Details on article
|Author||Dowdall, N.; Melendez-Torres, G.J.; Murray, L.; Gardner, F.; Hartford, L.; Cooper, P.J.|
|Title||Shared Picture Book Reading Interventions for Child Language Development: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis|
Dowdall N, Melendez-Torres GJ, Murray L, Gardner F, Hartford L, Cooper PJ (2019). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Dev. 91(2) E383-E399
|Keywords||book reading; child language development; systematic review; meta-analysis
|Link to article|| https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225
|Abstract||Interventions that train parents to share picture books with children are seen as a strategy for supporting child language development. We conducted meta‐analyses using robust variance estimation modeling on results from 19 RCT s (N total = 2,594; M childage = 1–6 years). Overall, book‐sharing interventions had a small sized effect on both expressive language (d = 0.41) and receptive language (d = 0.26). They had a large effect on caregiver book‐sharing competence (d = 1.01). The impact of the intervention on child language was moderated by intervention dosage, with lower dosage associated with a minimal impact. Child age and caregiver education level were unrelated to child outcome. This review and meta‐analysis confirms the promise of book‐sharing interventions for enhancing and accelerating child language development.
|Metodology||A protocol was submitted to the PROSPERO registry for systematic reviews (CRD number:42017057258) with child language as the primary outcome. While this registered protocol also speciﬁed assessment of child socioemotional outcomes as a secondary outcome, a recent meta-analysis (Xie, Chan, Ji, & Chan, 2018) focused directly on this question, rendering this analysis redundant. PRISMA guidelines of reporting were followed. A tailored data extraction form (based on the Cochrane Handbook recommendations) was devel-oped in order to obtain all the necessary information from the included studies. Two reviewers (NDand LH) extracted data independently into exceland discrepancies were identiﬁed and resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (GM). Robust variance estimation meta‐analysis model was chosen as the most suitable approach for the analysis to account for multiple effect sizes per study per outcome, or multiple intervention arms (Hedges, Tipton, & Johnson, 2010). This approach allows for the inclusion of any number of dependent effect size estimates within a single analysis.
|Findings||The current meta‐analysis of RCTs on book‐sharing interventions demonstrates the promise of such interventions for enhancing child language development, at least in the short term. These interventions show efficacy across a variety of settings and modalities, which is encouraging for taking them to scale. Indeed, a strong argument could be made that book‐sharing should be considered for any program that seeks to support early literacy and language development in infants and young children. It is especially significant that the current analysis indicates that book‐sharing interventions can be equally effective when targeted at caregivers with low and high levels of education. It is also notable that, contrary to previous suggestions, the current analysis indicates that young and older preschool children benefit equally from these interventions. Finally, this analysis suggests that there is a dose effect, with brief interventions being unlikely to result in improvements in children's language abilities. Interventions involving multiple sessions, on the other hand, with extended contact time between the instructor and caregiver, are highly likely to result in improvements to child language.
|Search Database||WoS (Web of Science)
|Technique||Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Cochrane Handbook risk-of-bias tool; Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT); Illinois Test of Phycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA); Microsoft Excel; Stata;|