Headsprout Early Reading for Specific Literacy Difficulty: A Comparison Study

Storey, Catherine; McDowell, Claire; Leslie, Julian C.

doi:10.1007/s10864-019-09336-7

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The HWOS group outperformed the other groups for the remaining two measures (LNF and PSF) as can be seen in Figure 2. Although findings in the current research are consistent with previous studies that support the use of Headsprout to improve reading skills (Huffstetter et al., 2010; Storey et al., 2017, 2020; Tyler et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2016), the difference in gains across groups was not large enough to reach significance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

An evaluation of Headsprout early reading as an online parent‐mediated intervention for primary school children

Gillespie

Markham

Tiernan

2023

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the Coronavirus pandemic and lengthy absences from the classroom, there is a need for large‐scale remedial programs to support young children to “catch‐up” on literacy and numeracy skills. A stratified randomized controlled trial was used to evaluate the Headsprout Early Reading (HER) program as a parent‐mediated digital literacy intervention. A between‐groups design compared differences in reading‐dependent outcome measures for 36 children assigned to one of three intervention groups: with support, without support, and waitlist‐control. Children completed significantly more episodes when parents received implementation support from the researcher compared to the without support group. Children receiving Headsprout instructions demonstrated marginally greater gains than the waitlist‐control group in posttest outcome measures; however, differences in reading outcomes were not significant between groups at posttesting. The current research provides tentative support for HER and importantly, highlights the importance of providing support for parents implementing interventions at home.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

An evaluation of Headsprout early reading as an online parent‐mediated intervention for primary school children

Gillespie

Markham

Tiernan

2023

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this study reported high levels of attrition that resulted in non‐equivalent groups, which weakens causal claim. A small RCT by Storey et al (2020) also reported large positive effects on reading skills for mainstream primary‐aged pupils at risk of reading failure. The remaining two small RCTs reported positive effects on reading with learners with intellectual disabilities (Ramdoss et al, 2020; Roberts‐Tyler et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Assessing the range and evidence‐base of interventions in a cluster of schools

Pegram

Watkins

Hoerger

et al. 2022

Review of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last decade has seen an increased focus through policy and research for schools to move towards an evidence‐informed practice. Although some practitioners now access the external research evidence when deciding which interventions to adopt in their school, research suggests many still do not. Instead, approaches to teaching and learning are often informed by trends and the opinions and experiences of practitioners. Little is known about what intervention programmes/approaches are used in schools and whether they are evidence‐based. We conducted this study to assess the range and evidence of interventions used in a school cluster in Wales, which comprised two secondary schools, seven primary schools and one special school. Using questionnaires, we evidenced 242 interventions. Following screening, we included 138 of these in the analysis and categorised them according to the ‘SEN Areas of Need’. We then conducted a rapid systematic review of the literature for these interventions and found that 30% had some evidence of positive impact on pupil outcomes, 67% had no published evidence, and 3% had causal evidence to suggest they were ineffective. One year later, we conducted a follow‐up study to assess if schools’ knowledge of the evidence for the interventions, presented through a summary report, had an impact on their provision. Our data suggest that the reports had very little impact on existing provision, and some schools continued to use the same interventions. The limitations of this study and directions for the cluster, policy and research are discussed.

show abstract

“…We defined an outlier as a value below the first quartile minus three times the interquartile range (−1.24) or above the third quartile plus three times the interquartile range (2.07; Tukey, 1977). We identified one outlier at the upper end of the distribution (2.54; Storey et al, 2020) and winsorized the value to the upper fence value.…”

Section: Outlier Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Hall

Dahl-Leonard

Cho

et al. 2022

Reading Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis included experimental or quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted between 1980 and 2020 that aimed to improve reading outcomes for Grade K-5 students with or at risk for dyslexia (i.e., students with or at risk for word reading difficulties, defined as scoring at or below normreferenced screening or mean baseline performance thresholds articulated in our inclusion criteria). In all, 53 studies reported in 52 publications met inclusion criteria (m = 351; total student N = 6,053). We employed robust variance estimation to address dependent effect sizes arising from multiple outcomes and comparisons within studies. Results indicated a statistically significant main effect of instruction on norm-referenced reading outcomes (g = 0.33; p < .001). Because there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies (p < .01), we used meta-regression to identify the degree to which student characteristics (i.e., grade level), intervention characteristics (i.e., dosage, instructional components, multisensory nature, instructional group size), reading outcome domain (i.e., phonological awareness, word reading/ spelling, passage reading, or reading comprehension), or research methods (i.e., sample size, study design) influenced intervention effects. Dosage and reading outcome domain were the only variables that significantly moderated intervention effects (p = .040 and p = .024, respectively), with higher dosage studies associated with larger effects (b = 0.002) and reading comprehension outcomes associated with smaller effects than word reading/spelling outcomes (b = −0.080).

show abstract

Headsprout Early Reading for Specific Literacy Difficulty: A Comparison Study

Cited by 12 publications

References 22 publications

An evaluation of Headsprout early reading as an online parent‐mediated intervention for primary school children

An evaluation of Headsprout early reading as an online parent‐mediated intervention for primary school children

Assessing the range and evidence‐base of interventions in a cluster of schools

Forty Years of Reading Intervention Research for Elementary Students with or at Risk for Dyslexia: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About