Tier 2 oral language and early reading interventions for preschool to grade 2 children: a restricted systematic review

Figures & data

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 size^a, statistically significant positive effects equivalent to Cohen’s d of 0.25^b 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 assessed	RCT/CRCT/QED with high risk of bias, or critical flaw.
Contraindicated	Study shows consistent pattern of negative effect.

^a n ≥50 students in each condition.

^bConsistent 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.

Table 2. List of included studies.

Study	Design	N^a	Grade (age)^b	Schools (classes)	Intervention	Comparison(s)	Measures	Relevant results (effect sizes)^c	Study quality^e	Relative strength of positive evidence^f
Bailet, Repper, Piasta, and Murphy (2009)	CRCT	217	Pre-K	NR (38 classes)	Unnamed (targets: Phonological awareness & Phonics) Teacher-delivered	Usual Practice (waitlist, NOS)	20-item early literacy skills	ns	Mod	Preliminary
							Get it, Got it, Go (PA)	0.44
Boyle et al. (2009)	RCT	161	NR (6–11)	NR	Unnamed – language (targets: language comprehension, vocabulary, narrative) SLT or Assistant-delivered	Usual Practice & Same intervention (1 community-based SLT vs. 4 school-based) Schools: (group vs. 1:1) x (SLT vs. Assistant)	CELF: Expressive	Groups vs. UP: 0.37, p <.10 @PT ns @ f/up 4 school-based: ns	High	Preliminary
							Receptive	Groups vs. UP: ns @ both PT & 1 year f/up 4 school-based: ns
Buckingham, Wheldall, and Beaman (2012)	RCT	22	K-2	1 school	MiniLit (Australia) Teacher/TA-delivered	Usual Practice (Tier 1)	Burt Word Reading Test	η2= 0.36, p <.05	Mod	Preliminary
							South Australian Spelling Test	ns
							Non-Word Reading	η^2= 0.59, p <.05
							Wheldall Assessment of Reading	ns
Case et al. (2010)	RCT	30	1	3 schools (9 classes)	Unnamed (targets: PA, phonics, spelling, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension) RAs with teaching experience	Usual Practice (Tier 1)	CTOPP: Rapid Letter Naming, Elision WRMT: Word Attack, Word Identification Researcher-designed: Letter Sound Fluency; Decodable Word Fluency; Word Identification Fluency; Spelling	Trends only: Word Attack (d = 0.86, p = .07) Word Identification (d = 0.49, p <.10)	Mod	Preliminary
Case et al. (2014)	RCT	123	1	NR (15 classes)	Unnamed (targets: PA, phonics, spelling, vocab, fluency, comprehension) Graduate RA-delivered	Usual Practice (strong Tier 1)	TOWRE: Phonemic Decoding Efficiency WRMT: Word Identification, Word Attack Other: Word Spelling	No significant mean group differences @ post-test or 1 year f/up	High	Weak
Chambers et al. (2011)	CRCT	195 177	1 2	33 schools (classes NR)	Team Alphie (computer-based) Teacher-supervised	Alternative intervention (1:1 Success for All tutoring)	WRMT:	+ve (Grade 1s)	Mod	Promising
							Letter-Word Ident.	0.17, p = .05
							Word Attack	0.21, p = .04
							Passage Comprehension	0.15, p = .05
								Grade 2s: ns
Coyne et al. (2013)	RCT	103	K	9 schools (40 classes)	Early Reading Intervention Reading specialist & TA-delivered	Same intervention (tests flexible delivery componentry)	WRMT: Supplementary Letter Checklist, Word Attack, Word Identification, Passage Comprehension CTOPP: Sound Matching, Blending Words DIBELS: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency Others: Passage fluency (ORF); Test of Written Spelling	Sig. +ve @post-test: WRMT (0.54–0.76) & ORF (0.46) +ve @ 1 year follow-up: all WRMT (0.39–0.64), Spelling (ES = .69) & ORF (ES = .61). ES = Hedges’ g	High	Strong
Denton, Fletcher, Taylor, Barth, and Vaughn (2011)	RCT	192	1	9 schools (32 classes)	Read Well-Aligned Tutor-delivered	Same intervention (frequency & duration componentry)	WJIII: Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Spelling, Passage Comprehension TOWRE: Word Reading Efficiency, GRADE: Passage Comprehension	All ns	Mod	Preliminary
Denton et al. (2014)	RCT	218	1–2	9 schools (classes NR)	Fountas & Pinnell Guided Reading Teacher & Tutor-delivered	Both usual practice (UP) & alternative intervention (explicit instruction: EI)	WJII: Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension TOWRE: Sight Word Reading, Phonemic Decoding Efficiency Texas Primary Reading Inventory: Progress Monitoring for Beginning Readers) Gates-MacGinitie: Reading Comprehension; Silent Reading Efficiency, Comprehension	Sig. +ve GR>UP Letter-Word Identification (d = 0.32). Sig. +ve EI>UP on all WJII: Letter-Word Identification (d = 0.33), Word Attack (d = 0.59) & Passage Comprehension (d = 0.46)	High	Promising
