also consistent with the alliteration

and rhyming scores from the comparison data analysis.

Overall, the data suggest the intervention (RIA) is

effective in facilitating the development of vocabulary and

phonological awareness in young children identified as

low-income and at-risk for delays in the development of

literacy skills. However, the selection of assessment

instruments could have impacted the ability of the study to

determine the effectiveness of all components of the RIA.

The IDGIs target vocabulary (picture naming) and pho-

nological awareness (alliteration and rhyming). However,

the IGDIs did not assess narrative skills, receptive language

development or print knowledge. Therefore, those aspects

of the RIA were not able to be analyzed in the control/

intervention comparisons. The TOPEL does measure more

of the RIA components (phonological awareness, receptive

vocabulary and print knowledge). However, it does not

assess narrative skill development and the TOPEL was

only used within the intervention group for this study.

Future studies should examine all components of the RIA,

preferably with the control and intervention groups. In

addition, the size of the study may limit the generalizability

of the results. Also, the repeated use of the assessment/

screening instrument (IGDIs) for progress monitoring

could cause a possible threat to external validity. Future

studies should examine the effects of such interventions as

a response to intervention (RtI) classroom-wide interven-

tion program (Tier 1) implemented by teachers instead of a

targeted group program (Greenwood et al. 2011). In addi-

tion, future studies should examine long-term effects of

intervention at the preschool-level.

Conclusions

The study investigated the effects of an emergent literacy

program on preschool children identified as low-income

and at-risk for delays in literacy skill development. Data

were collected on intervention and control group children

concerning picture naming, alliterative and print knowl-

edge as measured by the IGDIs. Additional data were

collected on the control group children concerning pho-

nological awareness, vocabulary and print knowledge as

assessed by the TOPEL. The results show a statistically

significant increase in picture naming in the intervention

group as compared to the control group. The results also

revealed statistically significant increases in vocabulary

and print knowledge within the intervention group itself.

Despite the identified limitations of the study, the

research provides important new evidence for the imple-

mentation of targeted emergent literacy within groups of

children at risks for literacy acquisition problems. The

findings suggest that the trajectory of literacy development

could be positively impacted with early intervention in the

pre-Kindergarten classroom by early childhood educators.

The findings also suggest that RIA could be an effective

Tier 2 intervention for children at-risk for reading diffi-

culties. As discussed previously, intentionally assessing,

monitoring and supporting the development of emergent

112 Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113

123

literacy in preschool years is important to the development

of more formal reading skills later in life.

References

Bailet, L. L., Repper, K., Murphy, S., Piasta, S., & Zettler-Greeley, C.

(2009). Emergent literacy intervention for pre-kindergartners at

risk for reading failure: Years 2 and 3 of a multiyear study.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 1–21.

Barnett, D. W., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2007).

Achieving science-based practice through response to interven-

tion: What it might look like in preschools. Journal of

Educational & Psychological Consultation, 17, 31–54.

Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blaire, C., &

Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school

readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the

Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology,

20, 821–843.

Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Zucker, T. A., & Kilday, C. R. (2009).

Validity of teacher report for assessing the emergent literacy

skills of at-risk preschoolers. Language, Speech and Hearing

Services in Schools, 40, 161–173.

Callaghan, G., & Madelaine, A. (2012). Leveling the playing field for

kindergarten entry: Research implications for preschool early

literacy instruction. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,

37, 13–23.

Chatterji, M. (2006). Reading achievement gaps, correlates, and

moderators of early reading achievement: Evidence from the

early childhood longitudinal study (ECLS) kindergarten to first

grade sample. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 489–507.

Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and

Development. (1998). Research and development of individual

growth and development indicators for children between birth

and age eight (Tech. Rep. No. 4), Minneapolis, MN: Center for

Early Education and Development, University of Minnesota.

Greenwood, C. R., Bradfield, T., Kaminski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J. J.,

& Nylander, D. (2011). The response to intervention (RtI)

approach in early childhood. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43,

1–22.

Hindson, B., Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R., Newman, C., Hine, D.

W., & Shankweiler, D. (2008). Assessment and early instruction

of preschool children at-risk for reading disability. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 97, 687–704.

Justice, L. M., Chow, S., Capellini, C., Flanigan, K., & Colton, S.

(2003). Emergent literacy intervention for vulnerable preschool-

ers: Relative effects of two approaches. American Journal of

Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 320–332.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2002). Use of storybook reading to

increase print awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of

Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 17–29.

Justice, L. M., & McGinty, A. S. (2012) Read It Again Pre-K!: A

preschool curricular supplement to promote language and

literacy foundations. Retrieved August 18, 2012 from

http://www.myreaditagain.com/.

Justice, L. M., McGinty, A. S., Cabell, S. Q., Kilday, C. R., Knighton,

K., & Huffman, G. (2010). Language and literacy curriculum

supplement for preschoolers who are academically at risk:

A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in

the Schools, 41, 161–178.

Koutsoftas, A. D., Harmon, M. T., & Gray, S. (2009). The effect of

tier 2 intervention for phonemic awareness in a response-to-

intervention model in a low-income preschool. Language,

Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 116–130.

Lefebvre, P., Trudeau, N., & Sutton, A. (2011). Enhancing vocab-

ulary, print awareness and phonological awareness through

shared storybook reading with low-income preschools. Journal

of Early Childhood Literacy, 11, 453–478.

Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., &

Samuel, C. S. (1999). Effects of two shared-reading interven-

tions on emergent literacy skills at at-risk preschoolers. Journal

of Early Intervention, 22, 306–322.

Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Test of

preschool early literacy examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed

Inc.

Missall, K. N., Mcconnell, S. R., & Cadigan, K. (2006). Early literacy

development: Skill growth and relations between classroom

variables for preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention,

29, 1–21.

National Early Literacy Panel (NELD). (2008). Developing early

literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Wash-

ington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2012). Promoting Early Literacy

and Language Development. In R. C. Pianta, W. S. Barnett, L.

M. Justice, & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of early

childhood education (3rd ed., pp. 194–216). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Roth, F. P., Troia, G. A., Worthington, C. K., & Dow, K. A. (2002).

Promoting awareness of sounds in speech: An initial report of an

early intervention program for children with speech and

language impairments. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 535–565.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing

reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-

related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal

structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.

Vadasy, P. F., Sander, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Code-oriented

instruction for kindergarten students at-risk for reading difficul-

ties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 508–528.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Snyder, P. A., Broussard, C., & Ramsdell, K.

(2007). Measuring response to early literacy intervention with

preschoolers at risk. Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa-

tion, 27, 232–249.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and

emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.

Yurick, A., Cartledge, G., Kourea, L., & Keyes, S. (2012). Reducing

reading failure for kindergarten urban students: A study of early

literacy instruction, treatment quality, and treatment duration.

Remedial and Special Education, 33, 89–102.

Ziolkowski, R. A., & Goldstein, H. (2008). Effects of an embedded

phonological awareness intervention during repeated book

reading on preschool children with language delays. Journal of

Early Intervention, 31, 67–90.

Zucker, T. A., Justice, L. M., & Piasta, S. B. (2009). Prekindergarten

teachers’ verbal references to print during classroom-based,

large-group shared reading. Language, Speech and Hearing

Services in Schools, 40, 376–392.

Early Childhood Educ J (2014) 42:105–113 113

123