Research
Emergent Literacy Intervention for Vulnerable
Preschoolers: Relative Effects of Two
Approaches
Laura M. Justice
Sy-Miin Chow
Cara Capellini
Kevin Flanigan
Sarah Colton
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
This study determined the relative efficacy of
an experimental explicit emergent literacy
intervention program for preschoolers experienc-
ing multiple risk factors. Using an alternating
treatment research design, children completed
two 6-week waves of intervention in small
groups; one wave featured the experimental
explicit intervention program, whereas the other
featured a comparison program. Emergent
literacy assessment was conducted at pretest
and at the end of each wave. Results indicated
significant widespread gains in emergent literacy
E
mergent literacy refers to the foundation upon which
children’s conventional reading and writing abilities
are built. More specifically, this term is used to
describe the behaviors, skills, and concepts of young
children that develop into and precede conventional
literacy (Kaderavek & Sulzby, 1998b; Sulzby, 1985). For
most children, the emergent literacy foundation is acquired
within the period preceding formal literacy instruction,
transcending birth to about 6 years of age.
Generally speaking, this foundation comprises two
distinct but highly interrelated areas of development:
written language awareness and phonological awareness
(Justice & Ezell, 2001b; van Kleeck, 1998). These domains
refer, respectively, to children’s acquisition of knowledge
about the orthography and the phonology of one’s own
language. Written language awareness describes the
implicit and explicit knowledge children acquire concern-
ing the fundamental properties of print, such as the
relationship between print and speech and the functions
and forms of particular written language units (e.g., letters,
words, punctuation marks; Hiebert, 1981; Justice & Ezell,
2000, 2002; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Whitehurst &
Lonigan, 1998). Phonological awareness, in contrast,
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003 • © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
320 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003
1058-0360/03/1203-0320
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
knowledge over the entire 12-week intervention
program; growth was significantly greater during
the experimental explicit intervention program
compared to the comparison program. An
examination of individual differences and
intervention outcome showed oral language
skills and literacy orientation to predict emergent
literacy performance at the end of the program.
Key Words: emergent literacy, language
disorders in children, intervention, at-risk,
preschool
describes children’s ability to implicitly and explicitly
represent spoken language as comprising discrete and
recurrent sound elements (e.g., phonemes, syllables,
words; Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Torgesen & Davis, 1996;
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998; Wise, Ring, & Olson, 1999).
Knowledge across both domains is acquired gradually and,
for many children, incidentally during the course of early
childhood.
Prediction studies following children from preschool or
kindergarten into elementary school have consistently
shown that performance on an array of emergent literacy
tasks reliably predicts children’s later literacy achievement
(e.g., Badian, 1982; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999,
2001; Stuart, 1995; for review, see Scarborough, 1998).
Children performing well on emergent literacy tasks
generally have superior conventional literacy outcomes
relative to children demonstrating lower levels of perfor-
mance. Prediction studies have also shown indices of both
written language and phonological awareness to contribute
uniquely to conventional literacy outcomes (Badian, 1982,
1986; Stuart, 1995; for review, see Scarborough, 1998).
Taken together, the importance of young children’s written
language and phonological awareness for later literacy
 achievement argues for the need for increased focus on
preschool emergent literacy intervention as a proactive
model for preventing reading difficulties (Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998). Effective early intervention programs
should result in substantial, widespread growth across both
emergent literacy domains for those children most vulner-
able for emergent and conventional literacy difficulties.
Children Vulnerable for Literacy
Difficulties
The majority of children, by virtue of being immersed
in a literate society, acquire emergent literacy concepts and
skills relatively effortlessly during the course of early
childhood. Nevertheless, some children appear particularly
vulnerable for experiencing difficulties achieving an
adequate emergent literacy foundation (for an overview of
key risk factors, see Snow et al., 1998; also see Catts et al.,
2001). Of relevance to the research reported here are two
circumstances associated with a significant increase in risk
status for emergent literacy difficulties: oral language
impairment (LI) and poverty.
Oral LI
There is a reciprocal and robust association between
young children’s oral language proficiency and emergent
literacy development (Boudreau & Hedberg, 1999;
Chaney, 1992; Dickinson & Tabors, 1991; Lonigan,
Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Prediction studies have shown
that an array of discrete oral language proficiency indices,
including measures of vocabulary and grammar, consis-
tently serve as moderate to robust predictors of conven-
tional literacy outcome (for review, see Scarborough, 1998,
2000). Moreover, the prediction strength becomes increas-
ingly powerful when several measures of language are
combined into a composite index of language proficiency
(Lonigan et al., 2000; Scarborough, 1998).
It is thus not particularly surprising that young children
exhibiting significant difficulties with oral language
proficiency are at increased risk for delayed attainment of
emergent literacy knowledge and also are relatively more
likely than their typically developing peers to experience
poor conventional literacy outcomes (Bird, Bishop, &
Freeman, 1995; Bishop & Adams, 1990; Boudreau &
Hedberg, 1999; Catts, 1993; Magnusson & Naucler, 1990,
1993). Preschool children with LI consistently show
depressed performance relative to their peers on an array of
emergent literacy tasks addressing both written language
and phonological awareness (e.g., Boudreau & Hedberg,
1999; Gillam & Johnston, 1985; Magnusson & Naucler,
1993). Likewise, studies of school-age children with
reading difficulties have revealed a notably high frequency
of earlier deficits in diverse areas of oral language. One
prospective study of second graders with reading problems
found that many of these children as toddlers had exhibited
significant difficulties with oral language development
(Scarborough, 1990). A more recent study found 57% of
183 children characterized as poor readers in second grade
to have exhibited difficulties in receptive language ability
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
in kindergarten, encompassing such diverse areas as
vocabulary knowledge, grammatical understanding, and
narrative comprehension (Catts et al., 1999). Preschool and
kindergarten children experiencing more severe and/or
widespread language difficulties appear to be at relatively
greater risk for poor literacy outcomes (Bishop & Adams,
1990). Findings such as these unequivocally argue the need
for increased emphasis on a preventive model of literacy
intervention for children with LI.
Poverty
As important as oral language proficiency is to emer-
gent literacy development, the latter also appears to be
strongly mediated by the frequency with which children
are formally and informally exposed to language and
literacy in the home, school, and community (Frijters,
Barron, & Brunello, 2000; Leseman & de Jong, 1998;
McCormick & Mason, 1986; Neuman, 1999; Ninio, 1980;
Purcell-Gates, 1996). Children who seldom interact with
written language (e.g., through parent–child shared
storybook reading experiences) have more difficulty
acquiring emergent literacy knowledge compared to peers
with more frequent literacy opportunities (e.g., Raz &
Bryant, 1990; Wells, 1985). Limited exposure to oral and
written language is a circumstance encountered relatively
often by young children reared in low-socioeconomic
status (SES) households, and it is a situation that may
contribute to the relatively low levels of emergent literacy
skill observed in low-SES children (e.g., Feitelson &
Goldstein, 1986; McCormick & Mason, 1986; Ninio, 1980;
Teale, 1986; Whitehurst et al., 1994).
Indeed, converging evidence has provided considerable
documentation that both emergent and conventional
literacy skills of children from low-SES households differ
in comparison to those of their peers from middle- and
upper-SES households (e.g., Bowey, 1995; Chaney, 1994;
Dickinson & Snow, 1987; Fernandez-Fein & Baker, 1997;
Justice & Ezell, 2001b; Lonigan et al., 1999; Warren-
Leubecker & Carter, 1988; White, 1982). Dickinson and
Snow (1987) contrasted the performance of young children
from low- and middle-SES households on a series of
written language awareness tasks, finding that middle-SES
children performed significantly better than low-SES
children on measures of print production, book reading
concepts, and environmental print decoding. Lonigan and
colleagues (1999) more recently reported similar findings
when comparing the emergent literacy performance of low-
SES children in Head Start to that of children in a childcare
serving middle-SES families. Children in Head Start
demonstrated relatively low levels of skill on measures of
alphabet knowledge, letter-sound knowledge, book reading
concepts, and environmental print decoding.
These same patterns of comparatively poor performance
when comparing low-SES children to their more advan-
taged peers have also been observed when looking at
phonological awareness performance; children’s perfor-
mance on measures of phonological awareness has
consistently been shown to be influenced by SES (e.g.,
Chaney, 1994; Fernandez-Fein & Baker, 1997; Nittrouer,
Justice et al.: Emergent Literacy Intervention 321
 1996). Accordingly, of note is Scarborough’s (1998, 2000)
recent contention that SES is a more powerful predictor of
literacy outcome than measures of emergent literacy skill,
oral language proficiency, home literacy experience, or
nonverbal intellectual ability.
Promoting Emergent Literacy
in At-Risk Preschoolers
Young children experiencing multiple risk factors, such as
oral language difficulties concomitant with limited language
exposure due to living in poverty, appear particularly
vulnerable for entering kindergarten and/or first grade
lacking adequate emergent literacy precursors. Such circum-
stances compound the likelihood that these children will have
proximal as well as ongoing difficulties meeting the rigors of
formal literacy instruction, given the relative stability of
individual differences in reading achievement during the
elementary years (Francis, Shaywitz, Stuebing, Shaywitz, &
Fletcher, 1996; Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986).
To the extent that children demonstrating difficulties
with the timely achievement of emergent literacy knowl-
edge are so identified, interventions can be delivered to
promote timely achievement of key literacy precursors
(e.g., Harris, 1986; Justice & Ezell, 2000; Neuman, 1999;
Neuman & Roskos, 1993). Consistent with a preventive
model for reducing the incidence of reading disabilities