Denton et al. (2010)	RCT	507	1	31 schools (classes NR)	Responsive Reading Intervention Teacher-delivered	Usual practice (multi-tier NOS)	CTOPP: Blending, Segmenting TOWRE: Sight Word Efficiency, Phonemic Decoding WJIII: Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Spelling, Passage comprehension Comprehensive Monitoring of Early Reading Skills: Oral Reading	+ve sig on all measures except CTOPP segmenting (ESs: 0.12– 0.72)	High	Strong
Foorman, Herrera, and Dombek (2018)	CRCT	3447	K-2	55 schools (classes NR)	Composite interventions: Embedded (Curious About Words & Journeys Strategic Intervention) vs. Stand Alone (Sound Partners, Bridge of Vocabulary & Language in Motion) Teacher & TA-delivered	Alternative interventions (Tier 2)	Florida Reading Assessment: Phonological Awareness (K); Word Reading, Vocabulary, Following Directions, Sentence comprehension (K, 1, 2); Spelling (2) SESAT: Word Reading (K), Sentence Reading (K), SAT: Reading Comprehension (1,2) Grade 1 & 2 assessments ARE NOT follow-ups, they are separate cohorts.	Sig: Stand Alone > Embedded on Spelling (g = 0.18) Trend: SA>E for sentence comprehension All others ns for full sample	High	Promising
Gallagher and Chiat (2009)	RCT	24	Pre-K	NR	General approach: Nursery-based consultative SLT model (NB) Teacher with SLT-delivered	Both No Treatment (waitlist) & alternative (intensive clinical SLT)	Reynell Developmental Scales III: comprehension of grammar British Picture Vocabulary Scales Renfrew Tests: Action Picture Test (expressive language), Word Finding Test (expressive vocabulary)	NB>waitlist ns, except parent-report impact scores, p < .01, but ESs positive for all measures (ds 0.06–1.6) CLINICAL SLT>NB (p < .05): receptive grammar, receptive & expressive vocabulary & expressive information. ES: NR for clinical vs. school.	Mod	Weak
Gilbert et al. (2013)	RCT	212	1	11 schools (69 classes)	Unnamed (targets: PA, phonics, sight words, spelling, fluency) Trained graduates-delivered	Both usual practice (Tier 1) & alternative (Tier 3 for non-responders)	Word Reading (latent construct from multiple measures including: TOWRE Sight Word Reading Efficiency, Phonemic Decoding Efficiency; & WRMT Word Attack, Word Identification)	Tier 2 > Tier 1 (d = 0.19, p <.05 @ PT; ns @ 1 & 2 year f/up). Tier 2 = Tier 3	High	Promising
Goldstein et al. (2016)	CRCT	163	Pre-K	NR (32 classes)	Story Friends (automated embedded vocabulary & comprehension instruction) Educator-supervised	Control (same storybooks but no instruction)	Researcher-designed: Unit Vocabulary Test (treatment aligned), Comprehension (proximal) Standardised: CELF & PPVT	+ve sig effect on Tx aligned Vocabulary only (large Cohen f) All others ns	High	Preliminary
Haley, Hulme, Bowyer-Crane, Snowling, and Fricke (2017)	RCT	103	Pre-K	13 preschools	Nursery Language 4 Reading (L4R) TA-delivered	Waitlist (NOS)	CELF-Preschool 2: Sentence Structure, Vocabulary Renfrew: Action Picture Test (expressive) York Assessment of Reading Comprehension: listening comprehension, Core Letter subset, phonemic awareness (alliteration), Early Word Reading, Other: taught vocabulary test	Standardised measures ns +ve sig: naming taught words (d = 1.04, p < .001) & definitions (d = 0.66, p <.001)	Mod	Preliminary
Helf, Cooke, and Flowers (2009)	CRCT	54	1	3 schools (classes NR)	Early Reading Tutor TA-delivered	Same intervention (tests 1:1 vs. group delivery)	DIBELS: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)	All ns	Mod	Weak
Helf, Cooke, and Konrad (2014)	QED	303	K	14 schools (classes NR)	Early Reading Tutor Teacher & TA-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 2)	DIBELS: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)	Sig time x group (p < .01): PSF η^2= 0.06; NWF η^2= 0.05	Low	Weak
