Link to full text: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0009922813507995?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
Access: Institutional Access
study descriptionMethodological review.
core topic(s)Reach Out and Read (ROR)
metric(s)Downs and Black Checklist (DBC)
objectivesThe primary objective of this manuscript was to critically review the methodological quality of Read Out and Read (ROR).
exposureReach Out and Read (ROR).
outcomes evaluatedMethodological quality of ROR.
methodsA PubMed search was conducted. Articles that met three criteria were considered. First, the study must be clinically based and include parent contact with a pediatrician. Second, parental counseling ("anticipatory guidance") about the importance of parent-child book reading must be included. Third, only experimental or quasi-experimental studies were included; no additional criteria were used. Published articles from any year and peer-reviewed journal were considered. Study quality was determined using a modified version of the Downs and Black (1998) checklist assessing four categories: (1) Reporting, (2) External Validity, (3) Internal Validity-Bias, and (4) Internal Validity-Confounding. We were also interested in whether quality differed based on study design, children's age, sample size, and study outcome. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria.
sample sizen=11 (studies)
Measure of Quality: assessed using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist including the following categories:
- External Validity
- Internal Validity: bias
- Internal Validity: confounding
resultsThe overall quality of evidence was variable across all studies; Reporting and External Validity categories were relatively strong while methodological concerns were found in the area of internal validity. Quality scores differed on the four study characteristics.
conclusionsImplications related to clinical practice and future studies are discussed.