Tier 2 Oral Language and Early Reading Interventions For Preschool To Grade 2 Children A Restricted Systematic Review

Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rald20
Tier 2 oral language and early reading

interventions for preschool to grade 2 children: a
restricted systematic review
Sharon Goldfeld, Ruth Beatson, Amy Watts, Pamela Snow, Lisa Gold, Ha ND
Le, Stuart Edwards, Judy Connell, Hannah Stark, Beth Shingles, Tony Barnett,
Jon Quach & Patricia Eadie
To cite this article: Sharon Goldfeld, Ruth Beatson, Amy Watts, Pamela Snow, Lisa Gold, Ha
ND Le, Stuart Edwards, Judy Connell, Hannah Stark, Beth Shingles, Tony Barnett, Jon Quach
& Patricia Eadie (2022) Tier 2 oral language and early reading interventions for preschool to
grade 2 children: a restricted systematic review, Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 27:1,
65-113, DOI: 10.1080/19404158.2021.2011754
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2021.2011754
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 30 Dec 2021. Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7948 View related articles
View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rald20
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
2022, VOL. 27, NO. 1, 65–113
https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2021.2011754
Tier 2 oral language and early reading interventions for

preschool to grade 2 children: a restricted systematic review
Sharon Goldfeld a,b,c, Ruth Beatsona*, Amy Wattsa, Pamela Snow d, Lisa Golde,
Ha ND Lee, Stuart Edwardsf, Judy Connellg, Hannah Stark h, Beth Shinglesa,
Tony Barnetta,i, Jon Quachh and Patricia Eadie h
a
Policy and Equity, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; bCentre for Community
Child Health, Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; cDepartment of Paediatrics, University of
Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; dSchool of Education, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia; eSchool of
Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; fDepartment of Education and
Training, North East Victoria Region, Schools and Regional Services, Victorian Government Department of
Education and Training, Victoria, Australia; gMelbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools, Melbourne, Australia;
h
Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; iSchool of
Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This systematic review investigated small-group Tier 2 interventions Received 22 September 2021
to improve oral language or reading outcomes for children during Accepted 23 November 2021
preschool and early primary school years. Literature published from
2008 was searched and 152 papers selected for full-text review; 55
studies were included. Three strength of evidence assessment tools
identified a shortlist of six interventions with relatively strong evi
dence: (a) Early Reading Intervention; (b) Lonigan and Philips (2016)
Unnamed needs-aligned intervention; (c) PHAB+WIST (PHAST)/
PHAB+RAVE-O; (d) Read Well-Aligned intervention; (e) Ryder and
colleagues’ (2008) Unnamed Phonological Awareness and Phonics
intervention; and (f) Story Friends. Investigation of intervention
componentry found common characteristics included 3–5 students,
4–5 sessions per week, minimum 11-week duration, content cover
ing a combination of skills, modelling and explicit instruction, and
trained personnel. Shortlisted interventions provide a useful foun
dation to guide further interventions and inform educators and
policymakers seeking to implement effective evidence-based inter
ventions in the early years of schooling.
Introduction
Importance of oral language and literacy skills in the preschool and primary
school years
Relationship between oral language and literacy
The ability to use and understand oral language to communicate effectively is central to
children’s learning and academic success (Snow, 2016). In the early years of school, oral
CONTACT Sharon Goldfeld sharon.goldfeld@rch.org.au

*Professor Goldfeld and Dr Beatson should be considered co-first author. We have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
66 S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
language competence underpins the ability to learn to read and the emergence of literacy
skills more broadly (Castles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Dickinson, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek,
2010). There is a distinction to be made between the terms reading and literacy. For the
purposes of this paper, and in line with the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer,
1986), reading refers to the ability to decode, recognise, and understand the printed word,
and the associated higher-level skills of sentence and text comprehension (Buckingham,
Wheldall, & Beaman-Wheldall, 2013). Literacy encapsulates a broader set of skills, includ
ing reading, writing, and spelling and the ability to produce and engage with a variety of
text types across the curriculum at all year levels (Buckingham et al., 2013; Snowling &
Hulme, 2012). A reciprocal relationship exists between oral language and literacy, with
improvements in one helping to advance skills in the other (Muter, Hulme, Snowling, &
Stevenson, 2004; Snow, 2016).
Long-term and broader impact of oral language and literacy difficulties

Oral language competence is also strongly linked to a broad range of outcomes including
social and emotional well-being, success in making and retaining friendships, prosocial
problem solving, school engagement, and subsequent mental health (Snow, 2020). It is
well recognised that if children do not learn to understand and use spoken language, and
to read and write to communicate their ideas, there can be significant consequences for
their self-esteem, social development, and educational and employment opportunities
(Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 2008; Eadie et al., 2018; Law, Rush, Schoon, & Parsons, 2009;
Lyon, 2003). Longitudinal research shows that students who struggle in the early years of
school also tend to have difficulties in later grades (Maughan et al., 2009; St Clair, Pickles,
Durkin, & Conti-Ramsden, 2011) and face long-term academic challenges with the risk of
early disengagement from school (Snow, 2020). There is also evidence that some stu
dents, particularly those whose literacy difficulties are comorbid with behaviour distur
bances, enter the so-called “school-to-prison” pipeline early in their school years. These
are students who exit school prematurely following histories of suspension and exclusion
and enter the youth justice system via community-based or custodial orders (Snow, 2019).
Prevalence of oral language and literacy difficulties

Difficulties with oral language and literacy are among the most common developmental
problems in the preschool and primary school population (Snow, 2020). The estimated
prevalence of developmental language disorder in young children (aged 4–5 years) is 7.6%
(Norbury et al., 2016). Similar prevalence levels are reported for reading disorder in the
population (Bishop & Snowling, 2004), whereas reading difficulty rates during primary
school have been reported as approximately 10–30% of the school-aged population
(Adolf & Hogan, 2019; Hempenstall, 2013; Snow, 2020).1 However, it is important to note
that language and reading difficulties are often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed in the school
system (Adolf & Hogan, 2019; Hendricks, Adolf, Alonzo, Fox, & Hogan, 2019; Snow, 2020).
Social and economic cost of oral language and literacy difficulties

Difficulties with oral language and literacy have serious ramifications for both individual
life trajectories and social and economic costs (Cronin, Reeve, McCabe, Viney, & Goodall,
2020; Heckman & Masterov, 2007; Le et al., 2020). The causal link between educational
attainment and a range of health and social outcomes (Gakidou, Cowling, Lozano, &
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LEARNING DIFFICULTIES 67
Murray, 2010; Rhodes, Cordie, & Wooten, 2019) suggests the educational and social
impact of oral language and literacy difficulties must be viewed as a population-level
cost to society (Lyon, 2003; Tomblin et al., 1997) incurred across the lifespan (Law et al.,
2009). In a review of research on outcomes for students experiencing reading difficulties,
Slavin, Lake, Davis, and Madden (2011) noted that reading failure incurs significant costs
to education systems, in terms of special education, remediation, grade repetition and
dropout. Language and literacy difficulties and low educational achievement in childhood
are also associated with indirect costs in the longer term through reduced workforce
participation and productivity losses in adulthood (Cronin et al., 2020).
According to a report from the Industry Skills Council Australia (2011) examining the
challenge of low language, literacy, and numeracy skills, approximately 46% of Australian
adults have difficulty with reading, and 13% are classified in the lowest literacy category.
Such difficulties with literacy make secure engagement in the workplace impossible for
some adults. Working to optimise students’ oral language and literacy development, and
subsequent educational outcomes, should pay significant dividends for individual stu
dents and society more broadly.
Importance of early intervention in the preschool and primary school setting

Research suggests oral language and literacy difficulties emerge early in childhood and
become increasingly difficult (and expensive) to treat over time (Hempenstall, 2013; Spira,
Bracken, & Fischel, 2005). Prevention and early intervention are generally considered more
efficacious and cost-effective than attempts to remediate entrenched difficulties
(Hempenstall, 2013, 2016). Evidence from reviews and meta-analyses consistently demon
strates that oral language and literacy interventions targeting children in the early years of
school are particularly effective (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows, 2001; Ehri et al., 2001; Piasta
& Wagner, 2010) and potentially cost-effective (Hollands et al., 2016). However, addressing
well-established deficits in the upper grades is more challenging (Wanzek et al., 2013). It
has been noted that it takes four times as many resources to address a literacy problem in
Year 4 than it does in Year 1 (Pfeiffer et al., 2001); yet, in many cases, children progress
through the primary school years carrying a widening reading deficit relative to more able
peers and relative to the demands of the curriculum (Hempenstall, 2013, 2016). This has
been referred to as the Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) and reinforces the fact that “the
importance of getting children off to a good start in reading cannot be overstated” (Slavin
et al., 2011, p. 2). Crucially, research evidence suggests that exemplary teaching, and
effective and timely intervention, can lead to high levels of oral language and literacy
achievement for at-risk or vulnerable students (Buckingham et al., 2013). It is therefore
imperative that practicable and effective early interventions supported by the strongest
levels of evidence are identifiable and available to educators and policymakers.
Education policy context

Historically, education policy in the United States of America (USA) has been criticised for
creating conditions in which students struggling with literacy have either not been
identified or have not received formal support or appropriate intervention until officially
diagnosed with specific learning disabilities, which does not usually occur until Grade 2 or
3 (Gersten et al., 2009). In Australia, it has been argued that an “unnecessary and
avoidable” level of illiteracy in students is due to “poorly conceived government policies

and university education faculties wedded to outdated and unproven teaching methods”
(Buckingham et al., 2013, p. 28). In addition, longitudinal studies have demonstrated there
can be substantial individual variability in oral language performance across different
measures or time points. Some children experience early delays and catch up with their
peers, whereas others will develop later language difficulties following an apparently
positive start, both in the preschool years and after school-entry (McKean et al., 2017). This
instability has major implications for the provision of educational support, and careful
monitoring of at-risk students over time has been recommended (Eadie et al., 2014;
McKean et al., 2017).
In the USA, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 and Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act of 2004 have been instrumental in the wide-scale implementation of early
oral language and literacy interventions and interest in Response to Intervention (RTI)
approaches particularly (Gersten et al., 2009; Gersten, Newman-Gonchar, Haymond, &
Dimino, 2017; Slavin et al., 2011). Following a shift in education reform to a more
preventive approach to addressing learning difficulties, RTI (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) and
the broader Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS; Eadie et al., 2018; Hall, 2018) frame
works have been introduced and are gaining momentum in research and school com
munities (Gilbert et al., 2013). RTI is a proactive, systematic improvement framework that
is used to provide targeted support to struggling students, supporting academic growth
and achievement (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). MTSS is more comprehensive and includes RTI
but also supports many other areas such as social and emotional needs, and may include
whole-of-school policies, professional development, and collaboration with parents
(Eadie et al., 2018; Hall, 2018; Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002). Within RTI frameworks,
tiers of support increase in intensity from one level to the next and interventions are
typically categorised into three levels of support (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2008; Gersten
et al., 2009). Tier 1 represents whole-class, high-quality, evidence-based classroom instruc
tion that will result in most students benefiting from satisfactory rates of progress. Tier 2
supports involve additional instruction for small groups of students who do not make
adequate progress with whole-class instruction alone, or who fail to meet benchmarks on
screening measures. Tier 2 interventions are typically delivered to small groups of stu
dents in 20–40-min sessions, 3–5 times per week, for at least 5 weeks and are generally
not offered for more than 25–30 weeks (Gersten et al., 2009; Wanzek et al., 2016). Tier 3
interventions are further intensified efforts to provide students with more intensive one-
to-one support when they continue to struggle despite provision of Tier 1 and Tier 2
support after a reasonable amount of time. It is important to note that the interventions
offered at Tiers 2 and 3 typically build directly on Tier 1 approaches, but with greater
intensity, duration, and frequency (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
The RTI framework presents a comprehensive, promising, and pragmatic approach to
addressing difficulties with oral language and reading once children have commenced
formal schooling. Indeed, it has been estimated that the incidence of reading difficulties
can be dramatically reduced following effective Tier 1 classroom instruction, and further
reduced following effective Tier 2 intervention, so that the number of students requiring
more intensive and costly Tier 3 support can be minimised (Coyne et al., 2013; Gilbert
et al., 2013; Lovett et al., 2017; Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Vellutino, Schatschneider, & Sweeney,
2008). According to some estimates, 80% of students respond satisfactorily to general
instruction, and 15% are adequately served by small-group intervention, leaving 5%

requiring more intensive Tier 3 support (Spencer, Petersen, & Adams, 2015). It has been
argued that a tiered approach to intervention should decrease the number of students
inappropriately referred to more intensive and costly individualised intervention (Tier 3),
or special education (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Bryant, & Davis, 2008). For many students,
some small-group interventions can be as effective as more expensive one-to-one inter
ventions (Elbaum, Vaughn, Tejero Hughes, & Watson Moody, 2000; Gilbert et al., 2013;
Vaughn et al., 2003).
Overview of Tier 2 oral language and reading intervention

As briefly described above, Tier 2 intervention involves additional intensive student
support that is compatible with, and builds upon, the core instruction provided at the
universal level (Gersten et al., 2009). Tier 2 intervention should involve regular collection
of student achievement data in order to (a) identify student needs regarding specific skill
components, (b) choose appropriate interventions, and (c) monitor the impact of inter
vention on student progress so as to determine whether they are able to return to a lower
level of support (i.e. Tier 1 classroom instruction only) or whether increased intensity of
support is needed (i.e. Tier 3) (Gersten et al., 2009; Mellard, McKnight, & Jordan, 2010).
Tier 2 reading intervention content typically involves systematic and explicit instruc
tion in the core skill components of reading instruction such as phonemic awareness
(identifying, segmenting, and blending sounds orally), phonics and print knowledge (e.g.
letter name and sound correspondence, including consonant clusters and digraphs),
fluency (accuracy, speed, and expression), vocabulary development, and reading com
prehension (Gersten et al., 2009; Hempenstall, 2016). Tier 2 intervention to support oral
language tends to take a broad approach, typically focusing on areas such as vocabulary
acquisition, attention and listening, sentence building and syntax rules (e.g. plurals, past
tense, prepositions), and listening comprehension (e.g. following multi-step directions)
and narrative (Sedgwick & Sothard, 2019).
Research on oral language and reading interventions in the preschool and primary
school setting
There is growing research interest in Tier 2 oral language and reading interventions, and
several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have included an examination of
small-group interventions (e.g. Gersten, Haymond, Newman-Gonchar, Dimino, & Jayanthi,
2020; Gersten et al., 2017; Sedgwick & Sothard, 2019; Slavin et al., 2011; Wanzek et al.,
2016). For the most part, a broad approach has been taken, incorporating interventions
beyond the parameters of small-group Tier 2 intervention.
Early childhood context