(Snow et al., 1998), the provision of preschool emergent
literacy intervention has emerged as a seemingly powerful
vehicle for reducing the risk for later problems with
conventional literacy (e.g., see Whitehurst et al., 1994,
1999). To ensure the effectiveness of this proactive model
of prevention, there is a significant need to systematically
evaluate intervention approaches believed to be effective
for promoting emergent literacy in at-risk children.
Emergent Literacy Intervention:
Current Perspectives
Emergent literacy interventions for young at-risk
children are generally framed within the theoretical
perspective that emergent literacy knowledge is best
acquired through frequent, informal, naturalistic, and
meaningful interactions with literacy-related artifacts (e.g.,
books, writing instruments; Watkins & Bunce, 1996;
Watson, Layton, Pierce, & Abraham, 1994). Mediated
interaction with such artifacts under the guidance of more
capable and knowledgeable individuals (e.g., parents,
teachers, siblings, friends) is a primary vehicle through
which children acquire increasingly sophisticated levels of
emergent literacy knowledge (Justice & Ezell, 1999).
There are indeed numerous naturally occurring contexts
in which young children acquire emergent literacy knowl-
edge, including informal interactions with print con-
textualized within the community or household environ-
ment (see Neuman & Celano, 2001). Adult–child shared
storybook reading, for instance, is viewed by many
theorists as a particularly potent means for development
(e.g., Bus, 2001; Bus, Van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995;
Clay, 1998; Crawford, 1995; Dickinson & Smith, 1994;
322 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Neuman, 1999; Teale, 1986; Whitehurst et al., 1988),
given that it is a context that is familiar, meaningful,
interesting, and motivating to the preschool child (Watkins
& Bunce, 1996). Hypothetically, children’s emergent
literacy knowledge is advanced within shared reading and
other such literacy-based interactions both through adult
mediation and scaffolding, as well as the child’s own
active interest and engagement as an increasingly literate
partner (Justice & Ezell, 1999).
Emergent literacy interventions for at-risk preschoolers
guided by the parameters of such theoretical principles
emphasize the need to increase children’s naturalistic
exposure to literacy concepts as well as their participation
in meaningful literacy events. Increased exposure and
participation in literacy events enhances children’s
emergent literacy knowledge in an implicit manner, that is,
without direct instruction. Interventions designed to
increase children’s participation in adult–child storybook
reading would be consistent with such an approach (e.g.,
Ezell, Justice, & Parsons, 2000; Justice & Ezell, 2000,
2002; Whitehurst et al., 1994, 1999), as are interventions
that increase children’s interactions with print during play
and other dramatic activities, or promote children’s
exposure to print within the classroom (e.g., Christie &
Enz, 1992; Harris, 1986; Katims, 1991; Neuman, 1999;
Neuman & Roskos, 1993; Vukelich, 1994).
Nevertheless, for young children experiencing multiple
risk factors adversely affecting the timely attainment of
emergent literacy knowledge, a more explicit approach to
intervention may be required. The perspective is such that
at-risk children, particularly those experiencing significant
developmental difficulties, attain the most benefit from
participating in carefully constructed activities designed
explicitly to promote emergent literacy performance in key
areas (e.g., see Fey, Catts, & Larrivee, 1995; Lundberg,
Frost, & Petersen, 1988; O’Connor, Jenkins, Leicester, &
Slocum, 1993; van Kleeck, Gillam, & McFadden, 1998).
Skills in key areas, such as letter naming or rhyming, are
directly targeted through structured tasks. Often, explicit
approaches use a specific developmentally derived
curriculum in which children participate in a set series of
activities for a particular amount of time each day or week.
One example of such is the Sound Foundations Program
(Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991), used effectively by
Whitehurst et al. (1994) to increase the emergent literacy
skills of Head Start children.
The argument for a more explicit approach to interven-
tion is twofold, derived primarily from the language
intervention literature (e.g., Fey et al., 1995; Paul, 2001).
The first argument is, quite simply, that time is of the
essence, thus making a case for efficiency and expediency
of intervention efforts. The perspective is thus that engage-
ment in explicit instructional activities is the most efficient
route to skill development; activities can be designed to
target those areas in which children have particular
difficulties or areas that are most highly associated with
later literacy outcomes (see Lundberg et al., 1988). The
need for efficiency is bolstered by evidence showing that
literacy problems are more difficult to remediate than they
are to prevent (Juel, 1988; Stanovich, 1986). The second
 argument is that children experiencing difficulties with
emergent literacy development require more formalized or
structured opportunities to develop key skills. These
children, for whatever reasons, are not developing skills in
the same manner or rate as their typically achieving peers.
To this end, the argument is such that a more direct
approach is required to encourage skill development in
critical areas. This approach has been shown to be effective
for children exhibiting a range of adverse developmental
circumstances (e.g., Layton, Deeny, Upton, & Tall, 1998;
Majsterek, Shorr, & Erion, 2000; O’Connor et al., 1993;
van Kleeck et al., 1998).
The Present Study
There is a notable corpus of work providing supportive
evidence for various approaches to address the emergent
literacy needs of typical and at-risk preschool children
(e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Harris, 1986; Justice &
Ezell, 2000, 2002; Katims, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988;
Neuman & Roskos, 1993; O’Connor et al., 1993; van
Kleeck et al., 1998; Vukelich, 1994; Whitehurst et al.,
1994). Nevertheless, few studies have involved preschool
children experiencing multiple risk factors, such as
children reared in poverty while simultaneously experienc-
ing oral language difficulties. Given these children’s
particular vulnerability for later literacy difficulties, there
is a real need to determine the extent to which various
approaches to emergent literacy intervention effectively
and efficiently influences widespread literacy growth.
In the study reported here, the relative efficacy of two
approaches to emergent literacy intervention was examined
for a small cohort of 4-year-old children experiencing
multiple risk factors. The majority of participants exhibited
significant difficulty with oral language development, and
all of the children were residing in a low-SES community
and attending an “at-risk” preschool. The primary goal was
to determine the relative efficacy of an experimental
explicit approach to emergent literacy intervention, in
which children participated in structured activities de-
signed to promote their skills in targeted areas transcending
both written language and phonological awareness. It was
hypothesized that an explicit approach to intervention
would result in rapid and widespread gains in emergent
literacy, relative to a less structured approach.
Three specific aims were addressed. The first aim was
to determine the extent to which 12 weeks of emergent
literacy intervention influenced the emergent literacy skills
of at-risk preschool children. The second aim was to
characterize the efficacy of an experimental explicit
intervention program relative to a comparison program for
promoting the preschoolers’ skills, whereas the third goal
was to identify child characteristics most predictive of
emergent literacy outcome following intervention.
Method
Participants
Recruitment. The children were recruited from a single
urban preschool center serving primarily African-American
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
children located in mid-central Virginia. Participation in
this center was based on a family’s demonstration of low-
income household status or other social service need and/or
presence of a developmental disability by a child. School
administrators referred children to participate in the present
study based on results of speech-language screening
conducted at the start of the academic year. Any child
failing one or more portions of the Fluharty Preschool
Speech and Language Screening Test (Fluharty, 1978) was
referred to the first author; 23 referrals were made. After
these children’s parents were provided the opportunity to
enroll their children in the study (15 were so enrolled),
program participation was made available to other children
in the preschool, until 18 available program slots were
filled. Only 1 participant was currently receiving speech-
language intervention at the time of the study.
Participant Description. Eighteen children (5 girls, 13
boys) attending eight different preschool classrooms
participated. The children ranged in age from 48 to 60
months, with a mean age of 53 months (SD = 3.5 months).
All children were native English speakers and resided in
homes in which English was the primary language spoken.
In terms of ethnicity, 16 children were African-American
and two were Caucasian; this demographic ratio approxi-
mated that of the school’s student population. All children
resided in households with incomes at or below the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services’ federal
poverty guidelines. Screening of nonverbal cognition using
the Bead Memory subtest of the Stanford-Binet Intelli-
gence Scale–Fourth Edition (Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler,
1991) by school administrators showed all children
performing within the low- to above-average range; none
of the children were believed to exhibit significant intellec-
tual difficulties.
Upon enrollment in the study, children’s hearing,
speech, and language skills were evaluated for descriptive
purposes. Testing was conducted by supervised graduate
speech-language pathology students. All children passed a
pure-tone bilateral hearing screening at 30 dB across the
frequencies of 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. Children’s speech
production was evaluated using the Goldman-Fristoe Test
of Articulation (GFTA; Goldman & Fristoe, 1985); 1 child
was not evaluated because he refused testing, although
naturalistic observations by the first author suggested
significantly impaired speech production skills and poor
intelligibility. Receptive and expressive language skills for
all children were evaluated using the Preschool Language
Scale–3 (PLS-3; Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 1992).
Table 1 provides a general overview of child character-
istics. Data in Table 2 provide additional detail about the
children, including individual child profiles for language
and speech production performance. Designation of LI was
based on a standard score of 81 or below (–1.25 SD) on the
Receptive and/or Expressive Language subtests of the
PLS-3, whereas designation of speech production impair-
ment was based on a percentile rank of 25 or below
(bottom quartile) on the GFTA. As seen from Table 2, 5
children demonstrated typically developing language and
speech production skills, 1 showed typically developing
language skills in the presence of speech production
Justice et al.: Emergent Literacy Intervention 323
 TABLE 1. Group characteristics of child participants (n = 18).