Horne (2017)	RCT	38	NR (6–11 years)	2 schools (classes NR)	Comprehension Booster program (computer-based) Researcher with Teacher & TA-supervised	Usual practice (multi-tier)	Neale Analysis of Reading Ability: accuracy, fluency, comprehension	Sig group x time effects: accuracy (time d = 0.79 for Tx, ns for Co); comprehension (time d = 0.68 for Tx, ns for Co)	Low	Not adequately assessed
Hudson, Isakson, Richman, Lane, and Arriaza-Allen (2011)	RCT	58	2	7 schools (classes NR)	Unnamed (focus: repeated reading, PA, phonics) Teacher, TA, Volunteer, Uni-Student-delivered	Same intervention (componentry: reading cues for accuracy or accuracy & speed (A vs. AS)	KTEA II: decoding accuracy TOWRE: Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (PDE) DIBELS: reading fluency WJIII: comprehension Researcher designed: automaticity measure (RDAM)	Sig. effect: AS>A PDE (d = 0.88) RDMA (d = 0.80) A>AS for comprehension (d = −0.70)	High	Promising
Hund-Reid and Schneider (2013)	RCT	37	K	9 schools (10 classes)	Road to Code TA-delivered	Usual practice (NOS)	DIBELS:	+ve sig. effect @ post-test & 1 month respectively	Mod	Preliminary
							Initial Sound Fluency	d = 2.17, 1.33
							Phonemic Segmentation Fluency	d = 1.39, 1.25
							Letter Naming Fluency	d = 0.72 (ns), 1.06
							Nonsense Word Fluency	d = 1.47, 1.50
Kamps et al. (2008)	QED	83	K-2	8 schools (classes NR)	Direct Instruction programs: Reading Mastery, Early Interventions in Reading & Read Well) Teacher & TA-delivered	Alternative interventions (Tier 2 Guided Reading, Programmed Reading & Open Court interventions)	DIBELS: Nonsense Word Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, WRMT: Word Identification (WI), Word Attack, Passage Comprehension (comp)	DI>GR sig: NWF (d = 0.66). WI & WA (Grades 1 & 2). Comp (Grade 2)	Low	Not adequately assessed
Kelley, Goldstein, Spencer, and Sherman (2015)	RCT	18	Pre-K	3 preschools (3 classes)	Story Friends Researcher-supervised	Usual practice (NOS)	PPVT CELF Researcher-designed: vocabulary (intervention-aligned) comprehension (inferential & literal)	+ve sig. RD-only: vocabulary (d = 1.37 to 2.62) inferential comprehension. (d = 1.10) All others ns.	Mod	Preliminary
Kerins, Trotter, and Schoenbrodt (2010)	RCT	23	1	1 school (classes NR)	Unnamed (comprised adaptation of Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing & Orton-Gillingham programs) SLT & Special Ed Teacher-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 1 only)	TOWRE Other: Individual Language Assessment (county-based phonological awareness measure)	All ns	Low	Not adequately assessed
Lee and Pring (2016)	CRCT	180	K-2	18 schools (10 classes)	Talk Boost TA-delivered	Usual practice (waitlist)	Renfrew: Renfrew Action Picture Test RAPT Grammar Test	Sig. group x time effects (both p = .001, ES: NR^g)	Mod	Promising
Little et al. (2012)	RCT	90	K	8 schools (classes NR)	Early Reading Intervention Reading specialist & Teacher-delivered	Usual practice (very strong Tier 2)^h	DIBELS: Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency WRMT: Word Identification, Word Attack, Supplementary Letter Checklist CTOPP: Sound Matching (SM), Rapid Object Naming, Blending Words Test of Written Spelling: spelling Mac Gets Well reading test	Trends only: SM:0.59 (p = .06) Spelling: 0.50 (p = .08) Some sig ideographic differences	Mod	Preliminary
Lonigan and Phillips (2016) Experiment 1	RCT	93	Pre-K	12 preschools (classes NR)	Unnamed (focus: needs-aligned intervention: code-based, language or both)	Usual practice (strong Tier 1)	CELF-Preschool TERA-3 Other: Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological & Print Processing (researcher designed), Code & Language Intervention Post-test (curriculum-aligned assessment)	Trend: CELF Expressive Language; language-intervention> UP (p = .09, d = 0.27). CLIP Letter Names Test; code-focused> UP (p = .07, d = 0.25)	High	Preliminary
Lonigan and Phillips (2016) Experiment 2	RCT	184	Pre-K	19 preschools (classes NR)	Unnamed (focus: needs-aligned intervention: code-based, language or both) Implementer NR	Usual practice (strong Tier 1)	CELF-Preschool TERA-3 Other: Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological & Print Processing (researcher designed), Code & Language Intervention Post-test (curriculum-aligned assessment)	+ve sig. RD-only: language-Tx > UP & code-Tx>UP (ds = 0.21−0.5, ps <.05). Note: analyses only included outcomes targeted.	Mod	Preliminary