In early childhood contexts, there is some evidence that small-group interventions can
have significant impacts on early language and literacy skills of preschool children at risk
of academic difficulties (e.g. Lonigan, Schatschneider, & Westberg, 2008; Marulis &
Neuman, 2010; Shepley & Grisham-Brown, 2019). Notably, however, the focus is on
interventions across the tiers, rather than on Tier 2 explicitly. For example, the National
Early Literacy Panel (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008) reported on meta-analyses of
intervention studies aimed at the development of early literacy skills. Findings indicated
moderate to large effects on outcomes related to language and literacy (e.g. phonological
awareness and early reading skills), although the review included interventions con
ducted at the individual level as well as small-group interventions (Lonigan et al., 2008).
Marulis and Neuman (2010) conducted a meta-analysis examining the effects of vocabu
lary interventions on language development with children in preschool and the early
years of primary school. Although results indicated a strong effect size overall (g = 0.88),
the meta-analysis was not focused on a specified group size or support tier, thus included
individualised and large-group interventions as well as those delivered to small groups.
Also looking across the tiers, Shepley and Grisham-Brown (2019) examined the available
literature on MTSS (or a specific tier within it). Interventions for preschool children (ages
3–5 years) targeting a range of developmental/content domains, including literacy and
language, were reviewed. Mean effect sizes indicated that clinically significant findings
were evident for language and literacy outcomes; however, when considering only the
studies with the most rigorous research designs, the effects typically lessened or were less
frequently detected (Shepley & Grisham-Brown, 2019).
Primary school context

In the primary school context, Sedgwick and Sothard (2019) and Slavin et al. (2011) both
conducted reviews of oral language and reading interventions across the RTI tiers (includ
ing small-group interventions) and positive effects of small-group interventions were
demonstrated. Specifically, Sedgwick and Sothard (2019) conducted a recent review of
mainstream school-based oral language interventions for children with speech, language,
and communication needs in the early years of school in the United Kingdom. Five studies
comparing the effects of intensified small-group instruction with a usual-practice or other
control group were identified, and they all reported positive effects (although information
regarding comparison groups or results for each of the studies were not reported in detail
in the review). Similarly, Slavin et al.’s (2011) systematic review of 97 studies evaluating
a range of reading interventions for struggling readers identified 20 small-group studies
and the overall mean effect size for these interventions was 0.3. However, Slavin et al.
(2011) did not include a separate analysis of small-group interventions specifically target
ing children in the early years of school in their review.
Tier 2 interventions
To date, there have been only three systematic reviews with an explicit focus on Tier 2
interventions (rather than across the tiers) for children with reading difficulties in the early
years of school (Gersten et al., 2020, 2017; Wanzek et al., 2016). Wanzek and colleagues
conducted a meta-analysis of 72 predominantly experimental and quasi-experimental
studies that focused on children in Grades K-3 and were published between 1995 and
2013. Interestingly, however, the authors defined Tier 2 reading interventions in terms of
session quantity (specifically 15–99 sessions), and thereby included interventions deliv
ered in a one-on-one instructor-to-student format. Wanzek and colleagues reported
positive effects of intervention for foundational reading skills measured with standardised
(Hedges’ g = 0.49) and non-standardised (g = 0.61) tests, as well as standardised (g = 0.38)
and non-standardised (g = 1.03) measures of language or reading comprehension. Effect
sizes across all measures appeared higher for interventions delivered to student pairs/
trios, compared to groups of 4–5 students. These findings show that, on average, Tier 2
interventions targeting struggling readers have demonstrated positive effects on founda
tional reading skills and on measures of language or reading comprehension.
A more recent review (Gersten et al., 2017) and meta-analysis (Gersten et al., 2020) of
US-based reading interventions also provide evidence of positive effects. Gersten et al.
(2017) focused on 20 interventions trialled in studies meeting What Works Clearinghouse
standards published between 2002 and 2014, then conducted a meta-analysis of 33
studies including those published up to 2017 (Gersten et al., 2020). As in the Wanzek
et al. (2016) meta-analysis, Gersten and colleagues’ reviews included interventions with
a one-to-one format in their definition of Tier 2. Interestingly, however, they acknowl
edged that in usual RTI practice, schools almost always implement small-group (3–5
students) interventions at Tier 2. Of the 20 included Tier 2 interventions, the 2017 review
identified only nine small-group interventions. Positive effects (defined in the review as
the treatment group performing better than the comparison group by a statistically
significant margin in at least one area of reading in at least one study) were reported
for eight of these nine interventions. Similarly, of the 33 included studies in the Gersten
et al. (2020) meta-analysis, 21 were of interventions conducted one-to-one. Significant
positive effects on a range of reading outcomes were reported, with a mean effect size of
.39 (Hedges’ g).
Rationale for this review

Although the findings from the Wanzek et al. (2016) meta-analysis and the Gersten et al.
(2020); (2017) reviews are encouraging, further research is needed for a number of
reasons. For pragmatic purposes, schools need to know (a) whether small-group Tier 2
oral language and reading interventions are generally effective, and (b) what components
effective Tier 2 interventions have in common. Such components may be the active
ingredients and indicative of programs that schools could reasonably expect to be
effective. If schools are unable to implement programs with a strong evidence base,
then they can at least identify programs that share the most common characteristics to
those programs that do have a strong evidence base. Moreover, educators need to know
which interventions are most likely to be effective when implemented within a particular
educational context or with particular groups of students, and which are feasible to
deliver with high levels of fidelity. Fidelity of implementation is typically difficult to
evaluate because it is not consistently operationally defined and measured (Gersten
et al., 2020). Further research is also needed to identify interventions trialled in recent
years and not included in previous reviews.
Information about the features that characterise the most effective interventions with
a robust evidence base may also prove instructive. However, to date, there has been no
systematic review of the componentry associated with the strongest Tier 2 language or
reading interventions for children in preschool and the early years of primary school.
Although Wanzek et al. (2016) and Gersten et al. (2020) investigated several intervention
features as potential moderators, the analyses were not specific to small-group interven
tions and were underpowered in many cases.
Aims
In this restricted systematic review (Pluddermann, Aaronson, Onakpoya, Heneghan, &
Mahtani, 2018), we sought to identify effective small-group Tier 2 interventions that
schools could implement to improve oral language or reading outcomes for children.
The review focuses on interventions that have been tested with children in the preschool
and early primary school years, and was guided by the following research questions:
(1) Which small-group Tier 2 interventions for preschool to Grade 2 children improve
oral language or reading outcomes?
(2) Which of these interventions are supported by relatively strong levels of evidence?
(3) What components do the most effective Tier 2 oral language and reading inter
ventions have in common?
In this review, we have chosen to focus on literacy skills broadly defined and have also
included studies with a narrower focus on reading, which in turn has implications for the
acquisition of broader literacy skills.
Method
A detailed study protocol covering review questions, search strategy, selection criteria,
coding procedures, risk of bias assessment, and data synthesis, was developed and
prospectively registered with the international register of systematic reviews
(PROSPERO; CRD42019126121). A restricted systematic review approach was utilised.
Restricted systematic reviews use similar methods to full systematic reviews but make
concessions to the depth and breadth of the process for the purpose of providing critical
information and rigorous assessment relatively quickly. Methodological decisions were
guided by existing recommendations for best practice in such reviews (Ganann, Ciliska, &
Thomas, 2010; Kelly, Moher, & Clifford, 2016; Pluddermann et al., 2018). This review
adhered to the guidelines in the PRISMA statement (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman,
2009).
Search procedures
A comprehensive literature search was conducted across several academic databases
(Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Education Research Complete (ERC),
Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS), reputable program registers (Blueprints for
Healthy Youth Development; Promising Practices Network on Children Families and
Communities; and the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare), and
language and literacy-specific databases (What Works Clearinghouse; Speechbite reposi
tory; Communication Trust What Works). The Cochrane and Campbell databases were also
searched for relevant systematic reviews. Reference lists of included papers were also
searched.
Database searches were developed in consultation with an experienced librarian and
applied a PICO-based framework (Schardt, Adams, Owens, Keitz, & Fontelo, 2007). Each
had the general form: (preschool to primary school age terms) AND (language or reading
difficulty terms) AND (general intervention or Tier 2 specific terms) AND (study design
terms) AND (language or literacy outcome terms). Search keywords and example syntax
are listed in Table S1 (online only). Initial searches were restricted to publications from
1990 to the date of search (October 2018). A substantive body of potentially relevant
literature was identified; therefore, in accordance with the registered study protocol
(PROSPERO; CRD42019126121), the search range was further restricted to journal articles
published from 2008 onward (i.e. to strengthen applicability of findings to the current
educational context, while also balancing resource and time constraints with review
scope).
Selection criteria
Studies were considered potentially relevant if the title or abstract indicated that the
study included (a) children in the preschool to Grade 2 range (or ages 4–9 years as
children usually receive formal reading instruction over this period, with some variation
across different education settings and systems2), (b) targeted supplemental instruction in
literacy or oral language skills, and (c) a treatment and comparison group. Studies were
excluded if information explicitly contraindicated full-text inclusion criteria.
At full-text screening, studies were selected if they also met the following inclusion
criteria: (a) children attended a mainstream education setting (i.e. not segregated special
education settings); (b) children were identified as at-risk of or experiencing oral language
or reading difficulties, on the basis of screening tests, formal diagnoses, or teacher or
parent concern; (c) intervention specifically targeted students with emerging or estab
lished language or reading problems; (d) intervention was implemented in a small-group
format of supplementary instruction (i.e. not universal classroom practices or one-to-one
tutoring); (e) intervention occurred on-site at school during regular school terms and
hours; and (f) intervention was implemented by regular school staff, community mem
bers, allied health professionals, or researchers.3 In addition, studies had to (g) compare
a randomly or non-randomly assigned Tier 2 intervention group with a usual practice,
alternative treatment, or waitlist control group, (h) on at least one oral language (e.g.
expressive language, receptive language, vocabulary) or reading skill (e.g. phonics knowl
edge, word recognition, reading fluency, passage comprehension) and (i) analyse group
mean difference scores following intervention. Finally, studies had to (j) be published from
2008 in an English language journal article.
Studies were excluded if they did not meet all of the above criteria or met any of the
following exclusion criteria: intervention (a) exclusively targeted second-language lear
ners, (b) was designed for children with severe and specific diagnoses not primarily
defined by difficulty with oral language or literacy (e.g. autism, ADHD, Down syndrome),
(c) included systematic provision of one-to-one support to a portion of students (d) was
delivered in low-/middle-income countries or with education systems considered sub
stantially different from North America, the United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand.
Studies were also excluded if analysis was limited to (a) comparison with a historical
control group only, (b) a proportion of “responders”, or (c) a redundant data set (i.e.
analysis of the same outcomes, at the same timepoints, with an overlapping sample of
students).4 See Table S2 (online only) for the rationale behind each of the selection
criteria.
As per the registered study protocol (PROSPERO; CRD42019126121), at both the

abstract and full-text screening phases, 10% of papers were randomly selected for double-
coding by a second independent reviewer. Inter-rater agreement for inclusion/exclusion
was high (90% abstracts, 100% full-text), and examination of discrepancies showed no
instances where prevention of relevant papers progressing to full-text screening would
occur erroneously. Coders discussed differences and reached 100% consensus.
Coding procedures
Studies that met inclusion criteria were coded by an experienced reviewer with the
following data extracted: research design (e.g. randomised or quasi-experimental study;
type of comparison group/s), participant information (e.g. mean age and grade range,
selection criteria, school context, country, socio-economic status), intervention compo
nentry (e.g. specific oral language and literacy skills targeted, general pedagogical stra
tegies, group size, intensity and duration, type of provider), outcomes assessed (e.g.
standardised and treatment-aligned measurements, time of assessment), results (e.g.
statistical significance of group mean differences and effect size), intervention feasibility
(e.g. cost, implementation fidelity, social validity), and overall relevance (e.g. percent of
sample in preschool to Grade 2 years). A 10% sample of papers was randomly selected
and double-coded by a second independent reviewer. Inter-rater agreement for data
extraction was high (94%) and differences were resolved through discussion.
Study quality and intervention-level evidence assessment

As part of the process for identifying interventions with the strongest levels of evidence,
risk of bias was evaluated for each study. Specifically, study quality was evaluated using an
11-item5 checklist adapted from recent meta-analyses in education research (e.g. Graham
et al., 2018) to assess both education-specific risks and critical design features recognised
across many scientific fields (see Table S3; online only). Appropriate education-specific
items were identified in a recent meta-analysis of literacy interventions (Graham et al.,
2018) and general items from established quality and bias checklists (e.g. NICE, 2012).
Items covered the following quality criteria: experimental design, sample size and pre-test
equivalence, attrition (overall and differential), measurement, condition descriptions,
blinded assessment, and statistical analysis. Items were coded 1 if fully satisfied, 0.5 if
partially satisfied, and 0 if inadequately addressed. A total score was calculated, and the
following cut-points applied to categorise study quality as low (<50%), moderate (50–
74%), and high (75+%), consistent with other systematic reviews (e.g. Bond, Wood,
Humphrey, Symes, & Green, 2013; Sedgwick & Sothard, 2019).
An evidence rating system was also conducted for each intervention. For pragmatic
purposes,6 three distinctive evidence ranking systems were used to shortlist interventions
supported by the strongest evidence: (a) a customised strength of evidence evaluation,
and two established frameworks; (b) the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC,
2016) Scientific Rating Scale; and (c) the Australian National Health and Medical Research
Council (NHMRC) Body of Evidence matrix (Hiller et al., 2011).
The customised evidence rating system was adapted from established frameworks (e.g.
CEBC Scientific Rating Scale; Institute of Education Sciences levels of evidence for practice
guidelines; What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards; Promising Practices Network
on Children Families and Communities evaluation criteria; Blueprints for Healthy Youth
Development evidence standards) and considered several factors (i.e. study design, risk of
bias, sample size, direction and magnitude of effect, convergence of evidence across
studies – see Table 1). Interventions rated as having Very Strong evidence according to
the customised evidence rating were shortlisted, as were interventions receiving
a Supported or Well Supported ranking on the CEBC or meeting Level A or Level
B criteria using the NHMRC assessment.7
Data synthesis
As the primary purpose of the review was to identify effective school-based Tier 2 oral
language and literacy interventions supported by the strongest levels of evidence, and
their key components, a narrative synthesis of the findings is presented.
Results
Study selection
Figure 1 provides an overview of the search and selection process. After screening 2107
abstracts, 152 articles were selected for full-text review. Ninety-nine articles were
excluded (listed in Table S4 [online only] with reasons), leaving 53 articles describing 55
included studies (two publications each described two separate studies). See Tables 2 and
3 for an overview of included studies.8 For further demographic information (e.g. age,
gender, SES, language, race) see Table S5 (online only). From the 55 included studies, 47
separate interventions were identified.
Table 1. Customised evidence rating system.