Variable M SD Range

Chronological age (in months) 53 3.5 48–60

Speech production (percentile) 49 28.4 3–99
Receptive language (standard score) 81 13.7 65–103
Expressive language (standard score) 81 15.3 62–107
Total language (standard score) 79 15.4 59–104

Note. Speech production = percentile rank from the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation (Goldman
& Fristoe, 1985). Receptive language and expressive language = standard scores from the Auditory
Comprehension and Expressive Communication subtests, respectively, of the Preschool Language
Scale–Third Edition (PLS-3; Zimmerman et al., 1992); total language = Total Language score from
the PLS-3. Normative references for the PLS-3 are M = 100, SD = 15.

impairment, 6 showed receptive and/or expressive LI
with speech production impairment, and 6 showed
receptive and/or expressive LI without speech production
difficulty.
General Procedures
A within-subjects alternating treatment research design
involving two intervention programs (experimental
explicit, comparison) served as the framework for this
investigation. At the start of the study, children were
administered an emergent literacy pretest and then were
randomly assigned to one of two groups: Group A (n = 6)
or B (n = 12). The uneven group composition resulted from
scheduling and design constraints, in which the 18-child
sample needed to receive two interventions in a 1.5 hr
scheduling block (allowing for only three 30-min sessions)
during the typical school day.
Following group assignment, children then completed a
12-week emergent literacy intervention conducted in two
consecutive 6-week waves, with the order of waves
counterbalanced across the two groups. Children com-
pleted the intervention waves in small groups of 6 children
each; Group A (6 children) was a single group, whereas
Group B (12 children) was randomly subdivided further
into two groups of 6 children.
Equivalency for the two groups was examined post hoc
across the following variables: chronological age, speech
production (percentile rank from the GFTA), and language
proficiency (Total Language score from the PLS-3).
Determination of group equivalency was conducted via a
series of independent samples t tests with an alpha level of

TABLE 2. Individual characteristics of participants (n = 18).

Child Receptive Expressive Speech

(Group) Language Language Production General Profile

1 (A) 103 104 68 Typically developing language and speech production skills
2 (A) 82 90 79 Typically developing language and speech production skills
3 (A) 87 97 63 Typically developing language and speech production skills
4 (A) 65 62 55 Receptive/expressive language impairment; typical speech production skills
5 (A) 94 81 19 Expressive language impairment; speech production impairment
6 (A) 67 68 3 Receptive/expressive language impairment; speech production impairment
7 (B) 71 84 19 Receptive language impairment; speech production impairment
8 (B) 80 62 3 Receptive/expressive language impairment; speech production impairment
9 (B) 65 64 60 Receptive/expressive language impairment; typical speech production skills
10 (B) 70 73 44 Receptive/expressive language impairment; typical speech production skills
11 (B) 73 64 NA Receptive/expressive language impairment; speech production impairment suggested
12 (B) 74 75 68 Receptive/expressive language impairment; typical speech production skills
13 (B) 66 81 67 Receptive/expressive language impairment; typical speech production skills
14 (B) 84 81 15 Expressive language impairment; speech production impairment
15 (B) 103 95 15 Typically developing language skills; speech production impairment
16 (B) 98 107 99 Typically developing language and speech production skills
17 (B) 98 105 44 Typically developing language and speech production skills
18 (B) 69 72 43 Receptive/expressive language impairment; typical speech production skills

Note. Receptive language and expressive language = standard scores from the Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication
subtests of the Preschool Language Scale–Third Edition (Zimmerman et al., 1992). Speech production = percentile rank from the Goldman-
Fristoe Test of Articulation (Goldman & Fristoe, 1985).

