A randomized controlled trial of an early-intervention, computer-based literacy program to boost phonological skills in 4- to 6-year-old children

Background: Many school-based interventions are being delivered in the absence of evidence of effectiveness (Snowling & Hulme, 2011, Br. J. Educ. Psychol., 81, 1).Aim: This study sought to address this oversight by evaluating the effectiveness of the commonly used the Lexia Reading Core5 intervention, with 4- to 6-year-old pupils in Northern Ireland.Sample: A total of 126 primary school pupils in year 1 and year 2 were screened on the Phonological Assessment Battery 2nd Edition (PhAB-2). Children were recruited from the equivalent year groups to Reception and Year 1 in England and Wales, and Pre-kindergarten and Kindergarten in North America.
Methods: A total of 98 below-average pupils were randomized (T0) to either an 8-week block (inline image = 647.51 min, SD = 158.21) of daily access to Lexia Reading Core5 (n = 49) or a waiting-list control group (n = 49). Assessment of phonological skills was completed at post-intervention (T1) and at 2-month follow-up (T2) for the intervention group only.
Results: Analysis of covariance which controlled for baseline scores found that the Lexia Reading Core5 intervention group made significantly greater gains in blending, F(1, 95) = 6.50, p = .012, partial η2 = .064 (small effect size) and non-word reading, F(1, 95) = 7.20, p = .009, partial η2 = .070 (small effect size). Analysis of the 2-month follow-up of the intervention group found that all group treatment gains were maintained. However, improvements were not uniform among the intervention group with 35% failing to make progress despite access to support. Post-hoc analysis revealed that higher T0 phonological working memory scores predicted improvements made in phonological skills.
Conclusions: An early-intervention, computer-based literacy program can be effective in boosting the phonological skills of 4- to 6-year-olds, particularly if these literacy difficulties are not linked to phonological working memory deficits.

Behavior change theory, content and delivery of interventions to enhance adherence in chronic respiratory disease: A systematic review

Background: We sought to describe the theory used to design treatment adherence interventions, the content delivered, and the mode of delivery of these interventions in chronic respiratory disease. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials of adherence interventions (compared to another intervention or control) in adults with chronic respiratory disease (8 databases searched; inception until March 2015). Two reviewers screened and extracted data: post-intervention adherence (measured objectively); behavior change theory, content (grouped into psychological, education and self-management/supportive, telemonitoring, shared decision-making); and delivery. “Effective” studies were those with p < 0.05 for adherence rate between groups. We conducted a narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias. Results: 12,488 articles screened; 46 included studies (n = 42,91% in OSA or asthma) testing 58 interventions (n = 27, 47% were effective). Nineteen (33%) interventions (15 studies) used 12 different behavior change theories. Use of theory (n = 11,41%) was more common amongst effective interventions. Interventions were mainly educational, self-management or supportive interventions (n = 27,47%). They were commonly delivered by a doctor (n = 20,23%), in face-to-face (n = 48,70%), one-to-one (n = 45,78%) outpatient settings (n = 46,79%) across 2–5 sessions (n = 26,45%) for 1–3 months (n = 26,45%). Doctors delivered a lower proportion (n = 7,18% vs n = 13,28%) and pharmacists (n = 6,15% vs n = 1,2%) a higher proportion of effective than ineffective interventions. Risk of bias was high in >1 domain (n = 43, 93%) in most studies. Conclusions: Behavior change theory was more commonly used to design effective interventions. Few adherence interventions have been developed using theory, representing a gap between intervention design recommendations and research practice.