Strength Definition
Very Strong Converging evidence from multiple evaluations and the evidence from at least one evaluation
++++ was rated strong or promising (with others rated favourably).
Strong RCT or CRCT with low risk of bias, acceptable sample sizea, statistically significant positive effects
+++ equivalent to Cohen’s d of 0.25b magnitude or larger (relative to usual treatment or an
alternative intervention) on more than 1 standardised measure.
Promising RCT or CRCT with low-moderate risk of bias, acceptable sample size, and statistically significant
++ positive effects (may be <0.25 Cohen’s d or equivalent) on at least 1 standardised measure.
Preliminary RCT/CRCT/QED with low–moderate risk of bias, and statistically significant positive effects
+ (relative to usual treatment) on at least one outcome measure (may be treatment-aligned or
researcher-designed), or trend on at least one standardised measure . . . Or
RCT/CRCT/QED with low–moderate risk of bias demonstrates equivalent effect of intervention
to an effective alternative treatment.
Sample size may be small.
Weak RCT/CRCT/QED with low–moderate risk of bias or effects of treatment fail to reach statistical
± significance on any measure.
Not adequately RCT/CRCT/QED with high risk of bias, or critical flaw.
assessed
Contraindicated Study shows consistent pattern of negative effect.
a
n ≥50 students in each condition.
b
Consistent with What Works Clearing House criteria for substantively important effects.
RCT = randomised controlled trial; CRCT = cluster randomised controlled trial; QED = quasi-experimental design.
Figure 1. Search and selection process.
Study findings
Overall, most studies reported at least one statistically significant positive effect of the Tier
2 oral language or literacy intervention relative to a usual practice comparison condition
(whether Tier 1 whole-of-class instruction or multi-tiered usual practices). In some cases,
Tier 2 interventions performed similarly to Tier 3 interventions where students received
one-to-one sessions (Gilbert et al., 2013; Schwartz, Schmitt, & Lose, 2012). Effect sizes
ranged from very small (i.e. < 0.20) to quite large (e.g. 2.17). As shown in Table 2, effect
sizes were not obviously related to study quality (i.e. large effects were observed in both
low- and high-quality studies, as were small effects). As a group, the 55 studies indicate
that school-based oral language and literacy interventions for children in the preschool
and early primary school grades can have a significant effect on short-term intended
outcomes, though the magnitude of effects varies considerably (and the largest effects
tend to emerge in studies with very small samples or on treatment-aligned, researcher-
designed measures). Nevertheless, educationally meaningful effects (some considered
moderate-to-large by conventional standards) were also observed in high-quality studies
and on summarised measures. For example, flexible delivery of the Early Reading
Table 2. List of included studies.
Relative
strength of
Grade Schools Relevant results Study positive
Study Design Na (age)b (classes) Intervention Comparison(s) Measures (effect sizes)c qualitye evidencef
Bailet, Repper, CRCT 217 Pre-K NR Unnamed Usual Practice 20-item early literacy skills ns Mod Preliminary
Piasta, and (38 classes) (targets: (waitlist, NOS) Get it, Got it, Go (PA) 0.44
Murphy (2009) Phonological
awareness &
Phonics)
Teacher-delivered
Boyle et al. (2009) RCT 161 NR NR Unnamed – language Usual Practice & CELF: Groups vs. UP: High Preliminary
(6–11) (targets: language Same Expressive 0.37, p <.10 @PT
comprehension, intervention ns @ f/up
vocabulary, (1 community- 4 school-based:
narrative) based SLT vs. 4 ns
SLT or Assistant- school-based) Receptive Groups vs. UP:
delivered Schools: (group ns @ both PT &
vs. 1:1) x (SLT 1 year f/up
vs. Assistant) 4 school-based:
ns
Buckingham, RCT 22 K-2 1 school MiniLit (Australia) Usual Practice Burt Word Reading Test η2= 0.36, p <.05 Mod Preliminary
Wheldall, and Teacher/TA- (Tier 1) South Australian Spelling ns
Beaman (2012) delivered Test
Non-Word Reading η2= 0.59, p <.05
Wheldall Assessment of ns
Reading
Case et al. (2010) RCT 30 1 3 schools Unnamed Usual Practice CTOPP: Rapid Letter Trends only: Mod Preliminary
(9 classes) (targets: PA, phonics, (Tier 1) Naming, Elision Word Attack
spelling, vocabulary, WRMT: Word Attack, (d = 0.86,
fluency, Word Identification p = .07)
comprehension) Researcher-designed: Word
RAs with teaching Letter Sound Fluency; Identification
experience Decodable Word Fluency; (d = 0.49, p <.10)
Word Identification
Fluency; Spelling
(Continued)
77
78
Table 2. (Continued).
Relative
strength of
Case et al. (2014) RCT 123 1 NR Unnamed Usual Practice TOWRE: Phonemic Decoding No significant High Weak
(15 classes) (targets: PA, phonics, (strong Tier 1) Efficiency mean group
spelling, vocab, WRMT: Word differences @
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
fluency, Identification, Word post-test or

comprehension) Attack 1 year f/up
Graduate RA- Other:
delivered Word Spelling
Chambers et al. CRCT 195 1 33 schools Team Alphie Alternative WRMT: +ve (Grade 1s) Mod Promising
(2011) 177 2 (classes NR) (computer-based) intervention Letter-Word Ident. 0.17, p = .05
Teacher-supervised (1:1 Success for Word Attack 0.21, p = .04
All tutoring) Passage Comprehension 0.15, p = .05
Grade 2s: ns
Coyne et al. RCT 103 K 9 schools Early Reading Same WRMT: Supplementary Sig. +ve @post-test High Strong
(2013) (40 classes) Intervention intervention Letter Checklist, Word : WRMT (0.54–
Reading specialist & (tests flexible Attack, Word 0.76) & ORF
TA-delivered delivery Identification, Passage (0.46)
componentry) Comprehension +ve @
CTOPP: Sound Matching, 1 year follow-up:
Blending Words all WRMT (0.39–
DIBELS: Phoneme 0.64), Spelling
Segmentation Fluency, (ES = .69) & ORF
Nonsense Word Fluency (ES = .61).
Others: ES = Hedges’ g
Passage fluency (ORF);
Test of Written Spelling
Denton, Fletcher, RCT 192 1 9 schools Read Well-Aligned Same WJIII: Letter-Word All ns Mod Preliminary
Taylor, Barth, (32 classes) Tutor-delivered intervention Identification, Word
and Vaughn (frequency & Attack, Spelling, Passage
(2011) duration Comprehension
componentry) TOWRE: Word Reading
Efficiency, GRADE:
Passage Comprehension
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Denton et al. RCT 218 1–2 9 schools Fountas & Pinnell Both usual WJII: Letter-Word Sig. +ve GR>UP High Promising
(2014) (classes NR) Guided Reading practice (UP) & Identification, Word Letter-Word
Teacher & Tutor- alternative Attack, Passage Identification
delivered intervention Comprehension (d = 0.32).
(explicit TOWRE: Sight Word Sig. +ve EI>UP
instruction: EI) Reading, Phonemic on all WJII:
Decoding Efficiency Letter-Word
Texas Primary Reading Identification
Inventory: Progress (d = 0.33), Word
Monitoring for Beginning Attack (d = 0.59)
Readers) & Passage
Gates-MacGinitie: Comprehension
Reading Comprehension; (d = 0.46)
Silent Reading Efficiency,
Comprehension
Denton et al. RCT 507 1 31 schools Responsive Reading Usual practice CTOPP: Blending, +ve sig on all High Strong
(2010) (classes NR) Intervention (multi-tier Segmenting TOWRE: measures except
Teacher-delivered NOS) Sight Word Efficiency, CTOPP
Phonemic Decoding segmenting
WJIII: Letter-Word (ESs: 0.12– 0.72)
Identification, Word
Attack, Spelling, Passage
comprehension
Comprehensive
Monitoring of Early
Reading Skills: Oral
Reading
(Continued)
79
80
Relative
strength of
Foorman, Herrera, CRCT 3447 K-2 55 schools Composite Alternative Florida Reading Assessment: Sig: Stand Alone > High Promising
and Dombek (classes NR) interventions: interventions Phonological Awareness Embedded
(2018) Embedded (Curious (Tier 2) (K); Word Reading, on Spelling
About Words & Vocabulary, Following (g = 0.18)
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
Journeys Strategic Directions, Sentence Trend: SA>E for

Intervention) comprehension (K, 1, 2); sentence
vs. Spelling (2) comprehension
Stand Alone (Sound SESAT: Word Reading (K), All others ns for
Partners, Bridge of Sentence Reading (K), full sample
Vocabulary & SAT: Reading
Language in Motion) Comprehension (1,2)
Teacher & TA- Grade 1 & 2 assessments
delivered ARE NOT follow-ups, they
are separate cohorts.
Gallagher and RCT 24 Pre-K NR General approach: Both No Reynell Developmental NB>waitlist ns, Mod Weak
Chiat (2009) Nursery-based Treatment Scales III: comprehension except parent-
consultative SLT (waitlist) & of grammar report impact
model (NB) alternative British Picture Vocabulary scores, p < .01,
Teacher with SLT- (intensive Scales Renfrew Tests: but ESs positive
delivered clinical SLT) Action Picture Test for all measures
(expressive language), (ds 0.06–1.6)
Word Finding Test CLINICAL
(expressive vocabulary) SLT>NB (p <
.05): receptive
grammar,
receptive &
expressive
vocabulary &
expressive
information.
ES: NR for
clinical vs.
school.
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Gilbert et al. RCT 212 1 11 schools Unnamed Both usual Word Reading (latent Tier 2 > Tier 1 High Promising
(2013) (69 classes) (targets: PA, phonics, practice (Tier 1) construct from multiple (d = 0.19, p <.05
sight words, & alternative measures including: @ PT; ns @ 1 &
spelling, fluency) (Tier 3 for non- TOWRE Sight Word 2 year f/up).
Trained graduates- responders) Reading Efficiency, Tier 2 = Tier 3
delivered Phonemic Decoding
Efficiency; & WRMT Word
Attack, Word
Identification)
Goldstein et al. CRCT 163 Pre-K NR Story Friends Control (same Researcher-designed: +ve sig effect on Tx High Preliminary
(2016) (32 classes) (automated storybooks but Unit Vocabulary Test aligned
embedded no instruction) (treatment aligned), Vocabulary only
vocabulary & Comprehension (large Cohen f)
comprehension (proximal) All others ns
instruction) Standardised: CELF &
Educator-supervised PPVT
Haley, Hulme, RCT 103 Pre-K 13 preschools Nursery Language 4 Waitlist (NOS) CELF-Preschool 2: Sentence Standardised Mod Preliminary
Bowyer-Crane, Reading (L4R) Structure, Vocabulary measures ns
Snowling, and TA-delivered Renfrew: Action Picture +ve sig:
Fricke (2017) Test (expressive) naming taught
York Assessment of words (d = 1.04,
Reading Comprehension: p < .001) &
listening comprehension, definitions
Core Letter subset, (d = 0.66,
phonemic awareness p <.001)
(alliteration), Early Word
Reading,
Other:
taught vocabulary test
Helf, Cooke, and CRCT 54 1 3 schools Early Reading Tutor Same DIBELS: Phoneme All ns Mod Weak
Flowers (2009) (classes NR) TA-delivered intervention Segmentation Fluency
(tests 1:1 vs. (PSF), Nonsense Word

group delivery) Fluency (NWF), Oral
Reading Fluency (ORF)
81
(Continued)
82
Relative
strength of
Helf, Cooke, and QED 303 K 14 schools Early Reading Tutor Usual practice DIBELS: Phoneme Sig time x group Low Weak
Konrad (2014) (classes NR) Teacher & TA- (Tier 2) Segmentation Fluency (p < .01): PSF
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
delivered (PSF), Nonsense Word η2= 0.06; NWF

Fluency (NWF) η2= 0.05
Horne (2017) RCT 38 NR 2 schools Comprehension Usual practice Neale Analysis of Reading Sig group x time Low Not
(6– (classes NR) Booster program (multi-tier) Ability: accuracy, fluency, effects: adequately
11 years) (computer-based) comprehension accuracy (time assessed
Researcher with d = 0.79 for Tx,
Teacher & TA- ns for Co);
supervised comprehension
(time d = 0.68
for Tx, ns for Co)
Hudson, Isakson, RCT 58 2 7 schools Unnamed Same KTEA II: decoding accuracy Sig. effect: High Promising
Richman, Lane, (classes NR) (focus: repeated intervention TOWRE: Phonemic AS>A
and Arriaza- reading, PA, (componentry: Decoding Efficiency (PDE) PDE (d = 0.88)
Allen (2011) phonics) reading cues DIBELS: reading fluency RDMA (d = 0.80)
Teacher, TA, for accuracy or WJIII: comprehension A>AS for
Volunteer, Uni- accuracy & Researcher designed: comprehension
Student-delivered speed (A vs. automaticity measure (d = −0.70)
AS) (RDAM)
Hund-Reid and RCT 37 K 9 schools Road to Code Usual practice DIBELS: +ve sig. effect Mod Preliminary
Schneider (10 classes) TA-delivered (NOS) @ post-test &
(2013) 1 month
respectively
Initial Sound Fluency d = 2.17, 1.33
Phonemic Segmentation d = 1.39, 1.25
Fluency
Letter Naming Fluency d = 0.72 (ns), 1.06
Nonsense Word Fluency d = 1.47, 1.50
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Kamps et al. QED 83 K-2 8 schools Direct Instruction Alternative DIBELS: Nonsense Word DI>GR sig: Low Not
(2008) (classes NR) programs: Reading interventions Fluency, Oral Reading NWF (d = 0.66). adequately
Mastery, Early (Tier 2 Guided Fluency, WI & WA (Grades assessed
Interventions in Reading, WRMT: Word 1 & 2). Comp
Reading & Read Programmed Identification (WI), Word (Grade 2)
Well) Reading & Attack, Passage
Teacher & TA- Open Court Comprehension (comp)
delivered interventions)
Kelley, Goldstein, RCT 18 Pre-K 3 preschools Story Friends Usual practice PPVT +ve sig. Mod Preliminary
Spencer, and (3 classes) Researcher- (NOS) CELF RD-only:
Sherman supervised Researcher-designed: vocabulary
(2015) vocabulary (intervention- (d = 1.37 to
aligned) comprehension 2.62) inferential
(inferential & literal) comprehension.
(d = 1.10)
All others ns.
Kerins, Trotter, RCT 23 1 1 school Unnamed Usual practice TOWRE All ns Low Not
and (classes NR) (comprised (Tier 1 only) Other: adequately
Schoenbrodt adaptation of Individual Language assessed
(2010) Lindamood Assessment (county-
Phoneme based phonological
Sequencing & Orton- awareness measure)
Gillingham
programs)
SLT & Special Ed
Teacher-delivered
Lee and Pring CRCT 180 K-2 18 schools Talk Boost Usual practice Renfrew: Sig. group x time Mod Promising
(2016) (10 classes) TA-delivered (waitlist) Renfrew Action Picture effects (both
Test p = .001, ES:
RAPT Grammar Test NRg)

