Interprofessional delivery of Read It Again – KindergartenQ!: Classroom, educator, and child outcomes of an Australian pilot study

Figures & data

Table I. Outcome measurements used to evaluate intervention fidelity and child, educator, and environmental changes.

Outcome	Tool/task	Subskills/behaviours measured	Data derived
Intervention agents
Implementation fidelity	Implementation fidelity checklist (adapted from Albritton et al., 2018; see Supplementary Materials 3)	Centre demographics (centre ID, participating educator) Number of children participating Lesson number Adherence to lesson plan (number of steps, target words/sounds) Teaching practices (introduce and demonstrate learning objective, child engagement, opportunities for children to demonstrate, scaffolding and supporting children’s learning, materials, pace)	Overall fidelity percentage per lesson
Children
Phonological awareness	Preschool and Primary Inventory of Phonological Awareness (PIPA; Dodd et al., 2000)	Syllable segmentation Rhyme awareness Alliteration awareness Phoneme identification Phoneme segmentation Letter knowledge	Standard scores
Narrative	Cubed Narrative Language Measures (NLM; Petersen & Spencer, 2016)	Story retell Story comprehension Story generation	Standard scores
Print knowledge	Preschool Word and Print Awareness assessment (PWPA; Justice et al., 2006)	Parts of a book (cover, title etc.) Print vs. pictures Print directionality Purpose of print Letters and letter identification	Raw and composite scores
Oral language	Play-based language sampling	Mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLU) Number of different words (NDW) Moving average NDW Percent utterances with errors	Raw values Raw values Raw values Percentage
Educators
Communication styles and literacy practices	Interaction, Communication, and Literacy Skills Audit (ICL; El-Choueifati et al., 2011)	Positive and responsive adult-child interaction Explicit literacy instruction Developing storytelling skills Encouraging group participation Fostering peer-to-peer interaction Developing responsive family involvement	Raw scores (average frequency of use of each skill domain)
Use of the intervention	Levels of Use interview (LoU; Hall et al., 2006)	0 Non-use (little or no knowledge of the intervention) I Orientation (learning about the intervention) II Preparation (preparing to use the intervention) III Mechanical (superficial implementation, little time for reflection of mastery) IVA Routine (regular and automatic use of the intervention) IVB Refinement (adapting the intervention for maximum benefit to the children) V Integration (sharing knowledge with others) VI Renewal (evaluating and modifying the intervention)	Descriptive/categorical
Environment
Quality of the language and literacy environment	Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO; Smith et al., 2008)	The language environment Books and book reading environment Print and early writing environment	Raw scores (Likert scale)

Table II. Participant and outcome overview (children).

N = 25		Pre-intervention		Post-intervention
Variable assessed		M (SD)	Range	M (SD)	Range
Demographic
Educator assignment	ECE1 (n = 11) ECE2 (n = 14)
Number of Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lessons/week	1 (n = 17) 2 (n = 8)
Age in months		51.21 (6.73)	37.49–61.40	56.21 (6.73)	42.49–66.4
Outcome variables
PIPA
Syllable segmentation		9.36 (2.87)	5–16	10.88 (3.58)	4–17
Rhyme awareness		9.25 (2.75)	5–17	8.75 (2.54)	4–14
Alliteration awareness		8.75 (2.75)	3–15	10.63 (3.17)	6–17
Phoneme identification		11.18 (3.28)	6–17	11.81 (3.36)	6–17
Phoneme segmentation		10.13 (2.42)	8–16	9.7 (2.08)	8–16
Letter knowledge		9.06 (2.35)	5–14	8.6 (2.37)	5–14
CUBED NLM
Story retell		6.83 (4.99)	0–14	4.79 (4.60)	0–13
Story comprehension		7.17 (3.85)	0–12	6.54 (3.28)	0–11
Story generation		11.42 (7.68)	0–24	11.88 (10.25)	0–35
PWPA
Raw scores		7.5 (4.68)	1–15	10.74 (4.22)	2–17
Composite scores		101.23 (20.60)	63–134	116.65 (21.53)	74–161
Language sample analysis
MLU		3.51 (1.02)	2.12–5.62	3.61 (0.70)	2.34–5.09
NDW		120.30 (36.71)	46–173	119 (27.95)	71–165
Moving average NDW		54.96 (4.83)	46–63	54.83 (5.20)	43–63
% of utterances with errors		10.55 (5.04)	4.4–26	10.66 (4.69)	4.3–28

Note. PIPA = Preschool and Primary Inventory of Phonological Awareness (Dodd et al., 2000); CUBED NLM = CUBED Narrative Language Measures (Petersen & Spencer, 2016); PWPA = Preschool Word and Print Awareness (Justice et al., 2006); MLU = mean length of utterance; NDW = number of different words.