Lovett et al. (2017)	QED	219	1–3	NR	Triple Focus Reading Program (PHAB + WIST + RAVE-O) Special Ed Teachers-delivered	Usual practice (NOS) Componentry: Grade at intervention	WRMT: Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension WRAT: Reading SRI: Reading Comprehension TOWRE: Sight Word Efficiency, Phonemic Decoding Efficiency GORT: Reading Comprehension PIAT: Spelling Others: phonics & vocabulary.	Sig +ve Tx effects on all 14 reading measures (mean d = 0.80 standardised, 1.69 for others).	Mod	Preliminary (QED)
Madden and Slavin (2017) Experiment 1	CRCT	427	1–3	14 schools (classes NR)	Tutoring with Alphie (computer program) TA-supervised	Usual practice (limited multi-tier)	Success for All periodic reading assessment combined with teacher observation & classwork progress.	Sig +ve Tx effect: d = 0.46	Low	Not adequately assessed
Madden and Slavin (2017) Experiment 2	CRCT	478	1–3	13 schools (classes NR)	Tutoring with Alphie (computer program) TA-supervised	Usual practice (limited multi-tier)	Success for All periodic reading assessment combined with teacher observation & classwork progress.	Sig +ve Tx effect: d = 0.40	Low	Not adequately assessed
Morris et al. (2012)	CRCT	279	2–3	NR	PHAB+RAVE-O, PHAB+WIST (PHAST)^i Vs. Class skills + Math (PT only) PHAB+ Class skills (PT & FU) Teacher-delivered	Alternative interventions: (language & non-language) (Tier 2)	WRMT: Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension; Wide Range Achievement Test Reading, Spelling, Arithmetic TOWRE: Word Reading Efficiency Non-Word Reading Gray Oral Reading Test	Consistent significant +ve @ post-test & 1 year f/up. Effect sizes NR but calculation from F values indicates large effects @ post-test^j	Mod	Promising
Nielsen and Friesen (2012)	QED	28	K	1 school (3 classes)	Unnamed (focus: storybook-based vocabulary & narrative) Post-graduate RA-delivered	Usual practice (NOS)	TOLD: vocabulary, semantics TNL: Narrative Comprehension, Oral Narration Treatment-aligned tests: Taught vocabulary Narrative	Sig +ve Tx effect for RD-only: vocabulary	Low	Not adequately assessed
Oostdam, Blok, and Boendermaker (2015) Experiment 2	RCT	139	2–4	8 schools (classes NR)	General approach: Group-based Guided Oral Reading TA-delivered	Usual practice (some Tier 2)	Dutch versions of standardised:	Sig +ve effect:	Mod	Promising
							Reading Fluency	p < .05^k
							Comprehension	ns
							Vocabulary (PPVT)	ns
							Other: Reading Attitude (7 items)	p < .05
Phillips et al. (2016)	RCT	42	Pre-K	5 preschools (10 classes)	Unnamed (oral language focus: syntactic & sematic features)	Usual practice (multi-tier)	CELF-P2: sentence structure OWLS: receptive language composite (sematic, syntactic & supra-linguistic features) WJIII: Picture Vocabulary Test Others (researcher-developed): Intervention Aligned Assessment (IAA: receptive & expressive language), Listening Comprehension (LC)	Sig +ve for RD measures: (IAA g = 0.88; LC Units 3–4 g = .78 Trends: OWLS g = 0.31 (p = .07), LC Units 1 & 2 g = 0.37 (p = .08).	High	Preliminary
Pollard-Durodola et al. (2011)	CRCT	125	Pre-K	6 preschools (classes NR)	Words of Oral Reading & Language Development (WORLD) Teacher-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 1)	PPVT: receptive vocabulary EOWPVT: expressive vocabulary Others (researcher-designed): Receptive Vocabulary (Tx aligned) Expressive Vocabulary	Sig +ve effects: RD measures only	Mod	Preliminary
Puhalla (2011)	RCT	44	1	5 schools (classes NR)	Read Aloud Booster Teacher-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 1: Read Aloud class curriculum)	Researcher-designed: storybook vocabulary assessment (child defines taught words)	Sig +ve effect: Tx>UP η^2= 0.46	Mod	Preliminary
Pullen and Lane (2014)	RCT	98	1	9 schools (classes NR)	Unnamed (focus: decoding with manipulative letters) Teacher-delivered (pre- & in-service)	Both usual practice (Tier 1) & Same program (no manipulatives [NM]) Componentry: manipulatives	WDRB: Sight Words Informal: real & pseudoword decoding, Phonological Awareness (PA) Sight words	Sig +ve effect RD only: Tx>NM (d = 0.42 PA; 0.56 decoding real words) Tx>UP (d = 0.43 PA; 0.70 decoding pseudo words; 0.80 informal test of sight words)	Mod	Preliminary
