Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28036410›Full record

Trial reportLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools2017

Interactive Book Reading to Accelerate Word Learning by Kindergarten Children With Specific Language Impairment: Identifying an Adequate Intensity and Variation in Treatment Response.

Holly L Storkel, Krista Voelmle, Veronica Fierro, Kelsey Flake, Kandace K Fleming, Rebecca Swinburne Romine

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Holly L StorkelUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence.
Krista VoelmleUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence.
Veronica FierroUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence.
Kelsey FlakeUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence.
Kandace K FlemingUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence.
Rebecca Swinburne RomineUniversity of Kansas, Lawrence.

Funding

Research Design and Analysis Core (RDAC)P30HD002528 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI FOWLER, STEPHEN CLETIUS · 1985 to 2015
$22.1M
Heartland Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR000001 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI BAROHN, RICHARD J. · 2012 to 2015
$13.0M
Participant Recruitment and ManagementP30DC005803 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI RICE, MABEL L · 2002 to 2016
$5.8M
Interactive book reading to accelerate word learning by children with SLIR01DC012824 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI SWINBURNE ROMINE, REBECCA · 2013 to 2022
$3.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000001NICHD NIH HHS P30 HD002528NIDCD NIH HHS P30 DC005803NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012824
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study sought to identify an adequate intensity of interactive book reading for new word learning by children with specific language impairment (SLI) and to examine variability in treatment response.

methodAn escalation design adapted from nontoxic drug trials (Hunsberger, Rubinstein, Dancey, & Korn, 2005) was used in this Phase I/II preliminary clinical trial. A total of 27 kindergarten children with SLI were randomized to 1 of 4 intensities of interactive book reading: 12, 24, 36, or 48 exposures. Word learning was monitored through a definition task and a naming task. An intensity response curve was examined to identify the adequate intensity. Correlations and classification accuracy were used to examine variation in response to treatment relative to pretreatment and early treatment measures.

resultsResponse to treatment improved as intensity increased from 12 to 24 to 36 exposures, and then no further improvements were observed as intensity increased to 48 exposures. There was variability in treatment response: Children with poor phonological awareness, low vocabulary, and/or poor nonword repetition were less likely to respond to treatment.

conclusionThe adequate intensity for this version of interactive book reading was 36 exposures, but further development of the treatment is needed to increase the benefit for children with SLI.

Indexed as

BooksReadingVerbal LearningChildChild LanguageChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansLanguage DevelopmentLanguage Development DisordersLanguage TestsLinguisticsMaleSchoolsTreatment OutcomeVocabulary

Identifiers

PMID28036410
PMCPMC5547908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.