Many children in rural and remote areas do not have access to professionals providing literacy interventions. However, delivery of services through videoconferencing would increase access and choice for end users.
Introduction:
This pilot study investigated the efficacy of videoconferencing literacy interventions. As videoconferencing platforms become easier and cheaper to use, this form of telehealth delivery is increasing in popularity. However, there is currently no strong evidence base to support this practice.
Materials and Methods:
We studied 18 children, aged 7–12 years, with poor reading and/or spelling, and whose literacy interventions were videoconferenced into their homes and/or schools. Children were tested on three reading measures: (1) reading words, (2) reading nonwords, and (3) letter–sound knowledge, twice before their interventions commenced and once after their intervention concluded.
Results:
Children's raw and standardized scores on 2 of 3 outcome measures increased significantly more during the intervention than in the no-intervention period before their training commenced.
Discussion and Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that videoconferencing is a promising delivery mode for literacy interventions, and the results justify running a larger, randomized controlled trial.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McArthurG, CastlesA. Helping children with reading difficulties: Some things we have learned so far. NPJ Sci Learn, 2017; 2:1–4.
2.
ShaywitzSE, MorrisR, ShaywitzBA. The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood. Annu Rev Psychol, 2008; 59:451–475.
3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australians' literacy skills: How do they rate internationally? Summary Results (cat. no. 1301.0). Canberra, Australia: ABS, 1999.
4.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Adult literacy and life skills survey, summary results (cat. no. 4228.0). Canberra, Australia: ABS, 2006.
5.
McArthurG, CastlesA, KohnenS, BanalesE. Low self-concept in poor readers: Prevalence, heterogeneity, and risk. PeerJ, 2016; 4:e2669.
6.
CarrollJM, MaughanB, GoodmanR, MeltzerH. Literacy difficulties and psychiatric disorders: Evidence for comorbidity. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 2005; 46:524–532.
7.
RiddickB.Living with dyslexia. Oxford: Routledge, 2010.
8.
GaluschkaK, IseE, KrickK, Schulte-KörneG. Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One, 2014; 9:e89900.
WrightC, ConlonEG, WrightM. Voice Over the Internet Protocol as a medium for delivering reading intervention: Evidence from a single case. Sage Open, 2011; 1:2158244011428159.
11.
TheodorosD. Speech-language pathology and telerehabilitation. In: Telerehabilitation. Kumar S, Conne E, eds. London: Springer, 2013:311–323.
12.
WaiteMC, CahillLM, TheodorasDG, BusuttinS, RussellTG. A pilot study of online assessment of childhood speech disorders. J Telemed Telecare, 2006; 12(3_,suppl):92–94.
13.
HodgeMA, SutherlandR, JengK, BaleG, BattaP, CambridgeA, DetheridgeJ, DrevensekS, EdwardsL, EverettM, GanesalingamC. Literacy assessment via telepractice is comparable to face-to-face assessment in children with reading difficulties living in rural Australia. Telemed J E Health, 2019; 25:279–287.
14.
Regina Molini-AvejonasD, Rondon-MeloS, de La Higuera AmatoCA, SamelliAG. A systematic review of the use of telehealth in speech, language and hearing sciences. J Telemed Telecare, 2015; 21:367–376.
15.
LewisC, PackmanA, OnslowM, SimpsonJM, JonesM. A phase II trial of telehealth delivery of the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention. Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 2008; 17:139–149.
16.
Grogan-JohnsonS, SchmidtAM, SchenkerJ, AlvaresR, RowanLE, TaylorJ. A comparison of speech sound intervention delivered by telepractice and side-by-side service delivery models. Commun Disord Q, 2013; 34:210–220.
17.
WalesD, SkinnerL, HaymanM. The efficacy of telehealth-delivered speech and language intervention for primary school-age children: A systematic review. Int J Telerehabil, 2017; 9:55–70.
18.
OnslowM, WebberM, HarrisonE, ArnottS, BridgmanK, CareyB, LloydW. The Lidcombe program treatment guide. Lidcombe program trainers consortium. 2019.
19.
CastlesA, ColtheartM, LarsenL, JonesP, SaundersS, McArthurG. Assessing the basic components of reading: A revision of the Castles and Coltheart test with new norms. Austral J Learn Difficul, 2009; 14:67–88.
