Text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools are being widely implemented in an attempt to assist students’ reading comprehension skills. Read-aloud software, including text-to-speech, is used to translate written text into spoken text, enabling one to listen to written text while reading along. It is not clear how effective text-to-speech is at improving reading comprehension. This study addresses this gap in the research by conducting a meta-analysis on the effects of text-to-speech technology and related read-aloud tools on reading comprehension for students with reading difficulties. Random effects models yielded an average weighted effect size of ( = .35, with a 95% confidence interval of .14 to .56, p < .01). Moderator effects of study design were found to explain some of the variance. Taken together, this suggests that text-to-speech technologies may assist students with reading comprehension. However, more studies are needed to further explore the moderating variables of text-to-speech and read-aloud tools’ effectiveness for improving reading comprehension. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed.
BerkeleyS.LindstromJ. H. (2011). Technology for the struggling reader: Free and easily accessible resources. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 48–55.
2.
BiancarosaG.GriffithsG. G. (2012). Technology tools to support reading in the digital age. Future of Children, 22(2), 139–160. doi: 10.1353/foc.2012.0014
3.
*BielinskiJ.ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.FreidebachJ.FreidebachM. (2001). Read-aloud accommodation: Effects on multiple-choice reading and math items (Technical Report 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical31.htm
4.
*BoyleE. A.RosenbergM. S.ConnellyV. J.WashburnS. G.BrinckerhoffL. C.BanerjeeM. (2003). Effects of audio texts on the acquisition of secondary-level content by students with mild disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 203–214. doi: 10.2307/1593652
5.
BuzickH. M.StoneE. A. (2014a). A comment on Li: The same side of a different coin. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 34–35. doi: 10.1111/emip.12042
6.
BuzickH. M.StoneE. A. (2014b). A meta-analysis of research on the read aloud accommodation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 17–30. doi: 10.1111/emip.12040
7.
CainK.OakhillJ.BryantP. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
8.
CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
CrawfordL.TindalG. (2004). Effects of a read-aloud modification on a standardized reading test. Exceptionality, 12(2) 89–106. doi: 10.1207/s15327035ex1202_3
10.
DaltonB.StrangmanN. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In McKennaM. C. (Ed.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
*DolanR.HallT. E.BanerjeeM.ChunE.StrangmanN. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7), 4–32.
12.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2004). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
13.
EdyburnD. L. (2007). Technology-enhanced reading performance: Defining a research agenda. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 146–152. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.42.1.7
14.
*ElkindJ.BlackM. S.MurrayC. (1996). Computer-based compensation of adult reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 46(1), 159–186. doi: 10.1007/BF02648175
15.
*FastingR. B.LysterS. H. (2005). The effects of computer technology in assisting the development of literacy in young struggling readers and spellers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(1), 21–40. doi: 10.1080/0885625042000319061
16.
FletcherJ. M. (2009). Dyslexia: The evolution of a scientific concept. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 501–508. doi: 10.1017/S1355617709090900
17.
*FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.BoudousquieA.CopelandK. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 136–150. doi: 10.1093/acref/9780195173697.001.0001/acref-9780195173697
18.
*FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.O’MalleyK.CopelandK.MehtaP.CaldwellC. J.VaughnS. (2009). Effects of a bundled accommodations package on high-stakes testing for middle school students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 447–463. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500404
19.
*FloydK. K.JudgeS. L. (2012). The efficacy of assistive technology on reading comprehension for postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 8(1), 48–64.
HallT. E.HughesC. A.FilbertM. (2000). Computer assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(2), 173–193.
22.
HarvilleD. A. (1977). Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 72(358), 320–338. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1977.10480998
23.
HasselbringT. S.BauschM. E. (2005). Assistive technologies for reading. Learning in the Digital Age, 63(4), 72–75.
24.
*HigginsE. L.RaskindM. H. (1997). The compensatory effectiveness of optical character recognition: Speech synthesis on reading comprehension of postsecondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities a Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(2), 1–15.
25.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186
26.
*HodappJ.JudasC.RachowC.MunnC.DimmittS. (2007, October20). Iowa text reader project Year 3: Longitudinal results. Paper presented at the 26th annual Closing the Gap conference, Minneapolis, MN.
27.
JonesM. G.SchwilkC. L.BatemanD. F. (2012). Reading by listening: Access to books in audio format for college students with print disabilities. In AitkenJ.FairleyJ.CarlsonJ. (Eds.), Communication technology for students in special education and gifted programs (pp. 249–272). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60960-878-1.ch020
28.
KimW.Linan ThompsonS.MisquittaR. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 66–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00352.x
29.
King SearsM. E.SwansonC.MainzerL. (2011). TECHnology and literacy for adolescents with disabilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 569–578. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.8.2
30.
KoretzD.HamiltonL. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance, and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(3), 255–272. doi: 10.3102/01623737022003255
31.
*KosciolekS.YsseldykeJ. E. (2000). Effects of a reading accommodation on the validity of a reading test (Technical Report 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical28.htm
32.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(74)90015-2
33.