324 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003

Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 .05. Results indicated that the two groups did not signifi-
cantly differ in chronological age, t(16) = 0.46, p = .651;
speech production, t(16) = 0.08, p = .934; or oral language,
t(16) = 0.487, p = .633.
Intervention Waves. One intervention wave featured the
experimental explicit emergent literacy program, whereas
the other wave featured a comparison program. Regardless
of program, each wave consisted of 12 sessions; sessions
were held twice weekly, each lasting approximately 30
min. All sessions were conducted in a small private room
at the children’s preschool center, and were conducted by
two professionals working collaboratively, one a speech-
language pathologist and the other a reading specialist.
Both professionals had graduate-level training in interven-
tion principles for working with children with LI. For the
duration of the 12-week intervention, children’s teachers
and school administrators were blind to the design, content,
and sequence of the intervention. Likewise, the two
interventionists were blind to the types of emergent literacy
measures being administered over the course of the study,
as well as to children’s performance on these assessments.
Experimental explicit intervention program. Each child
completed a 6-week wave encompassing twelve 30-min
small-group sessions featuring an explicit approach to
emergent literacy intervention. These sessions were
designed to directly engage children in activities that
promote their attention to the orthographic features of
written language and the phonologic features of oral
language. Although individual sessions varied somewhat in
specific activities featured, each session included three
components: (a) name writing, (b) alphabet recitation, and
(c) phonological awareness games.
Each session began with a name writing activity, in
which children were asked to “sign in” by tracing the
letters in their names using paper and crayons. Children
were provided assistance as they worked to name and
identify the letters in their own names. Subsequently,
individual features of children’s names were discussed by
the group (e.g., children were asked to find “whose name
starts with a B”). Next, children were provided laminated
cards depicting the alphabet letters and corresponding
pictures, and were lead through two to three alphabet
recitations. Recitations involved singing the alphabet song
with children pointing to the letters on their cards. This
was followed by several alphabet games, such as having
the children use their cards to find the letters in their
names. Lastly, children completed one or more phonologi-
cal awareness games, focussing on rhyme detection, rhyme
production, sentence or syllable segmentation, or initial
sound identification. For instance, in one game, children
were each provided a picture card depicting a common
object (e.g., hat, bat, car), and were then asked to indicate
whether their cards rhymed with a target picture shown by
an interventionist (e.g., cat). For each session, a lesson plan
(available from the first author) was used to sequence and
structure the activities.
Comparison intervention program. All children also
completed a 6-week wave comprising twelve 30-min
small-group sessions featuring adult–child shared story-
book reading. These sessions were designed to actively
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
engage children in literature-based activities featuring an
implicit focus on oral and written language. Each session
included two components: (a) adult–child shared storybook
reading, and (b) story retelling activity.
At the start of each session, children were read a
storybook by one of the two interventionists. A variety of
storybooks was used, including several different genres
(e.g., rhyming, narrative) and formats (e.g., lift-the-flap,
big books). The interventionists used several strategies in
the shared reading sessions to promote children’s active
involvement and verbal involvement. First, prediction
strategies were used in all shared readings to encourage
children’s engagement with the storyline. When the book
was introduced, children were asked to predict what might
happen in the story; during the reading, the adult reader
stopped three or more times to provide children with
opportunities to predict or discuss narrative events.
Second, dialogic strategies (Whitehurst et al., 1988) were
used to promote children’s verbal involvement; these
strategies included asking open-ended questions, respond-
ing to children’s interests, and giving praise and feedback.
Following the reading of each storybook, the intervention-
ists lead the children through a retelling activity, such as
reenacting the story or drawing and discussing pictures
representing key story events. A lesson plan was used to
sequence and structure the activities of the 12 sessions.
Lesson plans are available from the first author.
Measures
Emergent Literacy Assessment. Children’s emergent
literacy knowledge was evaluated three times during the
course of this study: at pretest, at interim, and at posttest.
Pre- and posttesting was conducted prior to and immedi-
ately following the 12-week intervention period, whereas
interim testing was conducted in a 1-week period between
the two intervention waves.
Five criterion-referenced measures, all of which were
derived from the extant literature, were used to examine
children’s emergent literacy knowledge. The test protocol
was designed to reflect both written language awareness
(alphabet knowledge, print awareness, name writing) and
phonological awareness (phonological segmentation,
rhyme production). All measures commenced with simple
instructions followed by demonstration and practice items
whenever appropriate. No praise, reinforcement, or
corrective feedback was given during testing, with the
exception of praise for on- and off-task behavior as needed
(e.g., “Nice sitting” or “I like how hard you’re working”).
Measures were administered by supervised, trained speech-
language pathology graduate students. The examiners were
blind to children’s previous performance levels as well as
to their group assignment. The instruments are available
from the first author.
Alphabet knowledge. Children’s knowledge of the
names of the 26 upper-case alphabet letters was tested
using the Alphabet Knowledge subtest of the Phonological
Awareness Literacy Screening–PreKindergarten (PALS-
PreK; Invernizzi, Sullivan & Meier, 2001). Children were
shown an 8 in. × 11 in. test sheet depicting the alphabet
Justice et al.: Emergent Literacy Intervention 325
 letters in randomized order; the examiner pointed to each
letter and asked the child to name it. Responses were
scored as 0 (incorrect) or 1 (correct). The total possible
number of points was 26.
Print awareness. This test, described in Justice and
Ezell (2001a), examined children’s knowledge of print and
book reading conventions, such as book orientation and
print directionality. The test represented a modified version
of Clay’s (1979) Concepts About Print test; modification
occurred primarily to make the test more appropriate for
younger children, such that more difficult items (such as
sight word recognition) were eliminated. The test involves
14 tasks administered during an adult–child shared book
reading of a commercially available children’s storybook,
Nine Ducks Nine (Hayes, 1990). This 30-page book
contains large print and multiple instances of embedded,
contextualized print within the illustrations. Following
Justice and Ezell’s (2001a) protocol, the examiner read the
target book with the child, during which a series of tasks
were presented (e.g., “Show me the front of the book” and
“Show me the name of this book”). Correct responses
typically received one point, although for several items the
correct response received two points and an alternative
response received one point. Incorrect responses (including
no response) received 0 points; 18 points were possible.
Name writing. Children’s ability to write their own
names (and more generally, their familiarity with writing)
was tested using the Writing subtest of the PALS-PreK.
Children were provided an 8 in. × 11 in. piece of paper and
were asked to draw their portrait and write their name.
Name writing was scored using a 7-point scale (see
Invernizzi et al., 2001), in which a scribble or picture
representing both picture and written name received 0
points, and a name written correctly received 7 points. The
highest possible score was 7.
Phonological segmentation. Children’s ability to segment
spoken language units (i.e., sentences into words, words into
syllables) was tested using the Segmentation subtest of the
Phonological Awareness Test (PAT; Robertson & Salter,
1997). In the first 10 tasks, which examined sentence
segmentation, children were presented with a series of
three- to five-word sentences (e.g., He can swim) and were
asked to repeat each sentence back while clapping for each
word. In the second 10 tasks, which examined syllable
segmentation, children were presented with a series of one-
to four-syllable words (e.g., pizza, calendar) and were
asked to repeat the word back while clapping for each part
(i.e., syllable) of the word. Responses were scored as 0
(incorrect) or 1 (correct). The total number of possible
points was 20.
Rhyme production. Children’s ability to generate
rhymes was examined using the Rhyme Production items
of the Rhyming subtest of the PAT (Robertson & Salter,
1997). Children were given a series of 10 words (e.g., can,
pot, wrinkle, brother) and were asked to produce a word
rhyming with each target. Responses were scored as 0
(incorrect) or 1 (correct). The total possible number of
points was 10.
Additional measures. Two additional measures were
administered during the course of this study. First, measures
326 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
of children’s orientation to literacy (i.e., literacy interest)
were collected at the end of the first and second wave of
intervention. Specifically, each interventionist indepen-
dently completed the Kaderavek–Sulzby Rating of Orienta-
tion to Book Reading (KS-ROB; Kaderavek & Sulzby,
2001). Each child was individually rated on this
4-point scale, which provides a global rating of children’s
responsiveness and motivation toward participating in
literacy events. The lowest score of 1 represents refusal to
participate or complete lack of engagement, whereas the
highest score of 4 represents eager participation and high
interest. Given the high correlation between the two
interventionists’ ratings of individual children (r = .69,
p = .002), the two ratings for each child were combined
and averaged. Likewise, children’s orientation scores for
each intervention wave were highly correlated (r = .81,
p = .000), suggesting that literacy orientation did not vary
for the two approaches (i.e., explicit vs. embedded). A
composite orientation score, consisting of orientation
scores averaged across both intervention waves, was used
in all subsequent analyses. The average composite orienta-
tion score was 2.6 (SD = 0.89, range = 1–4).
Second, a measure of children’s behavior during
intervention activities was collected at the end of the 12-
week intervention period. The two interventionists were
asked to describe children’s behavior by independently
completing a 25-item behavioral observation checklist for
each child, adapted from Achenbach (1991). The checklist
described a series of behaviors (e.g., fidgets, demands a lot
of attention, disturbs other pupils) and the frequency with
which each behavior was observed during intervention
(never, sometimes, often) was scored for individual
children. The highest possible score (50 points) indicated
a significant level of behavioral problems during inter-
vention, whereas the lowest possible score (0 points)
indicated rare occurrences of behavioral problems.
Correlational analysis showed a high correlation between
the two interventionists’ scores for individual children (r
= .67, p = .003); thus, a behavior score was calculated for
each child using the average of the two scores. The mean
behavior score for children in this study was 13.9 (SD =
15.3, range = 0–44).
Results
General Effects of the 12-Week
Intervention Program
Data were first analyzed to determine the influence of
the emergent literacy intervention as a whole, that is, to
characterize children’s growth over the 12-week program
encompassing both the experimental and comparison
intervention programs. A repeated-measures multivariate
analysis of variance was conducted, with time (pretest,
posttest) as the within-subjects factor and program (experi-
mental explicit, comparison) as the between-subjects
factor. With respect to this research aim, we were particu-
larly interested in determining the extent to which time
emerged as a significant main effect. Children’s raw scores
on the five emergent literacy measures served as the
dependent variables.
 TABLE 3. Changes in emergent literacy performance over the 12-week intervention program
(n = 18).

