WWC Intervention Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

What Works Clearinghouse

Early Childhood Education

Revised February 8, 2007

Dialogic Reading
Practice description

Research

Effectiveness

Dialogic Reading is an interactive shared picture book reading practice designed to enhance young childrens language
and literacy skills. During the shared reading practice, the adult
and the child switch roles so that the child learns to become

the storyteller with the assistance of the adult who functions

as an active listener and questioner. Two related practices are
reviewed in the WWC intervention reports on Interactive Shared
Book Reading and Shared Book Reading.

Four studies of Dialogic Reading met the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards and one study met the
WWC evidence standards with reservations.1 Together these
five studies included over 300 preschool children and examined
intervention effects on childrens oral language and phonological

processing. The majority of the children studied were from

economically disadvantaged families. This report focuses on immediate posttest findings to determine the effectiveness of the
intervention; however, follow-up findings provided by the study
authors are included in the technical appendices.2

Dialogic Reading was found to have positive effects on oral language and no discernible effects on phonological processing.

Rating of
effectiveness
Improvement
index3

Oral language

Print
Phonological
knowledge processing

Early
reading/writing Cognition

Math

Positive effects

N/A

No discernible effects

N/A

N/A

N/A

Average: +19
percentile points
Range: 6 to +48
percentile points

N/A

Average: +9
percentile points
Range: 7 to +40
percentile points

N/A

N/A

N/A

1. To be eligible for the WWCs review, the Early Childhood Education (ECE) interventions had to be implemented in English in center-based settings with
children ages 3 to 5 or in preschool. One additional study is not included in the overall effectiveness ratings because the intervention included a combination of Dialogic Reading and Sound Foundations, which does not allow the effects of Dialogic Reading alone to be determined. See the section titled
Findings for Dialogic Reading plus Sound Foundations and Appendix A4 for findings from this and a related document.
2. The evidence presented in this report is based on available research. Findings and conclusions may change as new research becomes available.
3. These numbers show the average and the range of improvement indices for all findings across the studies.

WWC Intervention Report

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007

Absence of conflict
of interest

The WWC ECE topic team works with two Principal Investigators
(PIs): Dr. Ellen Eliason Kisker and Dr. Christopher Lonigan. The
studies on Dialogic Reading reviewed by the ECE team included
a number of studies on which Dr. Lonigan was either the primary
or a secondary author and a number of studies on which Dr.
Grover Whitehurst (Director, Institute for Education Sciences)
was either a primary or a secondary author. Drs. Lonigan and
Whitehursts financial interests are not affected by the success
or failure of Dialogic Reading, and they do not receive any royalties or other monetary return from the use of Dialogic Reading.
In all instances where Drs. Lonigan and Whitehurst were study

authors, they were not involved in the decision to include the

study in the review, and they were not involved in the coding,
reconciliation, or discussion of the included study. Dr. Kisker led
all review activities related to those studies. The decision to review Dialogic Reading was made by Dr. Kisker, as co-PI, in collaboration with the rest of the ECE team following prioritization
of interventions based on the results from the literature review.
This report on Dialogic Reading was reviewed by a group of independent reviewers, including members of the WWC Technical
Review Team and external peer reviewers.

Additional practice
information

Developer and contact

Dialogic Reading is a practice that does not have a single developer responsible for providing information or materials. However, readers interested in using Dialogic Reading practices in
their classrooms can refer to sources available through internet
searches for information. A list of examples follows, although
these sources have not been reviewed or endorsed by the WWC:

Fischel, DeBaryshe, Valdez-Menchaca, & Caulfield, 1988).4

Information is not available on the number or demographics of
children or centers using this intervention.

Pearson Early Learning: http://www.pearsonearlylearning.

com/products/curriculum/rttt/index.html;
The Committee for Children: http://www.cfchildren.org/wwf/
dialogic;
Rotary Club of Bainbridge Island in Washington State: http://
www.bainbridgeislandrotary.org/default.aspx?c=10052;
Reading Rockets: http://www.pbs.org/launchingreaders/
rootsofreading/meettheexperts_2.html;
The American Library Association: http://www.ala.org/ala/
alsc/alscresources/borntoread/bornread.htm.
Scope of use
Dialogic Reading was created in the 1980s and the first published study appeared in 1988 (Whitehurst, Falco, Lonigan,