Pullen, Tuckwiller, Konold, Maynard, and Coyne (2010)	RCT	98 at-risk	1	3 schools (12 classes)	Unnamed (focus: vocabulary in shared storybook reading with rich instruction) Education student-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 1) & not-at-risk comparison	Researcher-designed Tx-aligned vocabulary tests:	Sig +ve effect: Post-test:	Mod	Preliminary
							Receptive	d = 0.37
							Contextual	d = 0.64
							Expressive	ns
								Follow-up (4 weeks): planned contrasts ns
Ritter, Park, Saxon, and Colson (2013)	QED	64	1–3	3 schools	Unnamed (focus: narrative-based, PA & phonics instruction) SLT-delivered	Alternative intervention (traditional language therapy – no PA)	WDRB: Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension CTOPP: Blending Words, Blending Nonwords	Sig group x time effects all measures (Tx pre-post sig; Control ns): (Tx pre-post gain η^2 = 0.40–0.61) Tx>control (0.57–0.72 for blending; 0.51–0.58 for word-level reading skills).	Low	Not adequately assessed
Roskos and Burstein (2011)	QED	74	Pre-K	NR (12 classes)	General Approach: Say-Tell-Do vocabulary strategy Literacy-coach, Teacher, TA-delivered	Usual practice (classroom only)	PPVT: vocabulary Researcher-designed Tx-aligned: Expressive Vocabulary (EV) Receptive Vocabulary (RV)	Sig +ve effect: PPVT post-test (d = 0.58, p = .03); RD gain: (receptive d = 0.68; expressive d = 0.45)	Low	Not adequately assessed
Ryder et al. (2008)	RCT	24	2–3	1 school (4 classes)	Unnamed (focus: PA & phonics) TA-delivered	Usual practice (New Zealand whole-language analytic phonics)	At post-test:	Sig. Tx>UP	Mod	Preliminary
							Phonemic awareness	1.71
							Pseudo word decoding	1.69
							Burt Word Reading	0.88
							Neale accuracy	0.70
							Neale comprehension	0.98
							2-year follow-up:
							Burt Word Reading	d =0.72
							Neale accuracy	d =0.81
Schuele et al. (2008)	QED	36	K	3 schools (6 classes)	Intensive Phonological Awareness Program SLT-delivered Tier 2 component	Usual practice (Tier 1)	Phonological Awareness Literacy Skills for Kindergarteners test: Rhyme Awareness, Beginning Sound Awareness, Alphabet Knowledge; Letter Sounds; & Word Recognition in Isolation; & a Spelling measure	Spelling (p =.016, eta squared =0.16) NS for Letter Sound Knowledge & Word Recognition; others NR	Low	Not adequately assessed
Schwartz et al. (2012)	RCT	170	1	NR	Reading Recovery (group formats 1:2, 1:3 and 1:5 vs. 1:1) Special Ed Teacher-delivered	Same intervention (componentry: group size)	Sloson Oral Reading Test-Revised Other: Clay Observation Survey: Text Reading Level Ohio Word Test Hearing and Recording Sounds in Word Letter Identification Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary	Sig group x time effects: SORT-R & all Clay subtests except Letter Identification On six of seven tests 1:1 > small groups combined But Post-hoc tests: 1:1 = 1:2 & 1:3 on several measures Small group comparisons: ns	Mod	Preliminary
Senechal, Ouellette, Pagan, and Lever (2012)	RCT	56	K	6 schools (classes NR)	Unnamed (focus: Invented spelling [IS]) Implementer NR	Both usual practice (storybook reading [SR]) & Alternative (phonemic awareness training – no printed letters [PA])	CTOPP: composite from Sound Matching, Elision, & Blending Words Researcher-designed: Alphabet knowledge, Word reading, Invented Spelling & Learn-to-Read	Sig +ve effects IS+PA>SR on CTOPP (0.45) IS> others combined for Learn-to-Read (0.50) & Invented Spelling (0.58).	Mod	Preliminary
Simmons et al. (2011)	CRCT	206	K	12 Schools (57 classes)	Early Reading Intervention Reading specialists, Teacher & TA-delivered	Usual practice (strong Tier 2)		Sig Tx effects	Mod	Promising
							CTOPP:
							Blending Words	0.40
							Sound Matching	0.42
							DIBELS:
							Phoneme Segmentation Fluency	0.47
							Nonsense Word Fluency	ns
							WRMT:
							Supplementary Letter Checklist	0.36–0.41
							Word Attack	0.51
							Word Identification	ns
							Passage Comprehension	ns
							TOWRE:
							Phonemic Decoding Efficiency	ns
							Sight Word Efficiency	ns
							Test of Written Spelling:
							spelling	ns
								(all ES Hedges’ deltaT)