Measure Pretest Posttest

(Points Possible) M SD M SD

Alphabet knowledge (26) 5.3 6.8 12.7 8.6

Print awareness (18) 5.0 3.2 7.6 3.6
Name writing (7) 2.3 2.0 3.7 1.5
Phonological segmentation (20) 3.5 2.4 10.3 4.2
Rhyme production (10) 0.7 2.3 3.9 4.1

Table 3 depicts changes in children’s scores from pre- to
posttest on the five emergent literacy measures. Visual
inspection of these data suggests growth over time for all
areas examined. Statistical analyses supported this observa-
tion, with the test statistic showing a significant main effect
for time based on Wilks’s criterion, F(5, 25) = 11.84, p =
.000. In contrast, there was no significant finding for
program, F(5, 25) = 0.708, p = .623, nor was there a Time ×
Program interaction, F(5, 25) = 2.153, p = .092.
These findings indicate that children made substantial
gains in collective consideration of the emergent literacy
measures over the 12-week intervention period. Univariate
tests for the main effect for time showed significant growth
for each of the five measures: alphabet knowledge,
F(1, 29) = 25.37, p = .000; print awareness, F(1, 29) =
10.54, p = .003; name writing, F(1, 29) = 4.385, p = .045;
phonological segmentation, F(1, 29) = 25.868, p = .000;
and rhyme production, F(1, 29) = 12.454, p = .001.
Effectiveness of the Experimental
Explicit Approach to Intervention
Data were also analyzed to compare the magnitude of
growth in emergent literacy for the two intervention waves,
contrasting the experimental explicit program and the
comparison program. The question of whether the experi-
mental explicit approach exerted an advantage was
partially addressed by the multivariate test described
previously, in which program served as a between-subjects
factor. At the multivariate level, the test statistic indicated
no significant main effect for program. However, in this
particular analysis, children’s gains across each wave were
collapsed across the entire 12-week period, without regard
to children’s performance levels at the start of each wave.
This is a particularly important consideration in the present
study given the alternating treatment design, in which
children’s experiences prior to a particular wave may have
influenced their growth within that wave. For instance,
Group A children began the comparison program follow-
ing 6 weeks of the experimental explicit program, whereas
Group B children experienced the opposite schedule.
A second set of analyses, using a series of paired-
samples t tests, was thus conducted to determine the extent
of change for the five dependent measures during each
intervention wave. We took children’s preexisting differ-
ences in performance levels at the start of each wave as a
baseline level against which performance at the end of the
intervention wave was compared. These analyses con-
trolled for variability in performance levels at the start of
each wave within and across individual children. Table 4
depicts children’s scores on each dependent measure at the
beginning and end of the two 6-week intervention waves.
Results showed that children’s scores on each emergent
literacy measure significantly improved from the beginning
to the end of the 6-week experimental explicit intervention
program: alphabet knowledge, t(14) = 7.025, p = .000;
print awareness, t(17) = 3.302, p = .004; name writing,
t(17) = 2.365, p = .03; phonological segmentation, t(16) =
4.735, p = .000; and rhyme production, t(16) = 3.469,
p = .003. The same set of comparisons was done to
characterize the extent of growth during the 6-week
comparison program. During this wave, children showed
significant growth only for phonological segmentation,
t(13) = 2.662, p = .02. Pre- to postwave changes for the

TABLE 4. Within-subject comparison of growth during comparison and experimental explicit

programs.

Comparison Experimental Explicit

Prewave Postwave Prewave Postwave
M SD M SD M SD M SD

Alphabet knowledge 7.3 8.5 9.8 8.9 6.7 7.5 12.0 9.1
Print awareness 6.4 3.4 7.1 3.1 5.1 3.1 7.5 3.5
Name writing 3.5 1.5 3.8 1.6 2.9 2.4 4.0 1.4
Phonological segmentation 5.1 3.2 8.3 3.5 4.4 3.2 8.8 4.8
Rhyme production 0.9 2.6 1.9 3.3 1.4 2.9 4.1 4.2