(Continued)
83
84
Relative
strength of
Little et al. (2012) RCT 90 K 8 schools Early Reading Usual practice DIBELS: Letter Naming Trends only: Mod Preliminary
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
(classes NR) Intervention (very strong Fluency, Phoneme SM:0.59 (p = .06)

Reading specialist & Tier 2)h Segmentation Fluency, Spelling: 0.50
Teacher-delivered Nonsense Word Fluency (p = .08)
WRMT: Word Some sig
Identification, Word ideographic
Attack, Supplementary differences
Letter Checklist
CTOPP: Sound Matching
(SM), Rapid Object
Naming, Blending Words
Test of Written Spelling:
spelling
Mac Gets Well reading
test
Lonigan and RCT 93 Pre-K 12 preschools Unnamed Usual practice CELF-Preschool Trend: High Preliminary
Phillips (2016) (classes NR) (focus: needs- (strong Tier 1) TERA-3 CELF Expressive
Experiment 1 aligned intervention: Other: Language;
code-based, Preschool Comprehensive language-
language or both) Test of Phonological & intervention>
Print Processing UP (p = .09,
(researcher designed), d = 0.27).
Code & Language CLIP Letter
Intervention Post-test Names Test;
(curriculum-aligned code-focused>
assessment) UP (p = .07,
d = 0.25)
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Lonigan and RCT 184 Pre-K 19 preschools Unnamed Usual practice CELF-Preschool +ve sig. Mod Preliminary
Phillips (2016) (classes NR) (focus: needs- (strong Tier 1) TERA-3 RD-only:
Experiment 2 aligned intervention: Other: language-Tx >
code-based, Preschool Comprehensive UP & code-
language or both) Test of Phonological & Tx>UP (ds = 0.21
Implementer NR Print Processing −0.5, ps <.05).
(researcher designed), Note: analyses
Code & Language only included
Intervention Post-test outcomes
(curriculum-aligned targeted.
assessment)
Lovett et al. QED 219 1–3 NR Triple Focus Reading Usual practice WRMT: Word Identification, Sig +ve Tx effects Mod Preliminary
(2017) Program (PHAB + (NOS) Word Attack, Passage on all 14 reading (QED)
WIST + RAVE-O) Componentry: Comprehension measures (mean
Special Ed Teachers- Grade at WRAT: Reading d = 0.80
delivered intervention SRI: Reading standardised,
Comprehension 1.69 for others).
TOWRE: Sight Word
Efficiency, Phonemic
Decoding Efficiency
GORT: Reading
Comprehension PIAT:
Spelling
Others: phonics &
vocabulary.
Madden and CRCT 427 1–3 14 schools Tutoring with Alphie Usual practice Success for All periodic Sig +ve Tx effect: Low Not
Slavin (2017) (classes NR) (computer program) (limited multi- reading assessment d = 0.46 adequately
Experiment 1 TA-supervised tier) combined with teacher assessed
observation & classwork
progress.
(Continued)
85
86
Relative
strength of
Madden and CRCT 478 1–3 13 schools Tutoring with Alphie Usual practice Success for All periodic Sig +ve Tx effect: Low Not
Slavin (2017) (classes NR) (computer program) (limited multi- reading assessment d = 0.40 adequately
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
Experiment 2 TA-supervised tier) combined with teacher assessed

observation & classwork
progress.
Morris et al. CRCT 279 2–3 NR PHAB+RAVE-O, Alternative WRMT: Word Identification, Consistent Mod Promising
(2012) PHAB+WIST interventions: Word Attack, Passage significant +ve
(PHAST)i (language & Comprehension; @ post-test &
Vs. non-language) Wide Range Achievement 1 year f/up.
Class skills + Math (Tier 2) Test Reading, Spelling, Effect sizes NR
(PT only) Arithmetic but calculation
PHAB+ Class skills TOWRE: Word Reading from F values
(PT & FU) Efficiency indicates large
Teacher-delivered Non-Word Reading effects @ post-
Gray Oral Reading Test testj
Nielsen and QED 28 K 1 school Unnamed Usual practice TOLD: vocabulary, semantics Sig +ve Tx effect Low Not
Friesen (2012) (3 classes) (focus: storybook- (NOS) TNL: Narrative for RD-only: adequately
based vocabulary & Comprehension, Oral vocabulary assessed
narrative) Narration
Post-graduate RA- Treatment-aligned tests:
delivered Taught vocabulary
Narrative
Oostdam, Blok, RCT 139 2–4 8 schools General approach: Usual practice Dutch versions of Sig +ve effect: Mod Promising
and (classes NR) Group-based Guided (some Tier 2) standardised:
k
Boendermaker Oral Reading Reading Fluency p < .05
(2015) TA-delivered Comprehension ns
Experiment 2 Vocabulary (PPVT) ns
Other: p < .05
Reading Attitude (7
items)
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Phillips et al. RCT 42 Pre-K 5 preschools Unnamed Usual practice CELF-P2: sentence structure Sig +ve for RD High Preliminary
(2016) (10 classes) (oral language focus: (multi-tier) OWLS: receptive measures: (IAA
syntactic & sematic language composite g = 0.88; LC
features) (sematic, syntactic & Units 3–4 g = .78
supra-linguistic features) Trends:
WJIII: Picture Vocabulary OWLS g = 0.31
Test (p = .07), LC
Others (researcher- Units 1 & 2
developed): Intervention g = 0.37
Aligned Assessment (IAA: (p = .08).
receptive & expressive
language),
Listening Comprehension
(LC)
Pollard-Durodola CRCT 125 Pre-K 6 preschools Words of Oral Reading Usual practice PPVT: receptive vocabulary Sig +ve effects: Mod Preliminary
et al. (2011) (classes NR) & Language (Tier 1) EOWPVT: expressive RD measures
Development vocabulary only
(WORLD) Others (researcher-
Teacher-delivered designed):
Receptive Vocabulary (Tx
aligned)
Expressive Vocabulary
Puhalla (2011) RCT 44 1 5 schools Read Aloud Booster Usual practice Researcher-designed: Sig +ve effect: Mod Preliminary
(classes NR) Teacher-delivered (Tier 1: Read storybook vocabulary Tx>UP η2= 0.46
Aloud class assessment
curriculum) (child defines taught
words)
(Continued)
87
88
Relative
strength of
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
Pullen and Lane RCT 98 1 9 schools Unnamed Both usual WDRB: Sight Words Sig +ve effect RD Mod Preliminary
(2014) (classes NR) (focus: decoding practice (Tier 1) Informal: only:
with manipulative & Same real & pseudoword Tx>NM
letters) program (no decoding, Phonological (d = 0.42 PA;
Teacher-delivered manipulatives Awareness (PA) 0.56 decoding
(pre- & in-service) [NM]) Sight words real words)
Componentry: Tx>UP
manipulatives (d = 0.43 PA;
0.70 decoding
pseudo words;
0.80 informal
test of sight
words)
Pullen, Tuckwiller, RCT 98 at- 1 3 schools Unnamed Usual practice Researcher-designed Tx- Sig +ve effect: Mod Preliminary
Konold, risk (12 classes) (focus: vocabulary in (Tier 1) & not- aligned vocabulary tests: Post-test:
Maynard, and shared storybook at-risk Receptive d = 0.37
Coyne (2010) reading with rich comparison Contextual d = 0.64
instruction) Expressive ns
Education student- Follow-up
delivered (4 weeks):
planned
contrasts ns
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Ritter, Park, QED 64 1–3 3 schools Unnamed Alternative WDRB: Letter-Word Sig group x time Low Not
Saxon, and (focus: narrative- intervention Identification, Word effects all adequately
Colson (2013) based, PA & phonics (traditional Attack, Passage measures (Tx assessed
instruction) language Comprehension pre-post sig;
SLT-delivered therapy – no CTOPP: Blending Words, Control ns):
PA) Blending Nonwords (Tx pre-post gain
η2 = 0.40–0.61)
Tx>control
(0.57–0.72 for
blending; 0.51–
0.58 for word-
level reading
skills).
Roskos and QED 74 Pre-K NR General Approach: Usual practice PPVT: vocabulary Sig +ve effect: Low Not
Burstein (2011) (12 classes) Say-Tell-Do (classroom Researcher-designed Tx- PPVT post-test adequately
vocabulary strategy only) aligned: (d = 0.58, p = assessed
Literacy-coach, Expressive Vocabulary .03);
Teacher, TA- (EV) RD gain:
delivered Receptive Vocabulary (receptive d =
(RV) 0.68; expressive
d = 0.45)
Ryder et al. (2008) RCT 24 2–3 1 school Unnamed Usual practice At post-test: Sig. Tx>UP Mod Preliminary
(4 classes) (focus: PA & phonics) (New Zealand Phonemic awareness 1.71
TA-delivered whole- Pseudo word decoding 1.69
language Burt Word Reading 0.88
analytic Neale accuracy 0.70
phonics) Neale comprehension 0.98
2-year follow-up:
Burt Word Reading d =0.72
Neale accuracy d =0.81

(Continued)
89
90
Relative
strength of
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
Schuele et al. QED 36 K 3 schools Intensive Phonological Usual practice Phonological Awareness Spelling (p =.016, Low Not
(2008) (6 classes) Awareness Program (Tier 1) Literacy Skills for eta adequately
SLT-delivered Tier 2 Kindergarteners test: squared =0.16) assessed
component Rhyme Awareness, NS for Letter
Beginning Sound Sound
Awareness, Alphabet Knowledge &
Knowledge; Letter Word
Sounds; & Word Recognition;
Recognition in Isolation; others NR
& a Spelling measure
Schwartz et al. RCT 170 1 NR Reading Recovery Same Sloson Oral Reading Test- Sig group x time Mod Preliminary
(2012) (group formats 1:2, intervention Revised effects: SORT-R
1:3 and 1:5 vs. 1:1) (componentry: Other: & all Clay
Special Ed Teacher- group size) Clay Observation Survey: subtests except
delivered Text Reading Level Letter
Ohio Word Test Identification
Hearing and Recording On six of seven
Sounds in Word tests 1:1 > small
Letter Identification groups
Concepts about Print combined
Writing Vocabulary But Post-hoc
tests: 1:1 = 1:2 &
1:3 on several
measures
Small group
comparisons: ns
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Senechal, RCT 56 K 6 schools Unnamed Both usual CTOPP: composite from Sig +ve effects Mod Preliminary
Ouellette, (classes NR) (focus: Invented practice Sound Matching, Elision, IS+PA>SR on
Pagan, and spelling [IS]) (storybook & Blending Words CTOPP (0.45)
Lever (2012) Implementer NR reading [SR]) & Researcher-designed: IS> others
Alternative Alphabet knowledge, combined for
(phonemic Word reading, Invented Learn-to-Read
awareness Spelling & Learn-to-Read (0.50) &
training – no Invented
printed letters Spelling (0.58).
[PA])
Simmons et al. CRCT 206 K 12 Schools Early Reading Usual practice Sig Tx effects Mod Promising
(2011) (57 classes) Intervention (strong Tier 2) CTOPP:
Reading specialists, Blending Words 0.40
Teacher & TA- Sound Matching 0.42
delivered DIBELS:
Phoneme Segmentation 0.47
Fluency
Nonsense Word Fluency ns
WRMT:
Supplementary Letter 0.36–0.41
Checklist
Word Attack 0.51
Word Identification ns
Passage Comprehension ns
TOWRE:
Phonemic Decoding ns
Efficiency
Sight Word Efficiency ns
Test of Written Spelling:
spelling ns
(all ES Hedges’
deltaT)
(Continued)
91
92
Relative
strength of
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
Simmons et al. CRCT 368 K 22 schools Early Reading Usual practice 2-year follow-up: Regression: Mod Weak (but
(2014) (classes NR) Intervention (Tier 2) DIBELS: Oral Reading Intervention ns 2-year
Reading specialists, Fluency follow-up,
Teacher & TA- WRMT: Word not
delivered Identification, Passage immediate
Comprehension post-test)
Smith et al. (2016) CRCT 811 1 44 schools Enhanced Core Usual practice Fall-Spring gain *Sig +ve effects (g) Mod Promising
(classes NR) Reading Instruction (strong Tier 2 SESAT:
(ECRI; multi-tiered but un-aligned Total 0.21, ns
curriculum-aligned) with class Word Reading, 0.24*
Reading-specialists, content) Sentence Reading 0.18, ns
Teachers & TA- DIBELS:
delivered Nonsense Word Reading 0.19, ns
Oral Reading Fluency 0.12, ns
WRMT:
Word Attack 0.32*
Word Identification 0.24, p < .10
Spencer et al. RCT 22 Pre-K NR Story Champs Usual practice Narrative Language Sig +ve Tx effects: Mod Preliminary
(2015) (3 classes) (focus: oral (Tier 1) Measure (NLM) NLM d = 1.05 @
narrative) The Renfrew Bus Story PT, & 0.86@ 4
RA-delivered Other: weeks f/up;
Personal Stories Renfrew 1.04 @
PT, ns @ f/up,
ns for personal
stories
(Continued)
Relative
strength of
Torgesen, RCT 112 1 3 schools Read, Write & Type Both usual CTOPP: elision, blending RWT =LIPS all Mod Promising
Wagner, (classes NR) (RWT) & Lindamood practice (multi- words, segmenting measures;
Rashotte, Phoneme tier) & words, rapid digit & rapid Sig Tx Effects
Herron, and Sequencing (LIPS) alternative letter naming; RWT/LIPS>UP@
Lindamood (data combined) WRMT: Word PT: phonological
(2010) Teacher & computer- Identification, Word awareness, rapid
delivered Attack, Passage naming,
Comprehension decoding,
TOWRE: sight word spelling, &
efficiency; comprehension
GORT: text reading (d =0.17–0.77)
accuracy, text reading RWT/LIPS>UP @
fluency, comprehension 1 year:
WRAT: Spelling decoding, rapid
naming, spelling
(0.43–0.66)
Vadasy and RCT 188 2–3 13 schools Quick Reads Usual practice WRMT: Word Identification Sig. +ve Tx effects: High Strong
Sanders (classes NR) TA-delivered (Tier 1) TOWRE: Sight Word on all fluency
(2008a) Efficiency measures
DIBELS: Oral Reading (p <.05, ds 0.29–
Fluency 0.43)
GORT: Fluency, No effects on
Comprehension word reading or
comprehension.
(Continued)
93
94
Relative
strength of
Vadasy and QRCT 86 rel. K 13 schools Unnamed Both usual DIBELS: Letter Name Fluency Relevant Mod Weak
Sanders (30 classes) (focus: integrated practice (no CTOPP: Phonological comparisons: 1:2
(2008b) explicit phonemic & treatment) & Awareness composite; vs. 1:1 (ns) & 1:2
alphabetic alternative (1:1 Phonemic Decoding & vs. control (not
instruction with tutoring) Sight Word Efficiency reported).
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
decodable text) WRMT: Word Attack,