20.
DoddB, HolmA, OerlemansM, McCormickM. Queensland University inventory of literacy (QUIL). St Lucia, Queensland, AU: Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, The University of Queensland, 1996.
21.
KohnenS, ColenbranderD, KrajenbrinkT, NickelsL. Assessment of lexical and non-lexical spelling in students in Grades 1–7. Austral J Learn Difficul, 2015; 20:15–38.
22.
McArthurG, CastlesA, KohnenS, LarsenL, JonesK, AnandakumarT, BanalesE. Sight word and phonics training in children with dyslexia. J Learn Disabil, 2015; 48:391–407.
23.
MooreDM, PorterMA, KohnenS, CastlesA. Detecting different types of reading difficulties: A comparison of tests. Australas J Spec Educ, 2012; 36:112–133.
24.
TorgesenJK.Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learn Disabil Res Pract, 2000; 15:55–64.
25.
MarinusE, KohnenS, McArthurG. Australian comparison data for the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). Austral J Learn Difficul, 2013; 18:199–212.
26.
LarsenL, KohnenS, NickelsL, McArthurG. The Letter-Sound Test (LeST): A reliable and valid comprehensive measure of grapheme–phoneme knowledge. Austral J Learn Difficul, 2015; 20:129–142.
27.
BroomYM, DoctorEA. Developmental phonological dyslexia: A case study of the efficacy of a remediation programme. Cognit Neuropsychol, 1995; 12:725–766.
28.
KohnenS, BanalesE. The Macquarie University Reading Clinic Reading Gap intervention program. Sydney: Macquarie University, 2015.
29.
KohnenS, BanalesE. The Macquarie University Reading Clinic Spelling Gap intervention program. Sydney: Macquarie University, 2015.
30.
McArthurG, KohnenS, JonesK, EveP, BanalesE, LarsenL, CastlesA. Replicability of sight word training and phonics training in poor readers: A randomised controlled trial. PeerJ, 2015; 3:e922.
31.
BroomYM, DoctorEA. Developmental surface dyslexia: A case study of the efficacy of a remediation programme. Cognit Neuropsychol, 1995; 12:69–110.
32.
BrunsdonR, ColtheartM, NickelsL. Treatment of irregular word spelling in developmental surface dysgraphia. Cognit Neuropsychol, 2005; 22:213–251.
33.
KohnenS, NickelsL, ColtheartM, BrunsdonR. Predicting generalization in the training of irregular-word spelling: Treating lexical spelling deficits in a child. Cognit Neuropsychol, 2008; 25:343–375.
34.
KohnenS, BanalesE. The Macquarie University Reading Clinic Sight words intervention program. Sydney: Macquarie University, 2015.
35.
BellN.Seeing stars program. San Luis Obispo, CA: Gander Educational Publishing, 1997.
36.
MesmerHA.Text decodability and the first-grade reader. Read Writ Q, 2005; 21:61–86.
37.
SavageR, GeorgiouG, ParrilaR, MaiorinoK. Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-for-variability aid at-risk learners. Sci Stud Read, 2018; 22:225–247.
38.
HowardD, BestW, NickelsL. Optimising the design of intervention studies: Critiques and ways forward. Aphasiology, 2015; 29:526–562.
39.
CummingG, Calin-JagemanR. Introduction to the new statistics: estimation, open science, and beyond. Routledge, 2016.
40.
ShaywitzSE. Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf, 2003.
41.
Al OtaibaS, FuchsD. Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. J Learn Disabil, 2006; 39:414–431.
42.
ComptonDL.How should “unresponsiveness” to secondary intervention be operationalized? It is all about the nudge. J Learn Disabil, 2006; 39:170–173.
43.
TosteJR, ComptonDL, FuchsD, FuchsLS, GilbertJK, ChoE, BarqueroLA, BoutonBD. Understanding unresponsiveness to Tier 2 reading intervention: Exploring the classification and profiles of adequate and inadequate responders in first grade. Learn Disabil Q, 2014; 37:192–203.
44.
O'ConnorRE, KlingnerJ. Poor responders in RTI. Theory Pract, 2010; 49:297–304.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
