As a practitioner dedicated to creating positive outcomes for children, staying informed about the latest research is crucial. A study by Moore, Rosenberg, and Coleman (2005) highlighted significant improvements in phonological awareness in children after undergoing phoneme discrimination training. However, a follow-up study by Halliday et al. (2012) failed to replicate these findings, prompting a closer examination of the methodologies and outcomes of both studies.
Understanding these discrepancies can guide us in refining our approaches and making data-driven decisions. Here are key takeaways from the comparison of the two studies:
- Randomization and Blinding: Halliday et al. (2012) employed quasi-randomization and ensured experimenters were blind to pre-training scores, reducing potential biases.
- Control Groups: Halliday et al. (2012) included multiple control groups (auditory, visual, and no-intervention), whereas Moore et al. (2005) had only a no-intervention control group.
- Reward Systems: Both studies used reward systems, but Halliday et al. (2012) ensured that all groups, including the control, received similar rewards to minimize the Hawthorne effect.
- Experimenter Familiarity: Halliday et al. (2012) ensured equal experimenter contact across all groups, reducing potential bias from experimenter familiarity.
The Halliday et al. (2012) study emphasizes the importance of well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in assessing the efficacy of interventions. The lack of significant improvement in phonological awareness in their study, despite using a similar training program to Moore et al. (2005), underscores the need for rigorous methodological controls.
For practitioners, this means:
- Adopting evidence-based practices that are backed by well-designed RCTs.
- Being critical of studies that do not employ robust methodologies, as they may yield exaggerated treatment effects.
- Continuing to engage in further research and staying updated with the latest findings to refine intervention strategies.
To read the original research paper, please follow this link: A Tale of Two Studies on Auditory Training in Children: A Response to the Claim that ‘Discrimination Training of Phonemic Contrasts Enhances Phonological Processing in Mainstream School Children’ by Moore, Rosenberg and Coleman (2005).
