Syntes: Interactive caregiver book-sharing RCTs (Dowdall et al. 2020)

Källa: https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225 (Child Development 91(2), e383–e399); CentAUR OA accepted MS

Verified content

• [full text] First RCT-only meta of caregiver-directed interactive / dialogic picture-book sharing interventions for child language (ages ~1–6).
• [full text] 19 RCTs, N = 2,594; robust variance estimation.
• [full text] Expressive language: d = 0.41 (95% CI [0.20, 0.61], p < .001; 16 studies, 35 effect sizes, N = 1,664).
• [full text] Receptive language: d = 0.26 (95% CI [0.12, 0.40], p = .001; 16 studies, 24 effect sizes, N = 1,871).
• [full text] Caregiver book-sharing competence: d = 1.01 (95% CI [0.40, 1.63]).
• [full text] Dosage: medium–high intensity expressive d = 0.54 [0.26, 0.82]; low intensity (<60 min contact) expressive d = 0.19 ns, receptive d = 0.09 ns.
• [full text] Controls: passive (no intervention / waitlist) and active (TAU or non-book-sharing). Group delivery associated with larger language gains than one-on-one in exploratory moderator models.
• [full text] Authors situate the review as the RCT-only caregiver successor a decade after Mol et al. 2008; distinct from Mol, Bus & de Jong 2009 (classroom interactive reading, mixed designs).

Project use

• [assessment] Applied 2026-10-27 extra9 as C20 kill-condition survival (no-shared-reading / control arm): interactive caregiver book-sharing beat control on expressive and receptive language, so the kill failed. Distinct from Mol 2009 (classroom interactive vs control) and Mol 2008 (parent Dialogic Reading vs reading-as-usual). Does not undo Noble et al. 2019 — claim stays weakened on the pooled ordinary-reading edge. Third survival (3 of 3); the project's rules promotion follows.

Added 2026-10-27 by the project (extra9). [full text] = read in the full text; [assessment] = the project's own assessment.