Teaching
In center-based settings, Dialogic Reading can be used by
teachers with children individually or in small groups. Teachers
can be trained on the principles of Dialogic Reading through videotape followed by role-playing and group discussion.
While reading books with the child, the adult uses five types
of prompts (CROWD):
Completion: child fills in blank at the end of a sentence.
Recall: adult asks questions about a book the child has
read.
Open-ended: adult encourages child to tell what is happening in a picture.
Wh-: adult asks wh- questions about the pictures in
books.
Distancing: adult relates pictures and words in the book to
childrens own experiences outside of the book.
These prompts are used by the adult in a reading technique
called PEER:

4. Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language
development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 552559. This study was not reviewed because it fell outside the scope of
the current ECE review (that is, the study was not center-based and children were younger than 3 years old).

WWC Intervention Report

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007

Additional practice
information (continued)

Research

P: adult prompts the child to say something about the book.

E: adult evaluates the response.
E: adult expands the childs response.
R: adult repeats the prompt.
As the child becomes increasingly familiar with a book, the
adult reads less, listens more, and gradually uses more higher
level prompts to encourage the child to go beyond naming ob-

jects in the pictures to thinking more about what is happening in

the pictures and how this relates to the childs own experiences.

Eight studies reviewed by the WWC investigated the effects

of Dialogic Reading in center-based settings. Four studies
(Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer, & Samwel, 1999; Lonigan
& Whitehurst, 1998; Wasik & Bond, 2001; Whitehurst, Arnold,
Epstein, Angell, Smith, & Fischel, 1994) were randomized controlled trials that met WWC evidence standards. One study
(Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1999) was a randomized controlled trial
that met WWC evidence standards with reservations because of
differential attrition. One additional study met the WWC evidence
standards (Whitehurst, Epstein, Angell, Payne, Crone, & Fischel,
19945) and is included in this report; however, the intervention
included a combination of Dialogic Reading and Sound Foundations, which does not allow the effects of Dialogic Reading alone
to be determined. Therefore, this study is discussed separately
and the findings are not included in the intervention ratings. The
remaining two studies did not meet WWC evidence screens.

interventionsDialogic Reading and typical shared book

readingto a no-treatment comparison group that participated
in the standard preschool curriculum. This report focuses on
the comparison of oral language and phonological processing
outcomes between the Dialogic Reading group and the notreatment comparison group6 with a total of 66 children.
Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) included 91 low-income threeto four-year-old children from four child care centers in Nashville,
Tennessee. Lonigan and Whitehurst compared three intervention groupsDialogic Reading at school, Dialogic Reading at
home, and Dialogic Reading both at school and at hometo
a no-treatment comparison group that did not participate in
Dialogic Reading. This report focuses on the comparison of oral
language outcomes between the combined school and school
plus home group and the no-treatment comparison group7 with
a total of 75 children.
Wasik and Bond (2001) included 121 low-income three- to
four-year-old children from a Title I early learning center in
Baltimore, Maryland. Wasik and Bond compared oral language outcomes for children participating in Dialogic Reading
plus reinforcement activities with outcomes for children in a

Met evidence standards

Lonigan et al. (1999) included 95 two- to five-year-old predominantly low-income children from five child care centers
in an urban area in Florida. Lonigan et al. compared two

Cost
Published Dialogic Reading procedures are freely available to
the public. Information is not available about the costs of teacher
training and implementation of Dialogic Reading.

5. Zevenbergen, Whitehurst, & Zevenbergen (2003) reports additional results from the study first reported in Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) and was reviewed along with that study.
6. The comparison between the typical shared book reading group and the comparison group is included in the WWC Shared Book Reading intervention
report.
7. The Dialogic Reading at home group is not included in the review because it is not center-based. The Dialogic Reading at school and the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home groups were combined for this review to reflect analyses conducted by the study authors. However, the data separated
for these two groups are included in Appendix A5. The study authors divided centers into high and low compliance centers based on the frequency level
(i.e., high and low) of Dialogic Reading sessions. The WWC report includes findings for the high and low compliance centers combined in the overall rating of effectiveness, and describes findings separated by high and low compliance in the findings section and in Appendix A5.

