LSHSS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol.40 86-100 January 2009. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0077)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ukrainetz, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Harm, H. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ukrainetz, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Harm, H. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Reports

An Investigation of Treatment Scheduling for Phonemic Awareness With Kindergartners Who Are at Risk for Reading Difficulties

Teresa A. Ukrainetz
University of Wyoming, Laramie

Catherine L. Ross
Heide M. Harm
Teton County School District #1, Jackson, WY

Contact author: Teresa A. Ukrainetz, Division of Communication Disorders, University of Wyoming, Department 3311, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071-3311. E-mail: tukraine{at}uwyo.edu.

Purpose: This study examined 2 schedules of treatment for phonemic awareness.

Method: Forty-one 5- to 6-year-old kindergartners, including 22 English learners, with low letter-name and first-sound knowledge received 11 hr of phonemic awareness treatment: concentrated (CP, 3x/wk to December), dispersed (DP, 1x/wk to March), and dispersed vocabulary control (CON).

Results: English learners performed similarly to native English speakers. Participants with moderate deficits in letter-names and first sounds showed significant benefits after both treatment conditions. Three times the intensity had no additional effect on phonemic awareness. CP continued to increase significantly during the no-treatment interval. In March, CP and DP were significantly greater than CON, but the 2 conditions did not differ other than with a minor DP advantage on last sounds. By May, there were no significant differences among the 3 conditions in meeting grade-level expectations for phoneme segmenting.

Conclusion: For phonemic awareness, over the course of a school year, with concomitant classroom instruction, the gains made from short, intense treatment were similar to those made from continuous weekly treatment. At-risk kindergartners with moderate deficits benefited more than those with mild deficits. Children, particularly those with mild deficits, may improve substantially with only classroom instruction and incidental self-regulatory gains from treatment for another area.

KEY WORDS: treatment efficacy, service delivery, phonemic awareness


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.