Effectiveness of Reading Interventions on Literacy Skills for Chinese Children with and Without Dyslexia: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Abstract This meta-analysis synthesizes 49 standardized mean-change differences between control and treatment groups as effect sizes from 28 independent studies, investigating the efficacy of existing reading interventions on literacy skills for Chinese children. Six potentially important moderators were considered in this study. These moderators included intervention outcome, intervention method, intervention timing, participant type, intervention form, and intervention implementer. Overall, the existing reading intervention significantly impacted Chinese children’s literacy achievement (g = 0.68). Different intervention methods showed somehow different effects on literacy outcomes. Specifically, fluency training (g = 1.78) appeared as the most effective intervention method with a large effect. Working memory training (g = 0.80), phonological training (g = 0.69), orthographic training (g = 0.70), and morphological training (g = 0.66) had significant and medium effects on improving literacy skills of Chinese children. In addition, reading intervention improved literacy skills of older children (g = 0.90) and younger children (g = 0.63) comparably. However, children with dyslexia (g = 0.87) seemed to benefit more than typically developing children (g = 0.49) from reading interventions. Reading interventions seemed to have a better effect on word spelling (g = 0.93) than word reading (g = 0.63). Interventions delivered in group (g = 0.78) seemed to be more effective than interventions delivered individually (g = 0.45). Children gained more from interventions administered by researchers (g = 0.85) or combined implementers (g = 1.11) than by parents (g = 0.27). These findings suggest that appropriate reading interventions are effective and essential for improving the literacy outcomes of Chinese children, but the efficacy might be different depending on the intervention methods, children’s literacy status, outcome measures, and intervention settings.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.