Justice et al.: Emergent Literacy Intervention 327

Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 other four emergent literacy measures were not significant:
alphabet knowledge, t(14) = 1.814, p = .091; print aware-
ness, t(15) = 0.848, p = .41; name writing, t(14) = 1,
p = .334; and rhyme production, t(13) = 1.508, p = .155.
Predicting Emergent Literacy Outcome:
Influence of Individual Differences
The third aim of this study was to identify those child
characteristics most predictive of outcome following 12
weeks of emergent literacy intervention. As can be seen in
Table 3, there was considerable variability in children’s
emergent literacy performance at the end of intervention.
We explored four indices as possible predictors of emer-
gent literacy outcome: literacy orientation (composite
orientation score from the KS-ROB), oral language (total
language standard score from the PLS-3), speech produc-
tion (percentile rank from the GFTA), and behavior (raw
score from the behavioral checklist). Selection of predic-
tors was derived from the extant literature suggesting their
unique and substantial associations with emergent literacy
development (e.g., Bishop & Adams, 1990; Boudreau &
Hedberg, 1999; Frijters et al., 2000; Kaderavek & Sulzby,
1998a; for review, see Scarborough, 1998; also see
Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
A multiple regression analysis was conducted with these
four predictors entered simultaneously, as the extant
literature has yet to clarify the relative contribution of these
predictors to emergent literacy growth. We regressed the
four predictors onto a variable representing literacy
performance at the end of the intervention (rather than
growth during intervention), as the gradual emergence of
literacy variability during the 12-week intervention period
reflected an aspect of intervention research that has often
been bypassed. To obtain a composite index of literacy
outcome, we performed a principal components analysis on
children’s scores on the five emergent literacy measures at
the end of intervention. Despite the widespread use of
principal components analysis and the eigenvalue one rule
as a method of data reduction (e.g, Whitehurst et al., 1994),
we recognize that some researchers have questioned the
relative merits of this technique as compared to the more
theoretically oriented common factor analysis (Bentler &
Kano, 1990; McArdle, 1990; Widaman, 1993). Neverthe-
less, in the present study, we opted for principal compo-
nents analysis rather than common factor analysis because
we wanted to focus on examining the variability in literacy
performance following the intervention program.
Results from the principal components analysis indi-
cated that five components were needed to account for all
of the variability in the children’s literacy performance;
however, only the largest unrotated component was used in
subsequent data analysis to represent an overall emergent
literacy outcome. All five literacy measures were observed
to have moderate to high loadings (ranging from .29 to .57)
on this component. This corresponded well with our
intention to derive a single composite index that could
represent equally well both the written language and
phonological awareness aspects of literacy outcome. This
component (hereafter referred to as literacy outcome)
328 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
accounted for 57.6% of the variance among the outcome
variables; this component score was used as the dependent
variable in our regression analysis.
The four predictors together accounted for 74.4% (65.8%
adjusted) of the variance in literacy outcome. R for regression
was significantly different from zero, F(4, 12) = 8.70, p =
.002. However, in terms of individual predictors, only oral
language and literacy orientation contributed significantly to
the prediction of literacy outcome. The 95% confidence
limits of the regression coefficient for oral language were
0.023 to 0.106 and those for orientation were .050 to 2.056.
On the basis of the squared semipartial correlations (sri2), oral
language in isolation contributed to 24.8% of the explained
variance, and orientation constituted another 11.2% in unique
variability. Although post hoc correlation analysis revealed
that the children’s speech production and behavior were
moderately correlated with literacy outcome (r = .45 and
–.42, respectively), these two predictors did not contribute
significantly to the prediction of literacy outcome. The
unstandardized regression coefficients (B), standardized
regression coefficients (β), and other results from the
regression analysis are summarized in Table 5.
Conclusions and Discussion
The following provides an overview of the major findings
of this study. First, preschool children exhibiting multiple
risk factors demonstrated substantial emergent literacy
growth during the 12-week intervention period, encompass-
ing both the experimental explicit program and the compari-
son program. The gains observed were widespread, encom-
passing both written language and phonological awareness.
Growth was most robust for alphabet knowledge, phonologi-
cal segmentation, and rhyme production; in these three areas,
children’s task performance more than doubled over the 12-
week intervention period.
Second, children’s emergent literacy performance
changes were more profound during the experimental
explicit intervention program, relative to the comparison
condition featuring adult–child shared storybook reading.
In the 6 weeks children spent participating in explicit,
structured emergent literacy activities targeting awareness
of the written language and phonological features of
language, substantial widespread change was observed,
TABLE 5. Standard multiple regression of four predictors on
literacy outcome.
sr 2
Variables B β (unique)
Intercept –4.940
Oral language –8.382** .570 .25
Speech production 0.065 .095
Behavior 0.006 .149
Orientation 1.053* .555 .11
2 a 2
Note. R = .74 ; Adjusted R = .66; R = .86**
a
Unique variability = .36; shared variability = .38.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
 encompassing all areas of performance examined. In
contrast, performance changes during the comparison
program were notably modest, with only phonological
segmentation showing significant change.
Third, children’s oral language proficiency and their
orientation to literacy emerged as significant and unique
predictors of emergent literacy outcome. Oral language
skill explained nearly 25% of the variance in literacy
outcome, whereas orientation constituted another 11% in
unique variability. This finding demonstrates the impact of
oral language proficiency to children’s responsiveness to
emergent literacy intervention, and also argues the impor-
tance of orientation, or literacy interest, as an additional
mediating influence.
This study provides evidence that emergent literacy
intervention can make meaningful differences to young at-
risk children, particularly those experiencing multiple risk
factors. The findings argue the importance of children’s
participation in explicit instructional activities focused on
specific areas of skill development (e.g., letter naming,
name writing, rhyming). Explicit intervention was found
to be more effective and efficient for advancing wide-
spread change (i.e., affecting all of the performance
indicators studied) relative to literature-based activities in
which literacy goals were less explicitly addressed.
Importantly, the performance indices (i.e., dependent
variables) used in this study comprised measures highly
associated with later literacy achievement. Thus, given the
current interest in identifying approaches that effectively
and efficiently promote skill development in areas
associated with literacy outcome, particularly for at-risk
children, this study provides critical evidence that partici-
pation in explicit skill-building activities is an effective
means for enhancing emergent literacy growth.
Two additional observations from this investigation are
of significance in light of the present interest in structuring
effective emergent literacy intervention for at-risk children.
These observations concern oral language and literacy
orientation. With respect to oral language, it is currently
understood that although not all preschool children with
oral language problems will go on to experience reading
difficulties, the rate of reading problems among these
children is higher than occurs for their nonimpaired peers
(Catts et al., 2001). Several prospective studies of the
association between school-age reading proficiency and
history of preschool LI have suggested that reading
problems are more likely to occur in children having
relatively severe and/or widespread language difficulties
(i.e., affecting multiple aspects of language performance;
e.g., Bird et al., 1995; Bishop & Adams, 1990).
The present findings contribute to this research base by
delineating the substantial mediating influence of oral
language proficiency to the outcome of preschool emergent
literacy intervention. Children’s oral language proficiency
played a significant role in explaining the variance in
emergent literacy skills at the end of the intervention
period. These findings suggest the possibility that the link
between the severity of LI during preschool and the
tendency for these children to have lower reading out-
comes in the elementary years is that children with more
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
severe impairments are less influenced by intervention. For
these children in particular, qualitatively and quantitatively
different intervention approaches may be required to
optimize early and later literacy outcomes.
With respect to literacy orientation, several researchers
have recently argued the importance of literacy orientation
or literacy interest to facilitating emergent literacy growth
(e.g., Frijters et al., 2000; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
Kaderavek and Sulzby (1998a), in particular, have studied
literacy orientation in children experiencing oral language
problems, finding that preschoolers with LI are relatively
more likely to exhibit low orientation to literacy activities.
These researchers have also asserted that low orientation
may contribute to the protracted nature of these young-
sters’ emergent literacy development, and have argued for
applied research to further elucidate the role of orientation
in emergent literacy development.
Convergent with Kaderavek and Sulzby’s (1998a)
argument of the importance of literacy orientation to
emergent literacy development, we found orientation to
explain a significant portion of the variance in literacy
outcome. Children’s engagement and interest in literacy
activities therefore seems critical to successful literacy
achievement, even in the earliest stages of development. Of
additional note is the finding that oral language and literacy
orientation together explained a substantial amount of the
variance in literacy outcome, accounting for a significant
36% of variability in outcome. This suggests that children
with LI who concomitantly exhibit low literacy orientation
may be particularly vulnerable for experiencing only
