Comparison of Two Reading Feedback Strategies in Improving the Oral and Written Language Performance of Children With Language-Learning Disabilities Twelve school-age children with language-learning disabilities (LLD) participated in a study comparing the effects of two reading feedback strategies for improving their oral and written language performance. Children were matched for age, disability, gender, and general reading performance. Participants were assigned to one of three study groups, Treatment 1 (T1), ... Research Article
Research Article  |   February 01, 2003
Comparison of Two Reading Feedback Strategies in Improving the Oral and Written Language Performance of Children With Language-Learning Disabilities
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Linda K. Crowe, PhD
    Kansas State University, Manhattan
  • Contact author: Linda K. Crowe, PhD, Kansas State University, School of Family Studies and Human Services, 317 Justin Hall, Manhattan, KS, 66506-1403. E-mail lcrowe@ksu.edu.
Article Information
Development / School-Based Settings / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Research Articles
Research Article   |   February 01, 2003
Comparison of Two Reading Feedback Strategies in Improving the Oral and Written Language Performance of Children With Language-Learning Disabilities
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2003, Vol. 12, 16-27. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/049)
History: Received December 1, 2000 , Accepted January 8, 2002
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2003, Vol. 12, 16-27. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/049)
History: Received December 1, 2000; Accepted January 8, 2002
Web of Science® Times Cited: 7

Twelve school-age children with language-learning disabilities (LLD) participated in a study comparing the effects of two reading feedback strategies for improving their oral and written language performance. Children were matched for age, disability, gender, and general reading performance. Participants were assigned to one of three study groups, Treatment 1 (T1), Treatment 2 (T2), or Control (C). Children were pre- and posttested on standardized tests of reading and oral vocabulary. T1 and T2 participated in 6 weeks of reading intervention. T1 used traditional decoding-based feedback strategies, and T2 used meaning-based feedback strategies, termed Communicative Reading Strategies (CRS). Significant differences across groups were found for reading comprehension, oral reading, and expressive vocabulary measures. Pairwise comparisons indicated that T2 performed significantly better than T1 and C on reading comprehension at posttest. Though not reaching levels of significance, T2 made greater gains than T1 and C on oral reading and expressive vocabulary measures. Results are discussed with implications for using CRS (T2) with school-age poor readers.

Acknowledgment
This research was supported in part by a Kansas State University Small Research Grant.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access