Link to full text: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876285915002752
Access: Institutional Access
study descriptionCross-sectional study.
core topic(s)Reach Out and Read (ROR)
Exposures, Outcomes, OtherHome Language/Literacy/Learning Environment , Home Routines , Parent Behaviors and Skills , Reading Frequency
objectivesWe hypothesized that exposure to ROR and other variables such as reading as part of a bedtime routine positively correlate with caregiver-child reading frequency.
exposureReach Out and Read (ROR).
outcomes evaluatedCaregiver-child reading frequency and home literacy environment.
setting8 ROR-Milwaukee sites, which serve predominantly low-income populations.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study based on a convenience sample of caregivers at 8 ROR-Milwaukee sites, which serve predominantly low-income populations in Milwaukee. On the basis of results of previously validated questionnaires, odds ratios were calculated to determine which variables are significantly associated with caregivers' reading to children 0 to 2 (rarely), 3 to 6 (often), and 7 (daily) days per week. Random forest analysis was performed to examine relative importance of variables in predicting caregivers' reading frequency.
sample sizen=8 (sites); n=256 (caregivers)
Measure of Home Literacy Environment: 25-item questionnaire adapted from the Before-and-After-Books and Reading survey that assesses:
- Demographic Characteristics
- Exposure to ROR-M intervention: as number of children’s books received from pediatricians and age of child when a book was first received from a pediatrician.
- Caregivers’ literacy-related attitudes and behaviors: such as caregivers’ interest in reading, how caregivers-prepared the child for bed, and the reported number of children’s books in the household.
- Frequency of reading: as days per week.
resultsA total of 256 caregivers were eligible for analysis; those who reported receiving ≥4 books from pediatricians read to children more days per week compared to those receiving fewer books (5.07 vs 3.61, P < .001) and were more likely to read daily (odds ratio 3.07, 95% confidence interval 1.80-5.23). Caregivers' interest in reading, number of children's books in the home, reading as part of a bedtime routine, and number of books received from pediatricians were among the most important variables in distinguishing rarely, often, and daily reading caregivers.
conclusionsExposure to ROR-Milwaukee's intervention is associated with increased reading frequency. Identified variables such as reading as a bedtime routine and number of children's books in the home should be targets for future literacy-promoting interventions.
limitationsThere are several limitations in this study, and one of them is the lack of a true control group, limiting the ability to interpret the relationships between attitudes/behaviors and intervention. The use of convenience samples may lend to selection bias on the part of the interviewers. Another limitation of this study was that the outcome measure and all variables were based on caregivers' reports, which are prone to social desirability bias. Although our conceptual model of early childhood literacy development is extensive, many additional variables, mediators, and confounders also exist. These include a child's enrollment in day care or preschool, number of children in the household, number of caregivers, and exposures to other forms of language.16, 21 Future studies that randomize the different components of the ROR intervention (eg, book delivery, anticipatory guidance, modeling reading) and include more variables from a child's home environment may enhance the existing data.