Table III. Variance explained by fixed effects of time, educator, and lessons received.

	Model 1 (time + educator)		Model 2 (time + educator + lessons)
Variable	Marginal R^2	Conditional R^2	Marginal R^2	Conditional R^2
PIPA
Syllable segmentation	9.3%	18%	16%	19%
Rhyme awareness	2.9%	6.5%	12.9%	12.9%
Alliteration awareness	10.4%	10.4%	15.97%	15.97%
Phoneme identification	3.1%	15.5%	19.85%	19.85%
Phoneme segmentation	3.2%	3.2%	9.3%	9.3%
Letter knowledge	9.6%	9.6%	11.8%	11.8%
CUBED NLM
Story retell	9.1%	77%	21.5%	78.2%
Story comprehension	1.6%	57.8%	11.2%	61.2%
Story generation	0.6%	88.2%	20.5%	88.8%
PWPA
Raw score	13%	62%	19%	62%
Composite score	14.8%	77.7%	19%	77%
Language sample
MLU	1.7%	42.7%	15.3%	42.5%
NDW	0.8%	60%	17.6%	59.67%
Moving average NDW	3.7%	30.3%	13.6%	48.7%
% of utterances with errors	0.43%	94%	7.2%	7.2%

Note. PIPA = Preschool and Primary Inventory of Phonological Awareness (Dodd et al., 2000); CUBED NLM = CUBED Narrative Language Measures (Petersen & Spencer, 2016); PWPA = Preschool Word and Print Awareness (Justice et al., 2006); MLU = mean length of utterance; NDW = number of different words.

Figure 1. Data collection flowchart.

Figure 2. A to F: ggplot visualisations for phonological awareness skills (ECE1 on the left and ECE2 on the right; one Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lesson per week on top and two Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lessons per week on the bottom).

Note. Sseg = syllable segmentation; RA = rhyme awareness; AA = alliteration awareness; PI = phoneme identification; PS = phoneme segmentation; LK = letter knowledge.

Figure 3. A to C: ggplot visualisations for narrative skills (ECE1 on the left and ECE2 on the right; one Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lesson per week on top and two Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lessons per week on the bottom).

Note. retell_perc = story retell percentage; comprehension = story comprehension score; generation = story generation score.

Figure 4. A to B: ggplot visualisations for print knowledge (ECE1 on the left and ECE2 on the right; one Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lesson per week on top and two Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lessons per week on the bottom).

Note. PKWA_raw = print knowledge and word awareness raw scores; PKWA_composite = print knowledge and word awareness composite scores.

Figure 5. A–D: ggplot visualisations for expressive language skills (ECE1 on the left and ECE2 on the right; one Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lesson per week on top and two Read It Again – KindergartenQ! lessons per week on the bottom).

Note. utt_with_errors_perc = percent utterances with errors; MLU_morphemes = mean length of utterance in morphemes; NDW = number of different words; moving_average_NDW = moving average number of different words.

Figure 6. ECEs frequency of use of language and literacy promoting strategies pre- and post-intervention.

Note. ○ denotes statistically significant improvement for ECE1 from pre- to post-intervention; Δ denotes ECE1 was demonstrating significantly greater use of the strategy than ECE2 post-intervention.

Figure 7. Dimensions of classroom environment and instructional quality pre- and post-intervention.

Albritton, K., Patton Terry, N., & Truscott, S. D. (2018). Examining the effects of performance feedback on preschool teachers’ fidelity of implementation of a small-group phonological awareness intervention. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 34(5), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1456990

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dodd, B., Crosbie, S., McIntosh, B., Teitzel, T., & Ozanne, A. (2000). The preschool and primary inventory of phonological awareness (PIPA). Psychological Corporation,

 Google Scholar

Petersen, D. B. & Spencer, T. D. (2016). CUBED Assessment (Narrative Language Measures & Dynamic Decoding Measures). Language Dynamics Group. https://www.languagedynamicsgroup.com/cubed-assessment-download/

 Google Scholar

Justice, L. M., Bowles, R. P., & Skibbe, L. E. (2006). Measuring preschool attainment of print-concept knowledge: A study of typical and at-risk 3-to 5-year-old children using item response theory. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(3), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/024)

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

El-Choueifati, McCabe, Munro, Galea, Purcell. (2011). The Interaction, Communication & Literacy Skills Audit. Bankstown Community Resource Group & The University of Sydney.

 Google Scholar

Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: Levels of use. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

 Google Scholar

Smith, M., Brady, J., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2008). Early language and literacy classroom observation tool. Pre-K (ELLCO Pre-K).

 Google Scholar