TA-delivered Word Identification,
Passage Comprehension
WRAT: Spelling
Oral reading fluency
(ORF): Mac Gets Well
Westerveld and QED 10 NR NR Unnamed Usual practice Test of Oral Narrative Sig +ve Tx effects Low Not
Gillon (2008) (7– (‘2 sites’) (focus: oral language (waitlist, New (scoring does not appear for oral narrative adequately
9 years) story structure Zealand to be standardised comp’n (1.55) & assessed
instruction) system) procedure) production
SLT-delivered (1.89), & verbal
fluency (1.65)
Wonder- RCT 133 2 11 schools Read Well-Aligned Same Sig +ve Tx (η2): High Strong
mcdowell et al. (classes NR) (multi-tier; Tier 1 & intervention DIBELS: Oral Reading 0.17
(2011) Tier 2 aligned) (Tier 2 Read Fluency
Reading specialists & Well unaligned WRMT:
Teacher-delivered with class Word Attack 0.13
content) Word Identification 0.08
Passage Comprehension 0.18
Zettler-Greeley, CRCT 476 Pre-K 114 preschools Nemours BrightStart! Usual practice +ve Tx effects: High Promising
Bailet, Murphy, (classes NR) Implementer- (waitlist) GRTR: letter knowledge & 0.39
DeLucca, and unclear, implies PA
Branum-Martin teacher Test of Preschool Early
(2018) Literacy: Print Knowledge 0.74
Elision 0.46,
Blending −0.13
ALL: Rhyme Knowledge 0.37
(Hedges’ g)
Zucker, Solari, CRCT 125 Pre-K NR Developing Talkers: Usual practice Tx-aligned measure: Sig. +ve Tx effect Mod Preliminary
Landry, and (39 classes) Pre-K curriculum (some Tier 2). C-PALLS: Rapid d = 0.81
Swank (2013) Educator-delivered Vocabulary Naming
a
Number of participants relevant to Tier 2 intervention vs. comparisons only (not overall number screened or number assigned to Tier 3 interventions unless directly contrasted with Tier 2
intervention).
b
Age is provided if grade was not reported.
c
Results are from analyses of mean differences only. Results from growth curve analyses or analyses comparing % of intervention and control groups performing at specific cut-points are not
reported here. Unless stated otherwise, effect sizes are Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g.
d
The content of this column reflects only the results relevant to our research questions, not results for other research questions addressed by the studies.
e
Study quality was categorised according to cut points applied to the risk of bias checklist described in the Method and in Table S3 (online only) (i.e. low <50%, moderate 50–74%, high 75+%).
f
This refers to whether the intervention has a positive effect using a nuanced framework specifically designed for this project to assess the relative strength of positive evidence in each study.
g
Using reported mean, standard deviation, and sample size information, ES is calculated as d =0.56 for RAPT, and 0.34 for Grammar.
h
The comparison condition was school implemented Tier 2 intervention within a well-established RTI framework where several schools used alternative commercial interventions (Road to Code
and Reading Mastery Plus) and dose and group size were equivalent.
i
PHAB =Phonological Analysis and Blending; PHAST =Phonological and Strategy Training (which is PHAB + WIST); RAVE-O =Retrieval, Automaticity, Vocabulary, Engagement with Language and
Orthography; WIST =Word Identification Strategies Training.
j
Contrasts show the three reading conditions combined significantly outperformed the mathematics control, the multi-component conditions combined (PHAB+WIST, PHAB+RAVE-O)
significantly outperformed the PHAB-+CSS condition, and the multi-component conditions performed similarly to each other, ns.
k
Effect size not reported, but mean, standard deviation, and sample size indicate d =0.22.
ns = no significant intervention effect; SLT = Speech & Language Therapist; TA = Teacher Aide; UP =Usual Practice; ALL =Assessment of Language & Literacy; CELF =Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals; C-PALLS = Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning & Education (CIRCLE) Phonological Awareness, Language, & Literacy System; CRCT =cluster
randomised controlled trial; CTOPP =Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; DIBELS = Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; EOWPVT = Expressive One-Word Picture
Vocabulary Test; FU =Follow-up; GRADE = Group Reading Assessment & Diagnostic Evaluation; GRTR =Get Ready to Read screener; GORT = Gray Oral Reading Test; IGDIEL =Individual Growth
& Development Indicators of Early Literacy; KTEA = Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement; NOS =Not otherwise specified; NR =Not reported; ns =not significant; OWLS: Oral & Written
Language Scales; PALSB = Phonological Awareness & Literacy Screening Battery; paraprof. =paraprofessional; PIAT = Peabody Individual Achievement Test; PPVT =Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test; PT =Post-test; Q.ED =quasi-experimental design; RCT = randomised controlled trial; RD =Researcher-designed; SAT =Stanford Achievement Test; SESAT = Stanford Early Scholastic
Achievement Test; SRI = Standardised Reading Inventory; SLP = Speech & Language Pathologist; SLT = Speech & Language Therapy/Therapist; strong Tier 1 = Tier 1 highly structured/
supported; TD = Typically developing; TERA-3 = Test of Early Reading Ability 3rd Edition; TNL = Test of Narrative Language; TOLD =Test of Oral Language Development; TPEL = Test of
Preschool Early Literacy; TOWRE =Test of Word Reading Efficiency; Tx = Treatment; UP = Usual Practice; vocab = vocabulary; WDRB = Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery; WJIII = Woodcock
Johnson Tests of Achievement; WRAT = Wide Range Achievement Test; WRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test.
95
Table 3. Characteristics of the included studies.

Characteristic k %
Country
North America 46 84
United Kingdom 5 9
New Zealand 2 4
Australia 1 2
Netherlands 1 2
Sample age
Included grades PK-2 42 76
Preschool only 13 24
Targeted
Reading difficulties only 37 67
Oral language difficulty only 13 24
Combined risks 5 9
Intervention componentry
Maximum of five per group (range: 2–10 students) 41 75
Session duration 20–40 min (range: 10–60 min) 36 65
At least three sessions per week (range: once to five times) 40 73
Intervention duration at least 3 months (range: 6 weeks to 2 years) 28 51
Delivered by school personnel 35 64
Delivered by allied health professionals 6 11
Delivered by researchers 5 9
Study design
RCT or CRCT 45 82
Comparison with usual practice or waitlist 41 75
Classroom instruction only usual practice 13 24
Multi-tiered usual practice 15 27
Comparison with alternative intervention 20 36
Comparison to both usual practice and othera intervention 6 11
Rated low quality 11 20
Rated moderate quality 30 55
Rated high quality 14 25
Outcomes assessed
Phonemic awareness 25 45
Phonics 29 53
Nonsense or pseudo-word decoding 26 47
Real word decoding 27 49
Sight word reading 12 22
Reading fluency 21 38
Reading comprehension 20 36
Vocabulary 14 25
Attitude to reading 1 2
Measures
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT; Woodcock, 1998) 15 27
Woodcock Johnson III (WJIII; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) 4 7
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002) 13 24
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) 12 22
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999) 9 16
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2000) 7 13
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) 6 11
Renfrew Language Scales (Renfrew, 1988, Renfrew, 1997) 3 5
Research designed measures of vocabulary 7 13
Post-test timing
Immediate 44 80
1 month 3 5
12 months or more 8 15
a
Or variation of the same intervention.
Intervention (Coyne et al., 2013; Little et al., 2012; Simmons et al., 2011, 2014) demon
strated positive effects on the WRMT subscales ranging from 0.54 to 0.76 at immediate
post-test and 0.39 to 0.64 at 1-year follow-up; and the Responsive Reading Intervention
(Denton et al., 2010) demonstrated positive effects ranging from 0.44 on the TOWRE, to
0.63 on some WJIII subscales. As might be expected, a general shift in intervention focus
was observed such that preschool interventions predominantly involved oral language
with particular emphasis on vocabulary, whereas primary school interventions were more
focused on reading, with most emphasis on decoding.
Intervention-level evidence
The strength of evidence assessments for the 47 interventions in the included studies is
summarised in Table 4. The three evidence rating systems identified a different, but
overlapping, shortlist of interventions (i.e. those with the strongest evidence). The custo
mised evidence rating system identified three interventions with Very Strong evidence.
These are Early Reading Intervention (ERI; Coyne et al., 2013; Little et al., 2012; Simmons
et al., 2011, 2014), PHAST/PHAB+RAVE-O (Morris et al., 2012) and Read Well-Aligned
(Wonder-mcdowell, Reutzel, & Smith, 2011). Using the CEBC Scientific Rating Scale,
three interventions received high (Well Supported or Supported) evidence ratings.
These are the Early Reading Intervention (ERI), PHAST/PHAB+RAVE-O (Morris et al.,
2012) and Ryder, Tunmer, and Greaney (2008) Unnamed Phonological Awareness and
Phonics intervention. Using the NHMRC evidence matrix, no interventions met the high
est level of evidence, but three aligned with the second-highest category. These are Early
Reading Intervention (ERI; (Coyne et al., 2013; Little et al., 2012; Simmons et al., 2011)),
Story Friends (Goldstein et al., 2016), and Lonigan and Phillips (2016) Unnamed needs-
aligned intervention. As shown in Table 4, the evidence assessments show six interven
tions were shortlisted, only two of which were identified by two or more of the three
evidence rating systems (Early Reading Intervention and PHAST/PHAB+RAVE-O).
Synthesis: shortlist of interventions

Componentry (procedural and content) for the six interventions shortlisted by the
strength of evidence assessments is summarised in Table 5. See Table S6 (online only)
for a detailed description of componentry for all programs, and Table S7 (online only) for
a simplified visual representation of componentry for all programs together with evidence
ratings for each intervention. Table 5 shows that the number of students in the small-
group interventions were approximately 3–5 students for four of the six interventions (the
remaining two had a range of 2– 4 or 2–6 students). Intervention dosage schedule was
approximately 4–5 times per week for four of the interventions (sessions were 20–40 min
for three of these, and 60 min for the other). For another intervention, however, dose was
much lower (sessions were 9–12 min, 3 times per week), and for the final intervention,
dose was 30 min per session and offered 2–5 times per week depending on the schedule
for each treatment group. There was also variation regarding the duration of the short
listed interventions with the number of implementation weeks ranging from 11 to 26. As
can be seen in Table 5, intervention durations were mostly reported as an approximation,
a range, or shown to vary according to the intervention session schedule.
98
Table 4. Strength of evidence assessments for each intervention.

NHMRC
CEBC Scientific Evidence Recommendation
Intervention Studies Rating Grade Customised rating
Early Reading Intervention Coyne et al. (2013) intervention Well Supported B Very Strong
componentry analysis; Little
et al. (2012) Florida study;
Simmons et al. (2011);
Simmons et al. (2014) Texas
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
and Connecticut study with