marginal gains during literacy intervention.
Several limitations should be noted. The first involves
our measures. Only quantitative indices of emergent
literacy performance were collected; likewise, these
measures represented only several discrete areas of
performance. These data may not adequately reflect how
children may perform on other more diverse types of
performance-based or observational instruments examining
children’s naturalistic literacy behaviors or skills in other
contexts of use (e.g., in the classroom, at home). Future
research examining the effectiveness of various interven-
tion approaches should examine literacy performance
across various contexts of use and employ a variety of
qualitative and quantitative indices. Likewise, it is impor-
tant to note that our prediction equation explained only a
moderate portion of the unique variability in outcome.
Further investigations are needed to study additional
literacy, language, social, and behavioral indices that may
be associated with intervention outcome
The second set of limitations, related to the first,
concerns our assessment focus. We examined only
emergent literacy task performance, pursuant to the a priori
aims of this clinical investigation. We therefore did not
characterize children’s oral language skills, except to
develop a descriptive profile of children at the start of
intervention. This is an important limitation in that we
were unable to examine the relative influence of the two
intervention programs on oral language ability. There is
considerable evidence demonstrating the impact of
participation in shared storybook reading interactions, as
Justice et al.: Emergent Literacy Intervention 329
 featured in the comparison program, upon oral language
growth (e.g., Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1999; Senechal,
LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998; Whitehurst et al., 1988).
The impact of various emergent literacy intervention
approaches on oral language growth is an important
direction for future research. Of additional note concerning
the language assessment is our use of a single standardized
measure for characterizing language performance. Experts
have recently questioned the normative references and
validity of such instruments for evaluating the language
performance of children from diverse backgrounds, includ-
ing those reared in low-SES households (e.g., Kayser, 1995).
The use of multiple language measures, particularly those
with demonstrated cultural validity, should be an important
consideration in future studies of emergent literacy
intervention for children of diverse backgrounds.
A third limitation involves the sample, which was small
yet relatively heterogeneous with respect to speech and
language profiles. The use of a within-subjects design
provided an optimal framework for working with the small
sample size, although the small sample size reduced the
number of dependent variables that could be studied.
Replication with more participants would thus resolve
several methodological constraints and would allow
investigation of intervention effects for children displaying
specific speech/language profiles. It is also important to
note that the children studied composed a fairly homog-
enous sample in terms of cultural background. The extent
to which these findings may be readily generalizable to
other children is not clear.
Consideration of the present findings as well as these
limitations suggests several important avenues for further
research. Questions that yet need to be addressed include:
(a) Which aspects of the experimental explicit approach
most contributed to its effectiveness? (b) What is the
impact of the experimental explicit approach upon oral
language skill? (c) Most importantly, what is the optimal
type and amount of intervention for at-risk preschoolers so
as to ensure lasting change? Rigorous attention to these
questions will ensure that efficacious models of interven-
tion are available to all preschoolers requiring additional
learning opportunities, particularly those most vulnerable
for emergent and conventional literacy difficulties.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this project was provided by an Elva
Knight Research Grant from the International Reading Associa-
tion to the first author. Sincere appreciation is due to Nancy
Gercke, who played a critical role in the conduct of this project.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 4–
18. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Badian, N. A. (1982). The prediction of good and poor reading
before kindergarten entry: A 4-year follow-up. Journal of
Special Education, 16, 309–318.
Badian, N. A. (1986). Improving the prediction of reading for the
individual child: A four-year follow-up. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 19, 262–269.
330 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1990). On the equivalence of
factors and components. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
25, 67–74.
Bird, J., Bishop, D. V. M., & Freeman, N. H. (1995). Phono-
logical awareness and literacy development in children with
expressive phonological impairments. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 38, 446–462.
Bishop, D., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the
relationship between specific language impairment, phono-
logical disorders, and reading retardation. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 21, 1027–1050.
Boudreau, D. M., & Hedberg, N. L. (1999). A comparison of
early literacy skills in children with specific language
impairment and their typically developing peers. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 249–260.
Bowey, J. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool
phonological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 476–487.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading
and spelling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Bus, A. G. (2001). Joint caregiver-child storybook reading: A
route to literacy development. In S. B. Neuman & D. K.
Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp.
179–191). New York: Guilford Press.
Bus, A. G., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995).
Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A
meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy.
Review of Educational Research, 65, 1–21.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. F. (1991). Sound founda-
tions. New South Wales, Australia: Leyden Educational.
Catts, H. W. (1993). The relationship between speech-language
impairments and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 36, 948–958.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999).
Language bases of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence
from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 3, 331–362.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001).
Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergar-
ten children: A research-based model and its clinical instru-
mentation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 32, 38–50.
Chaney, C. (1992). Language development, metalinguistic skills,
and print awareness in 3-year-old children. Applied Psycho-
linguistics, 13, 485–514.
Chaney, C. (1994). Language development, metalinguistic
awareness, and emergent literacy skills of 3-year-old children
in relation to social class. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15,
371–394.
Christie, J. F., & Enz, B. (1992). The effects of literacy
play interventions on preschoolers’ play patterns and
literacy development. Early Education and Development, 3,
205–220.
Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties: A
diagnostic survey with recovery procedures. Exeter, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes.
York, ME: Stenhouse.
Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Enhancing linguistic
performance: Parents and teachers as book reading partners
for children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 19, 28–39.
Crawford, P. A. (1995). Early literacy: Emerging perspectives.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 71–86.
Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. (1994). Long-term effects of
preschool teachers’ book readings on low-income children’s
 vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research
Quarterly, 29, 104–122.
Dickinson, D. K., & Snow, C. E. (1987). Interrelationships among
prereading and oral language skills in kindergarteners from two
social classes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 1–25.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (1991). Early literacy: Linkages
between home, school and literacy achievement at age five.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 6, 30–46.
Ezell, H. K., Justice, L. M., & Parsons, D. (2000). Enhancing
the emergent literacy skills of preschoolers with communica-
tion disorders: A pilot investigation. Child Language Teaching
and Therapy, 16, 121–140.
Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Patterns of book owner-
ship and reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented
and nonschool-oriented families. Reading Teacher, 39,
924–930.
Fernandez-Fein, S., & Baker, L. (1997). Rhyme and alliteration
sensitivity and relevant experiences among preschoolers from
diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 2, 433–459.
Fey, M. E. (1986). Language intervention with young children.
San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Fey, M. E., Catts, H. W., & Larrivee, L .S. (1995). Preparing
preschoolers for the academic and social challenges of school.
In M. E. Fey, J. Windsor, & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Language
intervention: Preschool through the elementary years (pp. 3–
38). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Fluharty, N. B. (1978). Fluharty Preschool Speech and Lan-
guage Screening Test. Chicago: Riverside.
Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A.,
& Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit
models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth
curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.
Frijters, J. C., Barron, R. W., & Brunello, M. (2000). Direct
and mediated influences of home literacy and literacy interest
on prereaders’ oral vocabulary and early written language
skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 466–477.
Gillam, R. B., & Johnston, J. R. (1985). Development of print
awareness in language-disordered preschoolers. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 521–526.
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1985). Goldman-Fristoe Test of
Articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Harris, S. (1986). Evaluation of a curriculum to support literacy
growth in young children. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 1, 333–348.
Hayes, S. (1990). Nine ducks nine. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick
Press.
Hiebert, E. H. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelation-
ships of preschool children’s print awareness. Reading
Research Quarterly, 16, 236–260.
Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., & Meier, J. D. (2001). Phonologi-