WWC Intervention Report

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007

Research (continued)

comparison condition who were read the same books by teachers with no training in Dialogic Reading.
Whitehurst, Arnold, et al. (1994) included 67 low-income
three-year-old children from five day care centers in Suffolk
County, New York. Whitehurst, Arnold, et al. compared two intervention groupsDialogic Reading at school and Dialogic Reading both at school and at hometo a comparison group who
participated in small-group play activities. This report focuses
on the comparison of oral language outcomes between the combined school and school plus home group and the comparison
group.8

Met evidence standards with reservations

Crain-Thoreson and Dale (1999) included 32 three- to five-yearold children with mild to moderate language delays from five
classrooms in three school districts in the Pacific Northwest.
Crain-Thoreson and Dale compared two intervention groupsa
staff-implemented Dialogic Reading group (staff/practice) and a
parent-implemented Dialogic Reading group (parent/practice)
to a comparison group that did not receive one-on-one Dialogic
Reading. This report focuses on the comparison of oral language
outcomes between the staff/practice group and the comparison
group9 with a total of 22 children.

Effectiveness

Findings
The WWC review of interventions for early childhood education
addresses childrens outcomes in six domains: oral language,
print knowledge, phonological processing, early reading/writing,
cognition, and math.10
Oral language. Five studies examined outcomes in the domain
of oral language: three studies showed statistically significant
and positive effects and two studies showed indeterminate
effects.
Lonigan et al. (1999) found a statistically significant difference
favoring children in the Dialogic Reading intervention group on
one of the four outcome measures (verbal expression subscale
of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability; ITPA-VE), and
this effect was confirmed to be statistically significant by the
WWC. The authors found no statistically significant differences
between the intervention and comparison groups on the other
three measures. In this study the effect was statistically significant and positive, according to WWC criteria.

Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) analyzed group differences for

the combined intervention groups (Dialogic Reading at school,
Dialogic Reading both at school and at home, and Dialogic
Reading at home) and the comparison group. Because WWC
ECE does not review interventions implemented in the home,
the WWC calculated group differences on the three outcome
measures for the combined Dialogic Reading at school and both
at school and at home intervention group versus the comparison
group and did not find statistically significant differences on any
measure in analyses using data combined for centers with high
and low implementation. In this study the effect was indeterminate, according to WWC criteria.
Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) also analyzed group differences for the combined intervention groups within high and low
compliance centers. The WWC calculated group differences
on the three outcome measures for the combined Dialogic
Reading at school and both at school and at home intervention
group versus the comparison group separately for high and low

8. The Dialogic Reading at school and the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home groups were combined for this review to reflect analyses conducted by the study authors. However, the data separated for these two groups are described in the findings section and included in Appendix A5.
9. The parent/practice group was not included in the review because it was not center-based.
10. The level of statistical significance was reported by the study authors or, where necessary, calculated by the WWC to correct for clustering within classrooms or schools and for multiple comparisons. For an explanation about the clustering correction, see the WWC Tutorial on Mismatch. See Technical
Details of WWC-Conducted Computations for the formulas the WWC used to calculate the statistical significance. In the case of the Dialogic Reading
report, corrections for clustering and multiple comparisons were needed.

WWC Intervention Report

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007

Effectiveness (continued)

compliance centers. For the high compliance centers, the WWC

did not find statistically significant differences on any measure;
however, the effect was large enough to be called substantively
important and positive, according to WWC criteria. For the low
compliance centers, the WWC did not find statistically significant
differences on any measure and the effect was indeterminate,
according to WWC criteria. These analyses suggest that level of
implementation of Dialogic Reading has an impact on child outcomes in the oral language domain.
In addition, Lonigan and Whitehurst (1998) reported group
differences separately for the Dialogic Reading at school group
and the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home group
within the high and low compliance centers. For the Dialogic
Reading at school group in the high compliance centers, the
WWC did not find any statistically significant differences between this group and the comparison group on any of the outcome measures. However, the effect was large enough to be
called substantively important and positive, according to WWC
criteria. For the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home
group in the high compliance centers, the authors reported
two statistically significant and positive differences favoring the
Dialogic Reading group and the statistical significance of these
effects was confirmed by the WWC. The effect was statistically significant and positive, according to WWC criteria. For
the Dialogic Reading at school group in the low compliance
centers, the authors reported a statistically significant and
negative finding and the statistical significance of this effect
was confirmed by the WWC. The effect was statistically significant and negative, according to WWC criteria. For the Dialogic
Reading both at school and home group in the low compliance
centers, the WWC found no statistically significant differences
between the intervention and comparison groups, either posi-

