Cited by 361Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

A Meta-Analysis of Morphological Interventions in English: Effects on Literacy Outcomes for School-Age Children

Goodwin, Amanda P., Ahn, Soyeon·2013·Scientific Studies of Reading

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of morphological instruction on language and literacy outcomes by synthesizing 92 standardized mean differences (d) from 30 independent studies. Findings show a moderate overall effect of morphological instruction ([dbar] = 0.32), suggesting that children receiving morphological instruction performed significantly better on measures of literacy achievement than comparison groups. Moderator analyses showed that intervention effect varied depending on the literacy outcome. There were significant and moderate intervention effects on morphological knowledge ([dbar] = 0.44), phonological awareness ([dbar] = 0.48), vocabulary ([dbar] = 0.34), decoding ([dbar] = 0.59), and spelling ([dbar] = 0.30) but not on reading comprehension or fluency. Results also suggested differences in effectiveness related to age and research design but not unit of intervention, scope, length, and learner type. Effect sizes decrease by school level (e.g., greater for younger students than middle school and upper elementary students). Also, there were larger effects for quasi-experimental than experimental studies and for researcher-designed measures than for standardized measures. Implications for educational settings and research agendas are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10888438.2012.689791

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Morphological awareness has long been known to influence reading comprehension outcomes.

    “Morphological awareness has long been known to influence reading comprehension outcomes, and has received interest as a potential target for literacy interventions (Bowers & Kirby, 2010;Goodwin & Ahn, 2013).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 94 · Cited by 361

Authors
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Goodwin, Amanda P.
Venue
Scientific Studies of Reading
Published
2012-12-20
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
257-285
ISSN
  • 1088-8438 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-799X
OpenAlex
W2040011496
Cited by
361
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Scientific Studies of Reading (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
morphological instruction, morphology (linguistics), literacy outcomes, morphological knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary, decoding, spelling, reading comprehension, reading fluency, elementary school students, English language, intervention effectiveness, age differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review