outcomes at end-Kinder and
Grade 2, respectively
Enhanced Core Reading Instruction Smith et al. (2016) Promising C Promising
PHAST (PHAB+WIST), PHAB+RAVE-O Morris et al. (2012) Supported C Very Strong a
Read Well-Aligned Wonder-mcdowell et al. (2011); Promising C Very Strong
Denton et al. (2011);
independent studies
Quick Reads Vadasy and Sanders (2008a) Promising C Strong
Responsive Reading Intervention Denton et al. (2010) Promising C Strong
Group-based Guided Oral Reading Oostdam et al. (2015) Promising C Promising
Guided Reading & Explicit Instruction Denton et al. (2014) Promising C Promising
Mixed: Embedded vs. Stand-alone interventions Foorman et al. (2018) Promising C Promising
Mixed: Read, Write & Type; LIPS Torgesen et al. (2010) Promising C Promising
Nemours Bright Start Zettler-Greeley et al. (2018) Promising C Promising
Talk Boost Lee and Pring (2016) Promising C Promising
Team Alphie Chambers et al. (2011) Promising C Promising
Unnamed (multi-component reading skills intervention) Gilbert et al. (2013) Promising C Promising
Unnamed (repeated reading phonics and phonological Hudson et al. (2011) Promising C Promising
awareness intervention)
Developing Talkers Pre-K Curriculum Zucker et al. (2013) Promising C Preliminary
MiniLit Buckingham et al. (2012) Promising C Preliminary
Nursery Language 4 Reading Haley et al. (2017) Promising C Preliminary
Read Aloud Booster Puhalla (2011) Promising C Preliminary
Reading Recovery (Group formats) Schwartz et al. (2012) Promising C Preliminary
Road to Code Hund-Reid and Schneider (2013) Promising C Preliminary
Story Champs Spencer et al. (2015) Promising C Preliminary
Story Friends Goldstein et al. (2016); Kelley Promising B Preliminary
et al. (2015); independent
studies
(Continued)
NHMRC
CEBC Scientific Evidence Recommendation
Intervention Studies Rating Grade Customised rating
Triple Focus Reading Program Lovett et al. (2017) Promising C Preliminaryb
Unnamed (Phonics & Phonological Awareness) Bailet et al. (2009) Promising C Preliminary
Unnamed (SLT intervention) Boyle et al. (2009) Promising C Preliminary
Unnamed (multi-component reading skills intervention) Case et al. (2010) Promising C Preliminary
Unnamed (needs-aligned strands) Lonigan and Phillips (2016) two Promising B Preliminary
independent studies
Unnamed (oral language intervention) Phillips et al. (2016) Promising C Preliminary
Unnamed (storybook reading with “rich” instruction) Pullen et al. (2010) Promising C Preliminary
Unnamed (use of decontextualised manipulatives) Pullen and Lane (2014) Promising C Preliminary
Unnamed (phonological awareness and phonics Ryder et al. (2008) Supported C Preliminary
intervention)
Unnamed (invented spelling) Senechal et al. (2012) Promising C Preliminary
Words of Oral Language and Reading Development (WORLD) Pollard-Durodola et al. (2011) Promising C Preliminary
Early Reading Tutor Helf et al. (2009); (2014), Not Rateable C Weak
independent studies
Unnamed (multi-component reading skills intervention) Case et al. (2014) Not Rateable C Weak
Unnamed (Nursery-based SLT) Gallagher and Chiat (2009) Not Rateable C Weak
Unnamed (phonemic and alphabetic instruction) Vada sy and Sanders (2008b) Not Rateable C Weak
Comprehension Booster Horne (2017) Promising C Not adequately assessed
Intensive Phonological Awareness Program Schuele et al. (2008) Promising D Not adequately assessed
Mixed: Reading Mastery, Early Interventions in Reading, Read Kamps et al. (2008) Promising D Not adequately assessed
Well
Say-tell-do strategy Roskos and Burstein (2011) Promising D Not adequately assessed
Tutoring with Alphie Madden and Slavin (2017), p. 2 Promising D Not adequately assessed
independent studies
Unnamed (phonological awareness intervention) Kerins et al. (2010) Not Rateable D Not adequately assessed
Unnamed (storybook language skills intervention) Nielsen and Friesen (2012) Promising D Not adequately assessed
Unnamed (phonological awareness and phonics Ritter et al. (2013) Promising D Not adequately assessed
intervention)
Unnamed (oral language intervention) Westerveld and Gillon (2008) Promising D Not adequately assessed
a
The strength of evidence for PHAB+WIST/PHAB+RAVE-O (each administered separately) was rated very strong because in addition to CRCT-level evidence there is converging evidence from the
quasi-experimental study of the Triple Focus Program (where students received all three PHAB, WIST, and RAVE-O components together).
b
The strength of evidence for the Triple Focus Program was rated preliminary because the combined-administration of the three core components has been tested in a quasi-experimental trial
only.
99
100
Table 5. Componentry of shortlisted interventions.

Intervention & grade Process components Content focus Pedagogical strategies Implementer
Early Reading Intervention (4 studies covering 2 3–5 per group Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Sight Corrective Feedback, Modelling, Teachers, Reading Specialists
trials: Coyne et al., 2013; Little et al., 2012; 30 min, x5 p/week Words, Listening Comprehension, Explicit Instruction & Interactive & Paraprofessionals
Simmons et al., 2011; Simmons et al., 2014) ~26 weeks (126 lessons) Spelling & Writing Training: 2 days +IS
Kinder
Lonigan and Phillips (2016) Unnamed needs- 2–6 per group Code-aligned: Phonological Awareness Modelling, Mastery, Scaffolding & ‘Interventionists’ (university
S. GOLDFELD ET AL.
aligned intervention 15–40 min, x4 p/week & Phonics Interactive educated, discipline NR)
Pre-K 11 weeks Language-aligned: Syntax & Other: Alignment of content to Training: 7–20 h +IS
Vocabulary deficiency
Both: Students deficient in both
received both strands
PHAB+WIST (PHAST)/ 4 per group Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Self-monitoring, Meta-cognitive Teachers
PHAB+RAVE-O 60 min, x5 p/week Vocabulary, Syntax & Morphology Strategies, Mastery, Scaffolding, (mean experience: 7 years,
(Morris et al., 2012) ~14 weeks (70 sessions) Explicit Instruction, Interactive most in graduate courses)
Grade 2–3 Other: Attributional re-training Training: 1 week (trained
to competence) +IS
Read Well-Aligned 2–4 per group Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Sight Modelling, Mastery, Scaffolding, Reading Specialist Teachers
(2 trials: Wonder-mcdowell et al., 2011; Denton 30 min, x2–5 p/week Words, Fluency, Reading Explicit Instruction & Interactive (min 5 years experience)
et al., 2011) 8, 16, or 20 weeks Comprehension, Vocabulary & Training: 70 h + IS
Grades 1–2 Variations to frequency & Spelling Or
duration: Tutors
Condensed = x4, 8 weeks; Training: 12 h + IS
Distributed = x2, 16 weeks;
Extended = x4, 16 weeks
Ryder et al. (2008) Unnamed Phonological 3 per group Phonological Awareness & Phonics Modelling, Explicit Instruction & Teaching Assistant
Awareness & Phonics intervention 20–30 min, x4 p/week Interactive, Training: Yes, but NOS +IS
Grades 2–3 24 weeks (over 3 terms) Other: Manipulatives
Story Friends 3 per group Vocabulary & Narrative Modelling, Explicit Instruction & Automated Storybook
(Goldstein et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2015) 9–12 min, x3 p/week Interactive (educator or researcher
Pre-K 14–26 weeks supervises)
Training: NR
IS = implementation support (e.g. feedback during implementation or booster sessions or meetings once intervention being delivered); NOS = not otherwise specified; NR = not reported; ~ =
approximately (based on number of sessions and frequency)
For the most part, the content of the shortlisted interventions focused on multiple
language and reading components. Four of the interventions included instruction and
activities focused on a combination of phonological awareness (e.g. rhyming, identifying
syllables, isolating sounds for first and last letters, and blending and segmenting sounds),
phonics (e.g. letter-sound correspondence), reading fluency, listening comprehension
(e.g. following multi-step instructions and re-telling stories), vocabulary (e.g. targeting
semantic categories and concepts in a story), syntax rules and uses, and morphological
components. The other two each had a narrower focus, with one centred on instruction in
phonological awareness and phonics, and the other focusing on narrative development
with lessons incorporating vocabulary instruction (in unfamiliar words that occur fre
quently in spoken and written language), and language comprehension (using inferential
questions about story predictions and character emotions and actions).
Of the pedagogical strategies included in the shortlisted interventions, use of model
ling, explicit instruction, and interactive programming9 were reported most frequently
(each reported for five interventions), followed by scaffolding and mastery (reported for
three interventions). Use of self-monitoring, provision of corrective feedback, and meta-
cognitive strategies were less commonly reported, featuring in one intervention each.
Detailed, sequenced lessons and instructional scripts were utilised by four of the short
listed interventions, and materials, objects, and props (e.g. letter tiles, picture cards,
individual white boards) were used in three interventions to make abstract concepts
more concrete. Most shortlisted interventions were implemented either by teachers or
reading specialists or by teams that included teachers in addition to teaching assistants. It
is difficult to identify common characteristics regarding provider qualifications, previous
experience, and training as this was not well-reported. However, it appears that in most
cases, the interventions were implemented by personnel with relevant tertiary-level
qualifications (e.g. teachers, teaching assistants, reading specialists, paraprofessionals, or
tutors). Five of the six shortlisted interventions involved formal pre-intervention training;
however, the duration of training varied greatly, ranging from approximately 7 to 70 h. As
these interventions were being delivered, support for implementers was characterised by
some form of coaching (e.g. modelling, individualised feedback, regular meetings), and
three of the interventions also included formalised peer support (e.g. regular small-group
meetings, group email list/forum). However, the intensity of the implementation support
was not described in detail. There was one intervention that did not involve training and
support as this was an automated storybook supervised by an educator or researcher
(Story Friends) and was specifically designed to minimise the need for extensive training
or implementation support.
For pragmatic purposes, it is important to know not only which interventions have
a strong evidence-base, but whether they are well-received by stakeholders (such as
teachers, parents, and students) and are affordable. A quantitative evaluation of social
validity was presented by only seven of all included studies, and only two of the short
listed interventions (Early Reading Intervention and Story Friends). Both these interven
tions were rated positively by teachers, but parent and student perceptions were not
assessed. Detailed information about intervention costs was available for only two inter
ventions (Boyle, McCartney, O’Hare, & Forbes, 2009; Madden & Slavin, 2017), neither of
which was shortlisted.
Discussion
In this review, we aimed to identify which primary school- and preschool-based small-
group Tier 2 interventions are shown to improve oral language or reading outcomes for
children, supported by the strongest levels of evidence. Information regarding the inter
vention focus, frequency, duration, implementer, and group size is needed to inform
implementation decisions. There are important implications for who (and how many)
students are ultimately referred to more intensive interventions and special education
services (Wanzek et al., 2016).
Summary of evidence
Of the 55 studies included in the review, 44 (79%) reported some statistically significant
positive mean differences on relevant outcomes. However, only six interventions were
identified as having the strongest levels of evidence using one of the three strength of
evidence assessment tools (CEBC Scientific Evidence Rating, NHMRC Recommendation
Grade, and the Customised Evidence Rating) and shortlisted in this review: (a) Early
Reading Intervention; (b) Lonigan and Phillips (2016) Unnamed needs-aligned interven
tion; (c) PHAB+WIST (PHAST)/PHAB+RAVE-O; (d) Read Well-Aligned intervention; (e) Ryder
et al. (2008) Unnamed Phonological Awareness and Phonics intervention; and (f) Story
Friends. (See Tables 2–5 for study overviews, strength of evidence assessments, and core
componentry.)
When considering the componentry of the six shortlisted interventions, there is some
consistency regarding their content focus, structure, and implementation. This informa
tion about the componentry associated with the strongest Tier 2 language and reading
interventions for children in the early years of school is useful given there has been no
systematic review addressing this to date. The interventions shortlisted in this review
typically included content relating to phonological awareness, phonics, and vocabulary
instruction (in the context of language or literacy), and there was consistency regarding
the type of pedagogical strategies used (e.g. most interventions were considered “inter
active”, involving modelling, explicit instruction and scaffolding). Further, shortlisted
interventions are typically characterised by the following procedural components:
group size of approximately 3–5 students, meeting at least four times per week for
sessions lasting approximately 30 min, with an overall duration of around 3–6 months.
Intervention implementation was conducted/supervised by personnel with relevant qua
lifications and experience, but the duration of training provided to implementers varied
greatly, and the training details were not well reported overall. Information regarding
support for implementers as the intervention is delivered was also not always well
reported. It is important to know detailed information about training and the intensity
of implementation support required to deliver interventions that improve oral language
and reading because of the substantial cost implications (Hollands et al., 2016).
There are some important distinctions between the scope and methodology employed
in this review compared to the three notable previous reviews (Gersten et al., 2020, 2017;
Wanzek et al., 2016). The authors of the Wanzek et al., review searched just two databases
(ERIC and PsychINFO) between 1995 and 2013 and included 72 studies from 69 papers. In
contrast, in this review, we (a) focused on more recent research (i.e. 2008 to 2018); (b)
covered more databases; (c) used more search terms; (d) encompassed a slightly different
age range (i.e. included preschool studies, but not Grade 3s); (e) did not restrict selection
of interventions to those with 15–99 sessions; (f) defined Tier 2 interventions in terms of
group size, specifically small-group interventions, with explicit exclusion of one-to-one
interventions; and critically (g) took into account study quality/risk of bias. Although
information about level of confidence in causality was collected by Wanzek et al., this
information does not appear to have been used for the purpose of weighting studies in
the meta-analysis or in the interpretation of results.
The Gersten et al. (2017) review and meta-analysis (Gersten et al., 2020) included only
studies meeting What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards (and included one-to-one
interventions). Of the studies originally reviewed by Gersten et al. (2017) and Gersten et al.
(2020) almost all were reported to have positive or potentially positive effects. In the
Gersten et al. (2017) review, most of these interventions were implemented for 30–45 min
per day, 4–5 times a week, for 12–35 weeks. The Gersten et al. (2020) meta-analysis
provided less detail about intervention dosage, with hours per week described as ranging
from less than 1 h to 4 h and intervention duration not reported. Although the set of
interventions identified in the Gersten et al. reviews are different to those shortlisted by
this review, the finding concerning intervention dosage is broadly consistent.
Interestingly, the Gersten et al. reviews did not identify any interventions with positive
effects on vocabulary, whereas this review identified several – including some with strong
evidence.
Strengths and limitations