cal Awareness Literacy Screening: Pre-kindergarten.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study
of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (1999). Vygotskian theory and its
application to language assessment: An overview for speech-
language pathologists. Contemporary Issues in Communica-
tion Science and Disorders, 26, 111–118.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children’s
print and word awareness through home-based parent
intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 9, 257–269.
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001a). Word and print aware-
ness in 4-year-old children. Child Language Teaching and
Therapy, 17, 207–226.
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2001b). Written language
awareness in preschool children from low-income households:
A descriptive analysis. Communication Disorders Quarterly,
22, 123–134.
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.
Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (1998a, November). Low versus
high orientation towards literacy in children. Paper presented
at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association, San Antonio, TX.
Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (1998b). Parent-child joint book
reading: An observational protocol for young children.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 33–47.
Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (2001). Kaderavek-Sulzby
Rating of Orientation to Book Reading Scale. (Available from
author, 528 Elm Street, Perrysburg, OH 43551)
Katims, D. S. (1991). Emergent literacy in early childhood
special education: Curriculum and instruction. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 11, 69–84.
Kayser, H. (1995). Intervention with children from linguistically
and culturally diverse backgrounds. In M. E. Fey & J.
Windsor (Eds.), Language intervention: Preschool through
the elementary years (pp. 315–331). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Layton, L., Deeny, K., Upton, G., & Tall, G. (1998). A pre-
school training programme for children with poor phonologi-
cal awareness: Effects on reading and spelling. Journal of
Research in Reading, 21, 36–52.
Leseman, P. P., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy:
Opportunity, instruction, cooperation and social-emotional
quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading
Research Quarterly, 33, 294–318.
Lomax, R. G., & McGee, L. M. (1987). Young children’s
concepts about print and reading: Toward a model of word
reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 237–256.
Lonigan, C. J., Bloomfield, B. G., Anthony, J. L., Bacon, K.
D., Phillips, B. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Relations among
emergent literacy skills, behavior problems, and social
competence in preschool children from low- and middle-
income backgrounds. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 19, 40–53.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. S. (2000).
Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in
preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudi-
nal study. Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Peterson, O. (1988). Effects of an
extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in
preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
Magnusson, E., & Naucler, K. (1990). Reading and spelling in
language disordered children—linguistic and metalinguistic
prerequisites: Report on a longitudinal study. Clinical
Linguistics and Phonetics, 4, 49–61.
Magnusson, E., & Naucler, K. (1993). The development of
linguistic awareness in language-disordered children. First
Language, 13, 93–111.
Majsterek, D. J., Shorr, D. N., & Erion, V. L. (2000). Promot-
ing early literacy through rhyme detection activities during
Head Start circle time. Child Study Journal, 30, 143–151.
McArdle, J. J. (1990). Principles versus principals of structural
factor analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1),
81–87.
McCormick, C. E., & Mason, J. M. (1986). Intervention
procedures for increasing preschool children’s interest in and
knowledge about reading. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.),
Emergent literacy (pp. 90–115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Justice et al.: Emergent Literacy Intervention 331
 Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of
access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 286–311.
Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-
income and middle-income communities. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36, 8–27.
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for
children of poverty: Differential effects of adult mediation and
literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and func-
tional print tasks. American Educational Research Journal,
30, 95–122.
Ninio, A. (1980). Picturebook reading in mother-infant dyads
belonging to two subgroups in Israel. Child Development, 51,
587–590.
Nittrouer, S. (1996). The relation between speech perception and
phonemic awareness: Evidence from low-SES children and
children with chronic OM. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 39, 1059–1070.
O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., Leicester, N., & Slocum,
T. A. (1993). Teaching phonological awareness to young
children with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59,
532–546.
Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy through
adolescence: Assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New
York: Mosby.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide:
Relationships between home literacy experiences and
emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly,
31, 406–428.
Raz, I. T., & Bryant, P. (1990). Social background, phonologi-
cal awareness, and children’s reading. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 8, 209–225.
Robertson, C., & Salter, W. (1997). The Phonological Aware-
ness Test. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in
dyslexic children. Child Development, 61, 1728–1743.
Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at
risk for reading difficulties: Phonological awareness and some
other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, &
A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the
spectrum (pp. 75–199). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Scarborough, H. S. (2000, September). Predictive and causal
links between language and literacy development: Current
knowledge and future directions. Paper presented at the
Workshop on Emergent and Early Literacy: Current Status
and Research Directions, Rockville, MD.
Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M., & Daley, K. E.
(1998). Differential effects of home literacy experiences on
the development of oral and written language. Reading
Research Quarterly, 33, 96–116.
Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing
reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some
consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Stuart, M. (1995). Prediction and qualitative assessment of five-
and six-year-old children’s reading: A longitudinal study.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 287–296.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favorite
storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research
Quarterly, 20, 458–481.
Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s
literacy development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.),
Emergent literacy (pp. 173–206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E., & Sattler, J. (1991). Stanford-
Binet Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). Ithasca, IL: Riverside.
332 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 12 • 320–332 • August 2003
Downloaded From: http://ajslp.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of South Dakota User on 02/20/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Torgesen, J. T., & Davis, C. (1996). Individual difference
variables that predict response to training in phonological
awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
63, 1–21.
van Kleeck, A. (1998). Preliteracy domains and stages: Laying
the foundations for beginning reading. Journal of Children’s
Communication Development, 20, 33–51.
van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R. B., & McFadden, T. U. (1998). A
study of classroom-based phonological awareness training for
preschoolers with speech and/or language disorders. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 65–76.
Vukelich, C. (1994). Effects of plan interventions on young
children’s reading of environental print. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 9, 153–170.
Warren-Leubecker, A., & Carter, B. W. (1988). Reading and
growth in metalinguistic awareness: Relations to socioeco-
nomic status and reading readiness skills. Child Development,
59, 728–742.
Watkins, R. V., & Bunce, B. H. (1996). Natural literacy: Theory
and practice for preschool intervention programs. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 191–212.
Watson, L. R., Layton, T. L., Pierce, P. L., & Abraham, L. M.
(1994). Enhancing emergent literacy in a language preschool.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25,
136–145.
Wells, G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related activities and success
in school. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.),
Literacy, language, and learning (pp. 229–255). Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status
and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91,
461–481.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E.,
DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield,
M. (1988). Accelerating language development through
picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24,
552–559.
Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C.,
Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an
emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 542–555.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development
and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872.
Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz,
M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of an
emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second
grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 261–272.
Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus
principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing
model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(3),
263–311.
Wise, B. W., Ring, J., & Olson, R. K. (1999). Training
phonological awareness with and without explicit attention to
articulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72,
271–304.
Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (1992). Preschool
Language Scale–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Received June 10, 2002
Accepted December 17, 2002
DOI: 10.1044/1058-0360(2003/078)
Contact author: Laura Justice, PhD, 242 Ruffner Hall, Curry
School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
VA 22904. E-mail: lmj2t@virginia.edu