*LaitusisC. C. (2010). Examining the impact of audio presentation on tests of reading comprehension. Applied Measurement in Education, 23(2), 153–167. doi: 10.1080/08957341003673815
34.
*LangeA. A.McPhillipsM.MulhernG.WylieJ. (2006). Assistive software tools for secondary-level students with literacy difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(3), 13–22.
35.
LiH. (2014a). Comment on Buzick and Stone: Two tales of one city. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 31–33. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12043
36.
LiH. (2014b). The effects of read-aloud accommodations for students with and without disabilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33, 3–16. doi: 10.1111/emip.12027
37.
LionettiT. M.ColeC. L. (2004). A comparison of the effects of two rates of listening while reading on oral reading fluency and reading comprehension. Education Treatment of Children, 27(2), 114–129.
38.
*LundbergI.OlofssonÅ. (1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension?Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 283–293. doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90012-H
39.
LyonG. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9
40.
MacArthurC. A.FerrettiR. P.OkoloC. M.CavalierA. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273–301.
41.
*McCoveT. (2012). The use of the kindle to access textbook resources by secondary students in automotive technology. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 3555373).
42.
*MeloyL. L.DevilleC.FrisbieD. A. (2002). The effect of a read aloud accommodation on test scores of students with and without a learning disability in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 248–255. doi: 10.1177/07419325020230040801
43.
*MeyerN. K.BouckE. C. (2014). The impact of text-to-speech on expository reading for adolescents with LD. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 21–33.
44.
MoranJ.FerdigR.PearsonP. D.WardropJ.BlomeyerR.Jr. (2008). Technology and reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6–58. doi: 10.1080/10862960802070483
45.
NewtonD. A.DellA. G. (2009). Issues in assistive technology implementation: Resolving at/it conflicts. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 51–56.
46.
OlsonR. K. (2000). Individual differences in gains from computer-assisted remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(3), 197–235. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2559
ParetteP.SchererM. (2004). Assistive technology use and stigma. Education Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(3), 217–226.
49.
ParrM. (2012). The future of text-to-speech technology: How long before it’s just one more thing we do when teaching reading?Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1420–1429. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.081
50.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
PetersT.BellL. (2007). Choosing and using text-to-speech software. Computers in Libraries, 27(2), 26–29.
52.
QuinnJ. M.WagnerR. K. (2013). Gender differences in reading impairment and in the identification of impaired readers: Results from a large-scale study of at-risk readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi: 10.1177/0022219413508323 (Advance online publication.)
53.
RandallJ.EngelhardG. (2010). Performance of students with and without disabilities under modified conditions: Using resource guides and read-aloud test modifications on a high-stakes reading test. The Journal of Special Education, 44(2), 79–93. doi: 10.1177/0022466908331045
*SchmittA. J.HaleA. D.McCallumE.MauckB. (2011). Accommodating remedial readers in the general education setting: Is listening-while-reading sufficient to improve factual and inferential comprehension?Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 37–45. doi: 10.1002/pits.20540
56.
ShadishW. R. (2014a). Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case designs: An introduction. Journal of School Psychology, 52(2), 109–122. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.009
57.
ShadishW. R. (2014b). Statistical analyses of single-case designs: The shape of things to come. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 139–146. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414524773
58.
ShadishW. R.HedgesL. V.HornerR. H.OdomS. L. (2015). The role of between-case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing single-case research (No. NCER 2015-002, pp. 1–109). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.
59.
ShadishW. R.LecyJ. D. (2015). The meta-analytic big bang. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(3), 246–264. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1132
60.
*ShanyM. T.BiemillerA. (1995). Assisted reading practice: Effects on performance for poor readers in Grades 3 and 4. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 382–395.
61.
SmytheI. (2005). Provision and use of information technology with dyslexic students in university in Europe (EU-funded Welsh Dyslexia Project). Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/264151/1/The_Book.pdf
62.
SnowC. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.
63.
*SorrellC. A.BellS. M.McCallumR. S. (2007). Reading rate and comprehension as a function of computerized versus traditional presentation mode: A preliminary study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(1), 1–12.
64.
StetterM. E.HughesM. T. (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to enhance the reading comprehension of struggling readers: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 25(4), 1–16.
65.
StrangmanN.DaltonB. (2005). Using technology to support struggling readers: A review of the literature. In EdyburnD.HigginsK. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 545–570). Milwaukee, WI: Knowledge by Design.
SwanA.KuhnM. R.GroffC.RocaJ. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of Learning Through Listening® program on the reading abilities of students with learning disabilities. Unpublished paper.
68.
*ThurlowM. L.MoenR. E.LekwaA. J.ScullinS. B. (2010). Examination of a reading pen as a partial auditory accommodation for reading assessment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment.
69.
Vanchu-OroscoM. (2012). A meta-analysis of testing accommodations for students with disabilities: Implications for high-stakes testing (doctoral dissertation). Denver, CO: Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
70.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–243.
71.
WagnerR. K.SchatschneiderC.Phythian-SenceC. (2009). Beyond decoding. New York, NY: Guilford.