This review followed core steps and minimum requirements for restricted systematic
reviews (Pluddermann et al., 2018). Moreover, additional steps recommended for redu
cing risk of bias (Pluddermann et al., 2018) were taken, including verification of study
selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments by a second reviewer (for a random
sample of papers).
Three evidence rating systems were incorporated into this review, including
a customised strength of evidence assessment in order to provide a more nuanced picture
of the literature. Although the CEBC and NHMRC scales each identified several interven
tions with high evidence ratings, the bulk of studies align to a single category (38 of 47
interventions are rated Promising for the CEBC, and 35 are rated level C – the body of
evidence provides some support for the NHMRC assessment). In contrast, within the
intermediate levels of evidence, the customised rating system identified 9 interventions
as promising and 17 with preliminary evidence. This is a useful distinction to make when
there is a need to identify interventions that have demonstrated positive effects with
specific populations or on specific outcomes, and the top-rated interventions do not fit
these specifications. The customised assessment is also more sensitive to interventions
with weak evidence (it identifies 13 interventions as such, compared with 6–8 interven
tions for the CEBC and NHMRC scales, respectively).
Potential limitations should also be acknowledged. First, the search range for the
review was restricted to journal articles published from 2008 onwards. It is important to
note that (a) there was sufficient relevant literature published in this period to address the
review aims and questions, and (b) the recency of included literature increases the
applicability of findings to contemporary education systems. Second, the review focused

on experimental and quasi-experimental studies only. Although it is possible that effec
tive interventions other than those identified in this review exist, their effectiveness
cannot reliably be determined without rigorous evaluation design (demonstrating that
effects are indeed attributable to the intervention and not to other factors). Along
a similar line, the review included several studies that explicitly investigated the combined
effects of Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction (e.g. Chambers et al., 2011; Scanlon et al., 2008;
Smith et al., 2016; Wonder-mcdowell et al., 2011). In these studies, the intervention
involved manipulation of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction, rather than Tier 2 only. In
such cases conclusions about the small-group intervention cannot be made indepen
dently from the core instruction. However, this does not necessarily negate the utility of
the approach, nor school interest in the adoption of multi-tiered interventions. Finally, the
analysis of componentry focused on the best supported interventions rather than
a comparison of the more and less effective interventions. This approach is consistent
with best-evidence synthesis approaches used by other researchers in this field (e.g.
Gersten et al., 2017; Slavin et al., 2011). As Slavin and colleagues previously noted, this
type of approach is appropriate when the goal is to provide educators and policymakers
with a fair comparison of interventions.
Future directions
This review lays a good foundation for investigating the overall magnitude of small-group
Tier 2 oral language and reading interventions in the early primary school years. Meta-
analytic procedures could be used in future research to explore the magnitude of effects
for different populations (what works for who), different outcomes, and critically, different
componentry (e.g. implementer, dose and duration, content). The extent to which study
quality is related to effect sizes should also be considered in future meta-analytic inves
tigations of Tier 2 interventions.
Another avenue for future research will be to explore the extent to which Tier 2
interventions close oral language and literacy achievement gaps, and the proportion of
students for whom they do so. To allow comparison between interventions, this review
focused on examining differences in mean scores (i.e. students in the intervention groups
had on average better results). This does not go to the key questions of interventions for
language and reading difficulties. Future research may consider which interventions lead
to improved student scores and sustained impacts for those children no longer requiring
Tier 2 intervention. Analyses of this sort are not well-reported in the literature. Indeed, of
the studies included in this review, approximately only one-third reported either gap-
relevant data (e.g. comparison to a typically developing peer group or mean scores in
percentiles) or ideographic data (e.g. proportion of students meeting benchmark at
intervention completion). Further research is also needed to determine the long-term
maintenance of effects for most interventions (i.e. delayed follow-up testing beyond
12 months post-intervention). Finally, there is a need for continued updating of the
review as new studies are published and evidence increases for some programs (e.g.
the Enhanced Core Reading Intervention; Fien et al., 2020).
Conclusion and implications

