Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Oral Language Interventions on the Vocabulary and Listening Comprehension Development of Young Children

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the components of oral language (OL) instruction and meta-analyze the effects of OL instruction on vocabulary and listening comprehension (LC) skills. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies with 3- to 6-year-old children at risk for reading difficulties based on economic disadvantage or poor performance on OL assessments. Additionally, included studies had to report using at least one vocabulary or LC outcome measure. From the 16 eligible studies, we computed 80 standardized mean differences (SMDs), ranging from 2 to 14 SMDs per study (Mdn = 4). The multivariate weighted average SMD with robust variance yielded a positive effect of 0.52 (95% CI = 0.29 – 0.76), indicating OL instruction significantly improved children’s vocabulary and LC. Although measure type, intervention session length and frequency, and publication type were explored as moderators, only outcome skill and measure type were significant. Findings suggest it is feasible for classroom teachers to implement effective OL practices.

KEYWORDS:

• At-risk students
• early childhood
• language comprehension
• meta-analysis
• vocabulary

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [Anna S. Gibbs], upon reasonable request.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2024.2369126.

Notes

1. Although not the aim of the present study, we also examined the two outcome types separately and report those findings in the supplementary material. Specifically, a forest plot of effect sizes modeled solely for the vocabulary outcomes is provided in Supplementary Figure 2, and a forest plot of the model solely for the LC outcomes is provided in Supplementary Figure 3. Note that the more appropriate comparison of the two outcomes is through the moderator analysis reported here.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Iowa Department of Education [001321].