tive or negative. However, the effect was large enough to be

called substantively important and positive, according to WWC
criteria.
Wasik and Bond (2001) found statistically significant differences favoring the Dialogic Reading children on two measures
of oral language, and the WWC confirmed this statistical significance.11 In this study the effect was statistically significant and
positive, according to WWC criteria.
Whitehurst, Arnold, et al. (1994) found statistically significant differences favoring children in the combined intervention
groups (Dialogic Reading at school and Dialogic Reading both at
school and at home) on two of the four measures in this domain
(EOWPVT-R and Our Word), but only the statistical significance
for EOWPVT-R was confirmed by the WWC. The authors found
no statistically significant differences on the other two measures.12 In this study the effect was statistically significant and
positive, according to WWC criteria.
Whitehurst, Arnold, et al. (1994) also analyzed group differences separately for the Dialogic Reading at school group and
the Dialogic Reading both at school and at home group. For
the Dialogic Reading at school group, the WWC did not find
statistically significant differences between the intervention and
comparison groups on any outcome measure and the effect
was indeterminate, according to WWC criteria. For the Dialogic
Reading both at school and home group, the WWC did not find
statistically significant differences between the intervention and
comparison groups. However, the effect was large enough to be
called substantively important and positive, according to WWC
criteria.
Crain-Thoreson and Dale (1999) analyzed findings for six measures in this outcome domain. The findings favored the intervention group for five of the measures and favored the comparison

11. The authors also reported findings on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III), but there was not enough information to compute an effect
size. Therefore, this measure was not included in the review.
12. The authors also reported results from the 6-month follow-up tests. Since the primary focus of this review is on the immediate posttest results, the follow-up results are not discussed here but are included in Appendix A5.

WWC Intervention Report

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007

Effectiveness (continued)

group for the sixth measure. None of these effects, however,

were statistically significant; and the average effect was neither
statistically significant nor large enough to be considered substantively important. In this study the effect was indeterminate,
according to WWC criteria.
Phonological processing. Lonigan et al. (1999) found no statistically significant effects for any of the four outcome measures and the average effect across the four measures was not
large enough to be considered substantively important. In this
study the effect was indeterminate, according to WWC criteria.

Rating of effectiveness
The WWC rates the effects of an intervention in a given outcome
domain as positive, potentially positive, mixed, no discernible
effects, potentially negative, or negative. The rating of effectiveness takes into account four factors: the quality of the research
design, the statistical significance of the findings,10 the size of
the difference between participants in the intervention and the
comparison conditions, and the consistency in findings across
studies (see the WWC Intervention Rating Scheme).

The WWC found Dialogic

Reading to have positive
effects for oral language
and no discernible effects
for phonological processing

Improvement index
The WWC computes an improvement index for each individual
finding. In addition, within each outcome domain, the WWC computes an average improvement index for each study as well as an
average improvement index across studies (see Technical Details
of WWC-Conducted Computations). The improvement index
represents the difference between the percentile rank of the average student in the intervention condition and the percentile rank
of the average student in the comparison condition. Unlike the
rating of effectiveness, the improvement index is entirely based
on the size of the effect, regardless of the statistical significance
of the effect, the study design, or the analysis. The improvement
index can take on values between 50 and +50, with positive
numbers denoting favorable results.
The average improvement index for oral language is +19 percentile points across the five studies, with a range of 6 to +48
percentile points across findings. The average improvement index
for phonological processing is +9 percentile points for the one
study, with a range of 7 to +40 percentile points across findings.

nation of Dialogic Reading and Sound Foundations, which does

not allow the effects of Dialogic Reading alone to be determined.
However, the WWC believes that the findings from this combined
intervention may provide useful information to practitioners
who are making a determination about the merits of combining
Dialogic Reading with a supplemental phonological awareness
curriculum (Sound Foundations). The WWC reports the individual
study findings here and in Appendix A4.
Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) included 167 at-risk lowincome four-year-old children from four Head Start centers in
Suffolk County, New York. Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. compared
oral language, print knowledge, phonological processing, and
early reading/writing outcomes for children participating in Dialogic Reading combined with an adapted Sound Foundations
curriculum to outcomes for children in a no-treatment comparison group participating in their regular Head Start services.
Oral language. Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) found no
statistically significant difference between the intervention group
and the comparison group on oral language as measured by the
Language factor.13 Zevenbergen, Whitehurst, and Zevenbergen
(2003), a second report on the same study, reported findings on
four additional oral language measures from the same study,
none of which were statistically significant as calculated by the

