Syntes: Dialogic parent–child book reading vs reading-as-usual (Mol et al. 2008)

Källa: https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701838603 (Early Education and Development 19(1), 7–26); Leiden thesis ch.3 OA

Verified content

• [full text] Meta-analysis of Dialogic Reading with parents vs reading-as-usual control; 16 studies, N = 626 parent–child dyads.
• [full text] Overall vocabulary: Cohen’s d = .42 (SE = .06; 95% CI [.30, .53]; p < .001); fail-safe N = 123.
• [full text] Expressive vocabulary: d = .59 (SE = .08; 95% CI [.44, .75]; p < .001; k = 9, n = 322).
• [full text] Receptive vocabulary: d = .22 (SE = .09; 95% CI [.05, .39]; p < .01; k = 15, n = 608).
• [full text] Age moderator: preschool (2–4) d = .50 [.37, .64]; kindergarten (5–6) d = .14 [−.10, .37] (ns); Q = 7.14, p < .01.
• [full text] Risk moderator: not at risk d = .53 [.40, .67]; at risk d = .13 [−.08, .35] (ns); Q = 9.52, p < .01.
• [full text] Control is reading-as-usual (ordinary shared reading), not no-reading; teacher/stranger-delivered programmes excluded.

Project use

• [assessment] Applied 2026-10-27 extra8 as C20 kill-condition survival (ordinary-reading-aloud arm): Dialogic Reading beat reading-as-usual on vocabulary, so the kill failed. Distinct from Mol, Bus & de Jong 2009 (classroom interactive reading vs control; oral language d = .54). Does not undo Noble et al. 2019 (broader shared-reading pool; dialogic moderator ns) — claim stays weakened on the pooled ordinary-reading edge.

Added 2026-10-27 by the project (extra8). [full text] = read in the full text; [assessment] = the project's own assessment.