Effects of a Dutch Family Literacy Program: The Role of Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Unsure what is the term Mage in the abstract (Mage at pre-test: 64 months). The abstract could be clearer as it seems to be saying that there was an SES effect in the data, then suggested that there was not an SES effect. The abstract needs reworking as it does not explain the study well.

A standardised language test (CITO, 2011) was used, but there is little information on this test in the paper or in the reference list. Similarly, the Van Steensel, R. (2006) test needs addition information to be provided. The testing is noted but more detail on the program and the book level provided to the students is needed to explain the intervention. The program may be well known in Dutch schools and there are similar but different programs internationally, and so the Dutch intervention needs more detail.

 My version of the review paper did not have the appendices which would have helped to explain the study more.

In the tables abbreviations such as HLE, PSE, NPA need to be explained. The high level of abbreviations (almost overused) across the paper reduces the comprehension of the paper. Certainly, in figures and tables if abbreviations are used a key, explaining those abbreviations is required. All figures and tables need to be interpretable independent of text. The planned regression models are shown but the regression Bela values of the completed model could also be reported, as well as a correlation matrix of the variables under review.

The implications for early literacy practice and theory needs to be expanded upon. In part the paper is going against the traditional evidence that parental involvement in their children’s early reading is important and makes a difference (see Bus, van Ijzendoorn & Pellegrini, 1995). Not all interventions are the same and some of the more general home oral, reading aloud programs may lack the specifics needed in the domains of phonological development and vocabulary development to influence poor readers’ performance, or the lack of extension reading materials may “hold back” the more able readers (Hattie 2008, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses, may be relevant). The discussion needs to link more to the intervention program to explain the findings. One of the problems with just working with mean data comparison is the sub-populations in the data are often hidden. Did younger children who were poor readers make improvement?

It is almost impossible to have a “true”  control study is reading research because the so called controlled children are also having an intervention. Thus, it is the effect size difference within the intervention at the cohort and sub-population level that is often more meaningful when looking at a specific intervention. A second analysis and even a second paper may be needed. Both cohorts improve but it is the rate and the trajectory of the improvement and who is making the most improvements and in which area that is often the relevant outcome.  More could be made in the discussion of the regression models and why the different variables influenced the outcome measure. A variable correlation matric would also provide information on the interrelation between the variables.

Overall, the paper has merit and minor additions and modifications would enhance the paper, and a second paper looking at the intra-cohort changes associated with the intervention considered.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Effects of a Dutch Family Literacy Program: the Role of Implementation

Overall Assessment

This paper examined the role of family variables (e.g., SES, HLE, parents’ sense of self-efficacy) on implementation and effects of an EEH. Although the main hypothesis of this study, that implementation has impact on program effects, was not supported in the paper, the authors provide a detailed information in the discussion section about the possible reasons why they failed to find evidence for their assumptions. Based on the reported flaws of this study, I believe that the paper can bring some insights to the future researchers and policy makers for developing and implementing a similar program like EEH. I would like to suggest some adjustments to be made.

 

Introduction

p.2 line 71

- Could the authors provide a brief rationale for choosing Powell and Carey’s framework to systematically analyse implementation of FLPs. Why did you think this framework is more suitable compared to other frameworks?

 

Sample

p.4 line 157

- Please provide mean/range age and gender percentage for each group (intervention and control group).

 

P.5 table 1

- Is 2,4 supposed to be 2.4?

- In the table 1, please provide the parent characteristics for each group of the final participants. It is mentioned in the paper that 217 participants initially agreed to participate but 207 participants remained at the end. It would be more informative for readers to know the ‘parent characteristics’ of the final participants (separate for control and intervention group).

 

Measures

p.6 line 210

- Program activity: Please provide more detail information on this measure. How (on which basis) did you measure the quality of parents’ behavior and language scored? I see that the authors explain about this in p.7 line 231. However, it would be easier for readers to understand if these explanations are provided in the earlier section (where PA is introduced).

 

Control group

- If I understood correctly, half of the participants remained as a control group. Please provide information on what was done (or not done) to this control group somewhere in the manuscript. Were parents in this group provided with materials? Were they also required to attend the other type of parent meetings (with different topics or activities)?

 

Limitations and implications for research

p. 18 line 609- with with -> with

 

Reference

Please go over the full reference list. Below are some of the examples that needs to be addressed.

- p. 5 185 (CITO, 2011) -> change to appropriate style. This reference is also missing in he reference list

- p. 22 [30] Hoover-Dempsey K. V. ….. is in the reference list but not in the main text

- p.21 line 714- Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009) – the font is different

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for the opportunity to review your manuscript.

Please, see the document attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a revised version of a paper I reviewed before. I am overall satisfied with the revisions: the authors address all the points I raised in the earlier version, and the current version is much clearer and elaborated. I only have a few minor points that I would like the authors to take into consideration:

• 577-578: To some extent, our results thus support the assumption of a relationship between parental implementation and background characteristics -> For the ease of reading and understanding, it would be better to re-indicate the assumption and your finding related to this sentence.
• Some paragraphs are not indented (e.g., 327)
• Take a look at the percentages in the table ‘parent characteristics for final sample’: 2,2 -> 2.2? also in line 202, 4,6% => 4.6?

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The revision meets all the requirements, thank you.

I have no further issues.