Overall, the standard of research investigating Tier 2 oral language and reading interven
tions is limited and of variable quality. Only 14 of 55 studies met high-quality standards.
Clearly, there is a need for more rigorous evaluation of small-group Tier 2 oral language
and early reading classroom interventions for preschool to Grade 2 students.
Nevertheless, our analysis of the extant literature did identify several interventions for
which the evidence base can be considered strong. This information should be valuable to
researchers and intervention developers interested in identifying the core components of
effective intervention, to educators seeking to implement effective evidence-based inter
ventions in their schools, and policymakers responsible for guiding, and in some cases
mandating, particular resource-allocation decisions.
Notes
1. There is an important distinction between disorder and difficulty. Disorder is a categorical
definition based on a diagnosis whereby an individual experiences lifelong, pervasive diffi
culties and does not respond quickly or significantly to intensive intervention. In contrast, an
individual with a language or reading difficulty is more likely respond readily to intensive
intervention (Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training, n.d.).
2. We included both preschool and school settings as the age at which children start school
varies both within and across different national contexts (Krieg & Whitehead, 2015). Research
shows children who start school at a younger age relative to their peers tend to be more
developmentally vulnerable (Hanly et al., 2019), and we therefore expect that such children
may benefit from interventions tested with preschool children.
3. This criterion is not strictly consistent with the registered study protocol which stated that the
intervention must be delivered by regular school staff, and interventions delivered by allied
health professionals will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In practice, this review also
included researcher-delivered interventions as these were also considered to be feasible for
implementation by school staff.
4. We retained studies of the same samples if comparisons were different (e.g. intervention
versus usual practice in one publication, and intervention versus alternative program or
variation on same program in another publication).
5. A 15-item checklist was originally devised but four items were dropped as they were not
applicable to all included study designs or required complex judgments (e.g. risk of contam
ination taking into account multiple factors such as design, implementer, and type of
intervention).
6. It was originally anticipated that established frameworks might be somewhat insensitive to
the relative strength of evidence for the bulk of identified interventions (because these
frameworks require either long term follow-up evaluation or low risk of bias together with
cross-study consistency in findings for high ratings). Including three systems in the evidence
assessment allowed for an assessment of sensitivity, consistency across rating systems, and
comparison of results when different criteria are emphasised.
7. Within the CEBC ranking system, an intervention may be rated Supported if: “At least one
rigorous RCT in a usual care or practice setting has found the practice to be superior to an
appropriate comparison practice, and in that RCT, the practice has shown to have a sustained
effect of at least six months beyond the end of treatment, when compared to a control
group” (see www.cebc4cw.org/ratings/scientific-rating-scale). In the NHMRC ranking system
Level B evidence requires one or two RCTs with low risk of bias or multiple pseudo-
randomised controlled studies with low risk of bias demonstrating substantial clinical impact
and consistent results across most studies.
8. The term “studies” is not synonymous with “samples/trials”. Some studies present different
outcomes for the same trial (e.g. maintenance effects), or different comparisons for the same
sample (e.g. intervention vs. usual practice in one study, and intra-intervention comparisons
within another study).
9. “Interactive programming” refers to intervention involving students interacting with content/
materials in some way, for example, manipulating letter tiles, flexible exploring of computer
program, etc.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the North East Victoria Region, Schools and Regional Services,
Department of Education and Training, Victoria; Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools;
Catholic Education Sandhurst Ltd; Diocese of Sale Catholic Education Ltd; and Diocese of Ballarat
Catholic Education Limited. Research at the MCRI is supported by the Victorian Government's
Operational Infrastructure Support Program. SG is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship
(GNT1155290).We acknowledge the contribution of Catherine Lloyd-Johnsen to double-coding and
data extraction.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Catholic Education Sandhurst;Victorian Government Department of
Education and Training;Diocese of Ballarat Catholic Education Limited;Melbourne Archdiocese
Catholic Schools;
ORCID
Sharon Goldfeld http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6520-7094
Pamela Snow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2426-8349
Hannah Stark http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7755-8190
Patricia Eadie http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5555-8325
References
*Bailet, L. L., Repper, K., Piasta, S. B., & Murphy, S. P. (2009). Emergent literacy intervention for
prekindergarteners at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(4), 336–355.
*Boyle, J. M., McCartney, E., O’Hare, A., & Forbes, J. (2009). Direct versus indirect and individual versus
group modes of language therapy for children with primary language impairment: Principal
outcomes from a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. International Journal of
Language and Communication Disorders, 44(6), 826–846.
*Buckingham, J., Wheldall, K., & Beaman, R. (2012). A randomised control trial of a Tier-2 small-group
intervention (“Minilit”) for young struggling readers. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 17
(2), 79–99.
*Case, L., Speece, D., Silverman, R., Ritchey, K., Schatschneider, C., Cooper, D. H., . . . Jacobs, D. (2010).
Validation of a supplemental reading intervention for first-grade children. Journal of Learning
Difficulties, 43(5), 402–417.
*Case, L., Speece, D., Silverman, R., Schatschneider, C., Montanaro, E., & Ritchey, K. (2014). Immediate
and long-term effects of Tier 2 reading instruction for first-grade students with a high probability
of reading failure. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 28–53.
*Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Abrami, P., Logan, M. K., & Gifford, R. (2011). Small-group,
computer-assisted tutoring to improve reading outcomes for struggling first and second graders.
Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 625–640.
*Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Hagan-Burke, S., Simmons, L. E., Kwok, O., Kim, M., . . . Rawlinson, D. M.
(2013). Adjusting beginning reading intervention based on student performance: An experimen
tal evaluation. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 25–44.
*Denton, C. A., Cirino, P. T., Barth, A. E., Romain, M., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Francis, D.J., & Fletcher, J.
M. (2011). An experimental study of scheduling and duration of ”Tier 2” first-grade reading
intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(3), 208–230. doi:10.1080/
19345747.2010.530127
*Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Taylor, W. P., Barth, A. E., & Vaughn, S. (2014). An experimental
evaluation of Guided Reading and explicit interventions for primary-grade students at-risk for
reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3), 268–293.
*Denton, C. A., Kethley, C., Nimon, K., Kurz, T. B., Mathes, P., Minyi, S., & Swanson, E. A. (2010).
Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools.
Exceptional Children, 76(4), 394–416.
*Foorman, B. R., Herrera, S., & Dombek, J. (2018). The relative impact of aligning Tier 2 intervention
materials with classroom core reading materials in Grades K–2. Elementary School Journal, 118(3),
477–504.
*Gallagher, A. L., & Chiat, S. (2009). Evaluation of speech and language therapy interventions for
pre-school children with specific language impairment: A comparison of outcomes following
specialist intensive, nursery-based and no intervention. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders, 44(5), 616–638.
*Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L. A., & Cho, E. (2013).
Efficacy of a first-grade Responsiveness-to-Intervention prevention model for struggling readers.
Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135–154.
*Goldstein, H., Kelley, E., Greenwood, C., McCune, L., Carta, J., Atwater, J., . . . Spencer, T. (2016).
Embedded instruction improves vocabulary learning during automated storybook reading
among high-risk preschoolers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(3), 484–500.
*Haley, A., Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., & Fricke, S. (2017). Oral language skills
intervention in pre-school-a cautionary tale. International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders, 52(1), 71–79.
*Helf, S., Cooke, N. L., & Flowers, C. P. (2009). Effects of two grouping conditions on students who are
at risk for reading failure. Preventing School Failure, 53(2), 113–128.
*Helf, S., Cooke, N., & Konrad, M. (2014). Advantages of providing structured supplemental reading
instruction to kindergarteners at risk for failure in reading. Preventing School Failure, 58(4),
214–222.
*Horne, J. K. (2017). Reading comprehension: A computerized intervention with primary-age poor
readers. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 23(2), 119–140.
*Hudson, R. F., Isakson, C., Richman, T., Lane, H. B., & Arriaza-Allen, S. (2011). An examination of a
small-group decoding intervention for struggling readers: Comparing accuracy and automaticity
criteria. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 15–27.
*Hund-Reid, C., & Schneider, P. (2013). Effectiveness of phonological awareness intervention for
kindergarten children with language impairment. Canadian Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology and Audiology, 37(1), 6–25.
*Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J. (2008). Effects of
small-group reading instruction and curriculum differences for students most at risk in
kindergartenL: Two-year results for secondary- and tertiary-level interventions. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 101–114.
*Kelley, E. S., Goldstein, H., Spencer, T. D., & Sherman, A. (2015). Effects of automated Tier 2
storybook intervention on vocabulary and comprehension learning in preschool children with
limited oral language skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 47–61.
*Kerins, M. R., Trotter, D., & Schoenbrodt, L. (2010). Effects of a Tier 2 intervention on literacy
measures: Lessons learned. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 26(3), 287–302.
*Lee, W., & Pring, T. (2016). Supporting language in schools: Evaluating an intervention for children
with delayed language in the early school years. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 32(2),
135–146.
*Little, M. E., Rawlinson, D., Simmons, D. C., Kim, M., Kwok, O., Hagan-Burke, S., . . . Coyne, M. D.
(2012). A comparison of responsive interventions on kindergarteners’ early reading achievement.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 189–202.
*Lonigan, C. J., & Phillips, B. M. (2016). Response to instruction in preschool: Results of two
randomized studies with children at significant risk of reading difficulties. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 108(1), 114–129.
*Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early
intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and
individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7),
889–914.
*Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (2017). Evaluations of technology-assisted small-group tutoring for
struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(4), 327–334.
*Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R. A., Steinbach, K. A., Frijters, J. C., & Shapiro, M. B.
(2012). Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeco
nomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2),
99–127.
*Nielsen, D., & Friesen, L. D. (2012). A study of the effectiveness of a small-group intervention on the
vocabulary and narrative development of at-risk kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 33(3),
269–299.
*Oostdam, R., Blok, H., & Boendermaker, C. (2015). Effects of individualised and small-group guided
oral reading interventions on reading skills and reading attitude of poor readers in grades 2–4.
Research Papers in Education, 30(4), 427–450.
*Phillips, B. M., Tabulda, G., Ingrole, S. A., Burris, P., Sedgwick, T., & Chen, S. (2016). Literate language
intervention with high-need prekindergarten children: A randomized trial. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 59(6), 1409–1420.
*Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Gonzalez, J. E., Simmons, D. C., Kwok, O., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., . . .
Simmons, L. (2011). The effects of an intensive shared book-reading intervention for preschool
children at risk for vocabulary delay. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 161–183.
*Puhalla, E. M. (2011). Enhancing the vocabulary knowledge of first-grade children with supple
mental booster instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 471–481.
*Pullen, P. C., & Lane, H. B. (2014). Teacher-directed decoding practice with manipulative letters and
word reading skill development of struggling first grade students. Exceptionality, 22(1), 1–16.
*Pullen, P. C., Tuckwiller, E. D., Konold, T. R., Maynard, K. L., & Coyne, M. D. (2010). A tiered
intervention model for early vocabulary instruction: The effects of tiered instruction for young
students at risk for reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(3), 110–123.
*Ritter, M. J., Park, J., Saxon, T. F., & Colson, K. A. (2013). A phonologically based intervention for
school-age children with language impairment: Implications for reading achievement. Journal of
Literacy Research, 45(4), 356–385.
*Roskos, K., & Burstein, K. (2011). Assessment of the design efficacy of a preschool vocabulary
instruction technique. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(3), 268–287.
*Ryder, J. F., Tunmer, W. E., & Greaney, K. T. (2008). Explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and
phonemically based decoding skills as an intervention strategy for struggling readers in whole
language classrooms. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 349–369.
*Schuele, C. M., Justice, L. M., Cabell, S. Q., Knighton, K., Kingery, B., & Lee, M. W. (2008). Field-based
evaluation of two-tiered instruction for enhancing kindergarten phonological awareness. Early
Education and Development, 19(5), 726–752.
*Schwartz, R. M., Schmitt, M. C., & Lose, M. K. (2012). Effects of teacher-student ratio in Response to
Intervention approaches. Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 547–567.
*Senechal, M., Ouellette, G., Pagan, S., & Lever, R. (2012). The role of invented spelling on learning to
read in low-phoneme awareness kindergartners: A randomized-control-trial study. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 917–934.
*Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O., Simmons, L., Johnson, C., . . .
Crevecoeur, Y. C. (2011). Effects of supplemental reading interventions in authentic contexts:
A comparison of kindergarteners’ response. Exceptional Children, 77(2), 207–228.
*Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Oslund, E., Simmons, L. E., Coyne, M. D., Little, M. E., . . . Kim, M. (2014).
Predictors of at-risk kindergarteners’ later reading difficulty: Examining learner-by-intervention
interactions. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27(3), 451–479.
*Smith, J. L. M., Nelson, N. J., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Kosty, D. (2016). Examining the
efficacy of a multitiered intervention for at-risk readers in Grade 1. The Elementary School Journal,
116(4), 549–573.
*Spencer, T. D., Petersen, D. B., & Adams, J. L. (2015). Tier 2 language intervention for diverse
preschoolers: An early-stage randomized control group study following an analysis of Response
to Intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(4), 619–636.
*Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer-assisted
instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two
instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40–56.
*Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008a). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for
reading difficulties: A replication and comparison of instructional groupings. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(9), 929–963.
*Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008b). Repeated reading intervention: Outcomes and interactions
with readers’ skills and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 272–290.
*Westerveld, M. F., & Gillon, G. T. (2008). Oral narrative intervention for children with mixed reading
disability. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 24(1), 31–54.
*Wonder-mcdowell, C., Reutzel, D. R., & Smith, J. A. (2011). Does instructional alignment matter?:
Effects on struggling second graders’ reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 112(2),
259–279.
*Zucker, T. A., Solari, E. J., Landry, S. H., & Swank, P. R. (2013). Effects of a brief tiered language
intervention for prekindergartners at risk. Early Education and Development, 24(3), 366–392.
Adolf, S. M., & Hogan, T. P. (2019). If we don’t look, we won’t see: Measuring language development
to inform literacy instruction. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 210–217.
Australian Disability Clearinghouse on Education and Training. (n.d.). Learning difficulty versus
learning disability. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://www.adcet.edu.au/disability-
practitioner/reasonable-adjustments/disability-specific-adjustments/specific-learning-disability
/learning-difficulty-versus-learning-disability/
Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment:
Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 858886.
Bond, C., Wood, K., Humphrey, N., Symes, W., & Green, L. (2013). Practitioner review: The effective
ness of solution focused brief therapy with children and families: A systematic and critical
evaluation of the literature from 1990-2010. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(7),
707–723.
Buckingham, J. K. W., Wheldall, K., & Beaman-Wheldall, R. (2013). Why Jaydon can’t read: The
triumph of ideology over evidence in teaching reading. Policy: A Journal of Public Policy and
Ideas, 29(3), 21. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/04/
images/stories/policy-magazine/2013-spring/29-3-13-jennifer-buckingham.pdf
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice
to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.
CEBC. (2016). The California evidence-based clearinghouse scientific rating scale. Retrieved August
24, 2020, from https://www.cebc4cw.org/files/OverviewOfTheCEBCScientificRatingScale.pdf
Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2008). Emotional health in adolescents with and without a history
of specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 516–525.
Cronin, P., Reeve, R., McCabe, P., Viney, R., & Goodall, S. (2020). Academic achievement and
productivity losses associated with speech, language and communication needs. International
Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 55(5), 734–750.
Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language: Why language
is central to reading development. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 305–310.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test–third edition. Bloomington, MN:
Pearson Assessments.
Eadie, P., Conway, L., Hallenstein, B., Mensah, F., McKean, C., & Reilly, S. (2018). Quality of life in
children with developmental language disorder. International Journal of Language and
Communication Disorders, 53(4), 799–810.
Eadie, P., Nguyen, C., Carlin, J., Bavin, E., Bretherton, L., & Reilly, S. (2014). Stability of language
performance at 4 and 5 years: Measurement and participant variability. International Journal of
Speech Language Pathology, 49(2), 215–227.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S., & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn
to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 71(3), 393–447.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic
awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s
meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Tejero Hughes, M., & Watson Moody, S. (2000). How effective are one-to-one
tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis
of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619.
Fien, H., Nelson, N. J., Smolkowski, K., Kosty, D., Pilger, M., Baker, S. K., & Smith, J. L. M. (2020).
A conceptual replication study of the enhanced core reading instruction MTSS-reading model.
Exceptional Children, 87(3), 265–288.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, J., & Davis, G. N. (2008). Making “secondary interven
tion” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade
longitudinal reading study of the national research center on learning disabilities. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 413–436.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to intervention. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how valid is
it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99.
Gakidou, E., Cowling, K., Lozano, R., & Murray, C. J. L. (2010). Increased educational attainment and its
effects on child mortality in 175 countries between 1970 and 2009: A systematic analysis. The
Lancet, 376(9745), 959–974.
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010). Expediating systematic reviews: Methods and implica
tions of rapid reviews. Implementation Science, 5(1), 56.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D.
(2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier interven
tion for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://ies.
ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-analysis of the
impact of reading interventions for students in the rimary Grades. Journal of Research on
Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427.
Gersten, R., Newman-Gonchar, R., Haymond, K., & Dimino, J. (2017). What is the evidence base for
response to intervention in reading in grades 1-3? Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/ED573686.pdf
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.). Eugene,
OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special
Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Graham, S. L., Xinghua, L., Aitken, A., Ng, C., Bartlett, B., Harris, K., & Holzapfel, J. (2018). Effectiveness
of literacy programs balancing reading and writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Reading Research
Quarterly, 53(3), 279–304.
Hall, S. L. (2018). 10 success factors for literacy intervention: Getting results with MTSS in elementary
schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hanly, M., Edwards, B., Goldfeld, S., Craven, R. G., Mooney, J., Jorm, L., & Falster, K. (2019). School
starting age and child development in a state-wide population-level cohort of children in their
first year of school in New South Wales, Australia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 48, 325–340.
Heckman, J. J., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children.
Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 29(3), 446–493.
Hempenstall, K. (2016). Read About It: Scientific evidence for effective teaching of reading. Research
Report 11. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://www.cis.org.au/publications/research-reports
/read-about-it-scientific-evidence-for-effective-teaching-of-reading/
Hempenstall, K. (2013). What is the place for national assessment in the prevention and resolution of
reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 18(2), 105–121.
Hendricks, A. E., Adolf, S. M., Alonzo, C. N., Fox, A. B., & Hogan, T. P. (2019). Identifying children at risk
for developmental language disorder using a brief, whole-classroom screen. Journal of Speech,
Language & Hearing Research, 62(4), 896–908.
Hiller, S., Grimmer-Somers, K., Merlin, T., Middleton, P., Salisbury, J., Tooher, R., & Weston, A. (2011).
FORM: An Australian method for formulating and grading recommendations in evidence-based
clinical guidelines. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), 23.
Hollands, F. M., Kiefferb, M. J., Shanda, R., Pana, Y., Chenga, H., & Levin, H. M. (2016). Cost-
effectiveness analysis of early reading programs: A demonstration with recommendations for
future research. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(1), 30–53.
Industry Skills Council Australia. (2011). No more excuses: An industry response to the language,
literacy and numeracy challenge. Australia: Industry Skills Council.
Kelly, S., Moher, D., & Clifford, T. (2016). Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: An
exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 79.
Krieg, S., & Whitehead, K. (2015). Where are the early years of school in contemporary early child
hood education reforms? An historical perspective. Australian Educational Researcher, 42(3),
319–333.
Law, J., Rush, R., Schoon, I., & Parsons, S. (2009). Modeling developmental language difficulties from
school entry into adulthood: Literacy, mental health, and employment outcomes. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(6), 1401–1416.
Le, D. N. H., Le, K. D. L., Nguyen, P., Mudiyanselage, S., Eadie, P., Mensah, F., . . . Gold, L. (2020). Health-
quality of life, service utilisation and costs of low language: A systematic review. International
Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 55(1), 3–25.
Lonigan, C. J., Schatschneider, C., & Westberg, L. (2008). Impact of code-focused interventions on
young children’s early literacy skills. In Developing early literacy: A scientific synthesis of early
literacy development and implications for interventions (pp. 107–151). Washington, DC: National
Institute for Literacy.
Lyon, G. R. (2003). Reading disabilities: Why do some children have difficulty learning to read? What
can be done about it? Perspectives, 29(2), Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://www.wrights
law.com/info/read.disability.lyon.pdf
Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s
word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335.
Maughan, B., Messer, J., Collinshaw, S., Pickles, A., Snowling, M. J., Yule, W., & Rutter, M. (2009).
Persistence of literacy problems: Spelling in adolescence and at mid-life. The Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(8), 893–901.
McKean, C., Wraith, D., Eadie, P., Cook, F., Mensah, F., & Reilly, S. (2017). Subgroups in language
trajectories from 4 to 11 years: The nature and predictors of stable, improving and decreasing
language trajectory groups. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 58(10), 1081–1091.
Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. (2010). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 217–225.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and
grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal
study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing Early Literacy: A Scientific Synthesis of Early Literacy
Development and Implications for Interventions. National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved August
24, 2020, from https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
NICE. (2012). Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition). Retrieved
August 24, 2020, from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/chapter/introduction
Norbury, C. F., Gooch, D., Wray, C., Baird, G., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., . . . Pickles, A. (2016). The
impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder:
Evidence from a population study. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(11),
1247–1257.
Pfeiffer, S., Davis, R., Kellog, E., Hern, C., McLaughlin, T., & Curry, G. (2001). The effect of the Davis
Learning Strategies on first grade word recognition and subsequent special education referrals.
Reading Improvement, 38(2), 1–19. RetrievedAugust 24, 2020, from https://www.davislearn.com/
research/Effect_of_Davis_Learning_Strategies.pdf
Piasta, S., & Wagner, R. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning
and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 8–38.
Pluddermann, A., Aaronson, J. K., Onakpoya, I., Heneghan, C., & Mahtani, K. R. (2018). Redefining
rapid reviews: A flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence Based
Medicine, 23(6), 201–203.
Renfrew, C. (1988). Word Finding Vocabulary Scale — (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Author.
Renfrew, C. (1997). Action Picture Test — (4th ed.). Bicester, UK: Winslow.
Rhodes, C. M., Cordie, L., & Wooten, M. (2019). An examination of social capital among US Adults:
Patterns that facilitate social well-being as measured by PIAAC. International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research, 18(2), 1–12.
Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Vellutino, F. R., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J. M. (2008). Reducing
the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers
versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 346–359.
Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P. (2007). Utilization of the PICO framework
to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision
Making, 7(1), 16.
Sedgwick, A., & Sothard, J. (2019). A systematic review of school-based, mainstream, oral language
interventions for Key Stage 1 children. Support for Learning, 33(4), 360–387.
Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (2000). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – (Third ed.).
London, UK: Harcourt Assessment/Psychological Corporation.
Shepley, C., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support for preschool-aged children:
A review and meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 296–308.
Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. A. (2011). Effective programs for struggling readers: A
best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1–26.
Snow, P. C. (2016). Elizabeth Usher Memorial Lecture: Language is literacy is language - Positioning
speech-language pathology in education policy, practice, paradigms and polemics. Internatinal
Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 18(3), 216–228.
Snow, P. C. (2019). Speech-language pathology and the youth-offender: Epidemiological overview
and roadmap for future speech-language pathology research and scope of practice. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(2), 324–339.
Snow, P. C. (2020). SOLAR: The Science of Language and Reading. Child Language Teaching and
Therapy. doi:10.1177/0265659020947817
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2012). Annual Research Review: The nature and classification of reading
disorders- a commentary on proposals for DSM-5. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 53(5),
593–607.
Spira, E. G., Bracken, S. S., & Fischel, J. E. (2005). Predicting improvement after first-grade reading
difficulties: The effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental
Psychology, 41(1), 225.
St Clair, M. C., Pickles, A., Durkin, K., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2011). A longitudinal study of behavioral,
emotional and social difficulties in individuals with a history of specific language impairment
(SLI). Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(2), 186–199.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in
the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In
M. R. Shinn, G. Stoner, and H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems:
Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 315–350). Silver Spring, MD: National Association for
School Psychologists.
Tomblin, B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., & O’Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of
Specific Language Impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 40(6), 1245–1260.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Examiner’s
manual. Austin, TX: Pro–Ed.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S., & Blozis, S. A. (2003).
Reading instruction groups for students with reading difficulties. Remedial and Special Education,
24(5), 301–315.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing:
Examiner manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013).
Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of
Educational Research, 83(2), 163–195.
Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M., & Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the
effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in Grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3),
551–576.
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery–Revised.
Boston, MA: Teaching Resources.
Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Zettler-Greeley, C. M., Bailet, L. L., Murphy, S., DeLucca, T., & Branum-Martin, L. (2018). Efficacy of the
Nemours Brightstart! early literacy program: Treatment outcomes from a randomized trial with
at-risk prekindergartners. Early Education and Development, 29(6), 873–892.

Tier 2 Oral Language and Early Reading Interventions For Preschool To Grade 2 Children A Restricted Systematic Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tier 2 Oral Language and Early Reading Interventions For Preschool To Grade 2 Children A Restricted Systematic Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rald20

Tier 2 oral language and early reading

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2021.2011754

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa View supplementary material

Published online: 30 Dec 2021. Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7948 View related articles

View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Tier 2 oral language and early reading interventions for

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Sharon Goldfeld sharon.goldfeld@rch.org.au

Long-term and broader impact of oral language and literacy difficulties

Prevalence of oral language and literacy difficulties

Social and economic cost of oral language and literacy difficulties

Importance of early intervention in the preschool and primary school setting

Education policy context

avoidable” level of illiteracy in students is due to “poorly conceived government policies

instruction, and 15% are adequately served by small-group intervention, leaving 5%

Overview of Tier 2 oral language and reading intervention

Early childhood context

Primary school context

Rationale for this review

As per the registered study protocol (PROSPERO; CRD42019126121), at both the

Study quality and intervention-level evidence assessment

Table 1. Customised evidence rating system.

Figure 1. Search and selection process.

fluency, Identification, Word post-test or

Journeys Strategic Directions, Sentence Trend: SA>E for

(tests 1:1 vs. (PSF), Nonsense Word

delivered (PSF), Nonsense Word η2= 0.06; NWF

RAPT Grammar Test NRg)

(classes NR) Intervention (very strong Fluency, Phoneme SM:0.59 (p = .06)

Experiment 2 TA-supervised tier) combined with teacher assessed

Neale accuracy d =0.81

decodable text) WRMT: Word Attack,

Table 3. Characteristics of the included studies.

Synthesis: shortlist of interventions

Table 4. Strength of evidence assessments for each intervention.

and Connecticut study with

Table 5. Componentry of shortlisted interventions.

Strengths and limitations

applicability of findings to contemporary education systems. Second, the review focused

Conclusion and implications

You might also like