Simmons et al. (2014)	CRCT	368	K	22 schools (classes NR)	Early Reading Intervention Reading specialists, Teacher & TA-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 2)	2-year follow-up: DIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency WRMT: Word Identification, Passage Comprehension	Regression: Intervention ns	Mod	Weak (but 2-year follow-up, not immediate post-test)
Smith et al. (2016)	CRCT	811	1	44 schools (classes NR)	Enhanced Core Reading Instruction (ECRI; multi-tiered curriculum-aligned) Reading-specialists, Teachers & TA-delivered	Usual practice (strong Tier 2 but un-aligned with class content)	Fall-Spring gain	*Sig +ve effects (g)	Mod	Promising
							SESAT:
							Total	0.21, ns
							Word Reading, Sentence Reading	0.24* 0.18, ns
							DIBELS:
							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. (2015)	RCT	22	Pre-K	NR (3 classes)	Story Champs (focus: oral narrative) RA-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 1)	Narrative Language Measure (NLM) The Renfrew Bus Story Other: Personal Stories	Sig +ve Tx effects: NLM d = 1.05 @ PT, & 0.86@ 4 weeks f/up; Renfrew 1.04 @ PT, ns @ f/up, ns for personal stories	Mod	Preliminary
Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Herron, and Lindamood (2010)	RCT	112	1	3 schools (classes NR)	Read, Write & Type (RWT) & Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LIPS) (data combined) Teacher & computer-delivered	Both usual practice (multi-tier) & alternative	CTOPP: elision, blending words, segmenting words, rapid digit & rapid letter naming; WRMT: Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage Comprehension TOWRE: sight word efficiency; GORT: text reading accuracy, text reading fluency, comprehension WRAT: Spelling	RWT =LIPS all measures; Sig Tx Effects RWT/LIPS>UP@ PT: phonological awareness, rapid naming, decoding, spelling, & comprehension (d =0.17–0.77) RWT/LIPS>UP @ 1 year: decoding, rapid naming, spelling (0.43–0.66)	Mod	Promising
Vadasy and Sanders (2008a)	RCT	188	2–3	13 schools (classes NR)	Quick Reads TA-delivered	Usual practice (Tier 1)	WRMT: Word Identification TOWRE: Sight Word Efficiency DIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency GORT: Fluency, Comprehension	Sig. +ve Tx effects: on all fluency measures (p <.05, ds 0.29–0.43) No effects on word reading or comprehension.	High	Strong
Vadasy and Sanders (2008b)	QRCT	86 rel.	K	13 schools (30 classes)	Unnamed (focus: integrated explicit phonemic & alphabetic instruction with decodable text) TA-delivered	Both usual practice (no treatment) & alternative (1:1 tutoring)	DIBELS: Letter Name Fluency CTOPP: Phonological Awareness composite; Phonemic Decoding & Sight Word Efficiency WRMT: Word Attack, Word Identification, Passage Comprehension WRAT: Spelling Oral reading fluency (ORF): Mac Gets Well	Relevant comparisons: 1:2 vs. 1:1 (ns) & 1:2 vs. control (not reported).	Mod	Weak
Westerveld and Gillon (2008)	QED	10	NR (7–9 years)	NR (‘2 sites’)	Unnamed (focus: oral language story structure instruction) SLT-delivered	Usual practice (waitlist, New Zealand system)	Test of Oral Narrative (scoring does not appear to be standardised procedure)	Sig +ve Tx effects for oral narrative comp’n (1.55) & production (1.89), & verbal fluency (1.65)	Low	Not adequately assessed
Wonder-mcdowell et al. (2011)	RCT	133	2	11 schools (classes NR)	Read Well-Aligned (multi-tier; Tier 1 & Tier 2 aligned) Reading specialists & Teacher-delivered	Same intervention (Tier 2 Read Well unaligned with class content)		Sig +ve Tx (η^2):	High	Strong
							DIBELS: Oral Reading Fluency	0.17
							WRMT:
							Word Attack	0.13
							Word Identification	0.08
							Passage Comprehension	0.18
Zettler-Greeley, Bailet, Murphy, DeLucca, and Branum-Martin (2018)	CRCT	476	Pre-K	114 preschools (classes NR)	Nemours BrightStart! Implementer-unclear, implies teacher	Usual practice (waitlist)		+ve Tx effects:	High	Promising
							GRTR: letter knowledge & PA	0.39
							Test of Preschool Early
							Literacy: Print Knowledge	0.74
							Elision	0.46,
							Blending	−0.13
							ALL: Rhyme Knowledge	0.37
								(Hedges’ g)
Zucker, Solari, Landry, and Swank (2013)	CRCT	125	Pre-K	NR (39 classes)	Developing Talkers: Pre-K curriculum Educator-delivered	Usual practice (some Tier 2).	Tx-aligned measure: C-PALLS: Rapid Vocabulary Naming	Sig. +ve Tx effect d = 0.81	Mod	Preliminary