Findings for Dialogic Reading plus Sound Foundations

The study described below does not contribute to the overall rating of effectiveness because the intervention included a combi-

13. The study authors conducted a principal components analysis on the 21 measures to reduce data. The WWC only presents results for the four factor
scores (i.e., Language factor, Print concepts factor, Linguistic awareness factor, and Writing factor) because effect sizes could not be computed for the
individual measures.

WWC Intervention Report

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007

The WWC found Dialogic

Reading to have positive
effects for oral language
and no discernible effects
for phonological processing
(continued)

References

WWC Intervention Report

WWC. The average effect across the five measures was neither statistically significant nor large enough to be considered
substantively important, according to WWC criteria. The average
improvement index for oral language is +6 percentile points with
a range of 12 to +19 percentile points across findings.
Print knowledge. Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) reported a
statistically significant difference favoring the intervention group
on the Print concepts factor.13 The statistical significance of this
effect was confirmed by the WWC. The improvement index for
print knowledge is +24 percentile points for the one print knowledge outcome in this study.
Phonological processing. Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) reported neither statistically significant nor substantively important
effects on the Linguistic awareness factor.13 The improvement
index for phonological processing is +1 percentile point for the
one phonological processing outcome in this study.
Early reading/writing. Whitehurst, Epstein, et al. (1994) reported a statistically significant difference favoring the intervention group on the Writing factor.13 The statistical significance of
this effect was confirmed by the WWC. The improvement index
for early reading/writing is +20 percentile points for the one early
reading/writing outcome in this study.

Summary
The WWC reviewed eight studies on Dialogic Reading. Four
of the studies met WWC standards and one study met WWC
standards with reservations. One additional study that met
WWC standards is described in this report but is not included
in the overall rating of effectiveness. The remaining two studies did not meet evidence screens. Based on the five studies
included in the overall rating of effectiveness, the WWC found
positive effects for oral language and no discernible effects
for phonological processing. Findings from one study suggest
that level of implementation of Dialogic Reading influences the
impact of the practice on childrens oral language skills. Based
on the study that included a Dialogic Reading plus Sound
Foundations intervention, the WWC found no discernible effects on oral language, potentially positive effects on print
knowledge, no discernible effects on phonological processing,
and potentially positive effects on early reading/writing. The
evidence presented in this report may change as new research
emerges.

Met WWC evidence standards

Lonigan, C. J., Anthony, J. L., Bloomfield, B. G., Dyer, S. M., &
Samwel, C. S. (1999). Effects of two shared-reading interventions on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(4), 306322.
Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of
parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263290.
Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book:
Interactive book reading and language development in pre-

school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2),

243250.
Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L.,
Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income
families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679689.
Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Payne, A. C.,
Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent
literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 542555.

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007

References (continued)

Additional sources:
Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating the literacy development
of disadvantaged preschool children: An experimental
evaluation of a Head Start emergent literacy curriculum.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11), 5065B. (UMI
No. 9510085)
Zevenbergen, A. A., Whitehurst, G. J., & Zevenbergen, J. A.
(2003). Effects of a shared-reading intervention on the inclusion of evaluative devices in narratives of children from
low-income families. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 24, 115.

Did not meet WWC evidence screens

Hargrave, A. C., & Snchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies:
The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(1), 7590.14
Whitehurst, G. J., Zevenbergen, A. A., Crone, D. A., Schultz,
M. D., Velting, O. N., & Fischel, J. E. (1999). Outcomes of
an emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through
second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2),
267272.15

Met WWC evidence standards with reservations

Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Enhancing linguistic
performance: Parents and teachers as book reading partners
for children with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 19(1), 2839.
For more information about specific studies and WWC calculations, please see the WWC Dialogic Reading
Technical Appendices.

14. Confound: there was only one cluster (i.e., childcare center) in each study condition; therefore, the effects of the intervention could not be separated
from the effects of the cluster.
15. Complete data were not reported: the WWC could not compute effect sizes based on the data reported.

WWC Intervention Report

Dialogic Reading

Revised February 8, 2007