A Meta-Analysis of Morphological Interventions in English: Effects on Literacy Outcomes for School-Age Children
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Use of morphological and contextual cues in children’s lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 (2021) · cites this paper as 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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