^aNumber 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).

^bAge is provided if grade was not reported.

^cResults 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.

^dThe content of this column reflects only the results relevant to our research questions, not results for other research questions addressed by the studies.

^eStudy 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+%).

^fThis 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.

^gUsing reported mean, standard deviation, and sample size information, ES is calculated as d =0.56 for RAPT, and 0.34 for Grammar.

^hThe 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.

ⁱPHAB =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.

^jContrasts 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.

^kEffect 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 3^rd 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.

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 other^a 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

^aOr variation of the same intervention.

Table 4. Strength of evidence assessments for each intervention.

Intervention	Studies	CEBC Scientific Evidence Rating	NHMRC Recommendation Grade	Customised rating
Early Reading Intervention	Coyne et al. (2013) intervention componentry analysis; Little et al. (2012) Florida study; Simmons et al. (2011); Simmons et al. (2014) Texas and Connecticut study with outcomes at end-Kinder and Grade 2, respectively	Well Supported	B	Very Strong
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); Denton et al. (2011); independent studies	Promising	C	Very Strong
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 awareness intervention)	Hudson et al. (2011)	Promising	C	Promising
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 et al. (2015); independent studies	Promising	B	Preliminary
Triple Focus Reading Program	Lovett et al. (2017)	Promising	C	Preliminary^b
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 independent studies	Promising	B	Preliminary
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 intervention)	Ryder et al. (2008)	Supported	C	Preliminary
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), independent studies	Not Rateable	C	Weak
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 Well	Kamps et al. (2008)	Promising	D	Not adequately assessed
Say-tell-do strategy	Roskos and Burstein (2011)	Promising	D	Not adequately assessed
Tutoring with Alphie	Madden and Slavin (2017), p. 2 independent studies	Promising	D	Not adequately assessed
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 intervention)	Ritter et al. (2013)	Promising	D	Not adequately assessed
Unnamed (oral language intervention)	Westerveld and Gillon (2008)	Promising	D	Not adequately assessed

^aThe 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).

^bThe 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.

Table 5. Componentry of shortlisted interventions.

Intervention & grade	Process components	Content focus	Pedagogical strategies	Implementer
Early Reading Intervention (4 studies covering 2 trials: Coyne et al., 2013; Little et al., 2012; Simmons et al., 2011; Simmons et al., 2014) Kinder	3–5 per group 30 min, x5 p/week ~26 weeks (126 lessons)	Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Sight Words, Listening Comprehension, Spelling & Writing	Corrective Feedback, Modelling, Explicit Instruction & Interactive	Teachers, Reading Specialists & Paraprofessionals Training: 2 days +IS
Lonigan and Phillips (2016) Unnamed needs-aligned intervention Pre-K	2–6 per group 15–40 min, x4 p/week 11 weeks	Code-aligned: Phonological Awareness & Phonics Language-aligned: Syntax & Vocabulary Both: Students deficient in both received both strands	Modelling, Mastery, Scaffolding & Interactive Other: Alignment of content to deficiency	‘Interventionists’ (university educated, discipline NR) Training: 7–20 h +IS
PHAB+WIST (PHAST)/ PHAB+RAVE-O (Morris et al., 2012) Grade 2–3	4 per group 60 min, x5 p/week ~14 weeks (70 sessions)	Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Vocabulary, Syntax & Morphology	Self-monitoring, Meta-cognitive Strategies, Mastery, Scaffolding, Explicit Instruction, Interactive Other: Attributional re-training	Teachers (mean experience: 7 years, most in graduate courses) Training: 1 week (trained to competence) +IS
Read Well-Aligned (2 trials: Wonder-mcdowell et al., 2011; Denton et al., 2011) Grades 1–2	2–4 per group 30 min, x2–5 p/week 8, 16, or 20 weeks Variations to frequency & duration: Condensed = x4, 8 weeks; Distributed = x2, 16 weeks; Extended = x4, 16 weeks	Phonological Awareness, Phonics, Sight Words, Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary & Spelling	Modelling, Mastery, Scaffolding, Explicit Instruction & Interactive	Reading Specialist Teachers (min 5 years experience) Training: 70 h + IS Or Tutors Training: 12 h + IS
Ryder et al. (2008) Unnamed Phonological Awareness & Phonics intervention Grades 2–3	3 per group 20–30 min, x4 p/week 24 weeks (over 3 terms)	Phonological Awareness & Phonics	Modelling, Explicit Instruction & Interactive, Other: Manipulatives	Teaching Assistant Training: Yes, but NOS +IS
Story Friends (Goldstein et al., 2016; Kelley et al., 2015) Pre-K	3 per group 9–12 min, x3 p/week 14–26 weeks	Vocabulary & Narrative	Modelling, Explicit Instruction & Interactive	Automated Storybook (educator or researcher 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)

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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 experimental evaluation. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 25–44.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Google Scholar

*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.

 Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Madden, N. A., & Slavin, R. E. (2017). Evaluations of technology-assisted small-group tutoring for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(4), 327–334.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(2), 99–127.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Puhalla, E. M. (2011). Enhancing the vocabulary knowledge of first-grade children with supplemental booster instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 471–481.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised/Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

 Google Scholar

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery–Revised. Boston, MA: Teaching Resources.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: Pro–Ed.

 Google Scholar

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing: Examiner manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

 Google Scholar

Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (2000). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – (Third ed.). London, UK: Harcourt Assessment/Psychological Corporation.

 Google Scholar

Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test–third edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments.

 Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. (1988). Word Finding Vocabulary Scale — (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Author.

 Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. (1997). Action Picture Test — (4th ed.). Bicester, UK: Winslow.

 Google Scholar