Content area
Integrating literacy-focused curricula in preschool settings may help support children’s literacy learning. In this study, we explored the use of literacy-focused curricula and how it was associated with preschool children’s literacy gains (i.e., print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, and emergent writing) relative to non-literacy-focused curricula. We estimated multilevel structural equation models using data from an intervention study that included a sample of 571 children nested within 98 preschool classrooms. Because early disparities in emergent literacy are associated with later reading and writing difficulties, we examined how such associations might be moderated by child risk status, receipt of emergent literacy intervention, and program settings. We found that literacy-focused curricula were not often used by teachers in preschool classrooms, but teachers’ use of such curricula was positively associated with children’s phonological awareness gains. Risk status did not moderate the association between use of literacy-focused curricula and children’s emergent writing gains. Additionally, emergent literacy intervention and program settings did not moderate the associations. However, we found that teachers’ use of literacy-focused curricula was positively associated with print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and language and comprehension for children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties compared to those who were not at risk. As such, our findings suggest that integrating or supplementing existing classroom instruction with literacy-focused curricula could yield meaningful benefits for children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties.
Full text
1. Introduction
Emergent literacy development during preschool is crucial, setting the foundation for subsequent academic success (Duncan et al., 2007; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Emergent literacy refers to the constellation of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that serve as developmental precursors to conventional reading and writing (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Core components typically include print and letter knowledge (letter forms, names, and letter–sound correspondences), concepts of print (how books and print work), phonological awareness (being able to hear and manipulate sounds in words), language and comprehension (expressive and receptive vocabulary, morphosyntax, inferencing, and discourse skills that support meaning-making), and emergent writing (National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). Many children develop emergent literacy skills related to these components through regular adult-mediated interactions with print materials and quality educational experiences (Justice et al., 2005; Lonigan et al., 2011); about one-third of children, however, begin kindergarten significantly behind their peers on these skills, often by more than a full standard deviation (Fielding et al., 2007). These early disparities in emergent literacy reflects multiple, interacting factors such as differences in access to books, language and literacy learning opportunities, and high-quality early education, which may be tied to the socioeconomic backgrounds of children’s families and neighborhoods, as well as differences in cognitive, language, and other skills (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Lurie et al., 2021). Early disparities in emergent literacy are associated with later reading and writing difficulties: children who enter school with lower initial emergent literacy skills tend to fall further behind without timely, targeted intervention (Fielding et al., 2007; Greenwood et al., 2013). Consequently, focused and effective literacy instruction in early childhood education (ECE) settings is essential to support the literacy development of these children (NASEM, 2024; Neuman, 2006; Ritchie & Willer, 2008; Yoshikawa et al., 2016).
1.1. Curricula in Early Childhood Education
Among the various components involved in literacy instruction in ECE, an effective curriculum is critical (Ritchie & Willer, 2008). Reviews of research have emphasized the important role of curricula in ECE (Chambers et al., 2016; NASEM, 2024). Early childhood curricula provide structured guidance for teachers to foster essential concepts and skills that support children’s learning and development. However, curricula differ in various ways, including underlying child development philosophies, areas of focus, and materials used (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008; Schachter et al., 2020). In this study, we considered skills-focused curricula designed to foster children’s emergent literacy development.
Skills-focused curricula (also referred to as domain- or content-specific curricula) prioritize the systematic and intentional instruction of specific skills within domains (e.g., literacy, math, social-emotional) using targeted approaches designed to achieve specific learning objectives and can be contrasted with emergent (e.g., Montessori) or comprehensive (e.g., whole-child curricula, also known as global or traditional curricula) curricular approaches (Jenkins et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016). In skills-focused curricula, preschool children experience clear and step-by-step instructions, practice with teacher support, and receive immediate feedback about their progress before working independently (Clements & Sarama, 2008; Fischel et al., 2007; Jenkins et al., 2019; Shea & Jenkins, 2021). This structured, direct teaching benefits preschool children by providing clear modeling, frequent repetition, scaffolded practice, and interactive and tangible support that reduce cognitive load and make abstract concepts more concrete. When curricula break earning objectives into small, sequenced steps and provide plenty of guided practice (e.g., teacher modeling, choral response, use of manipulatives, picture cues), preschool children are more likely to acquire and automatize emergent literacy skills such as phonological awareness and letter knowledge (NASEM, 2024). For example, Literacy Express is one skills-focused curriculum designed to build preschool children’s phonological awareness, oral language, and print and letter knowledge, and includes thematic units, sequenced to progressively increase in complexity (Lonigan et al., 2011). These thematic units provide playful, cohesive, and integrated learning opportunities to support the development of emergent literacy skills. For example, the unit “Safety First” combines strategies such as dialogic reading, explicit vocabulary pre-teaching, shared writing, and dramatic play. As such, children experience repeated, contextualized exposure and scaffolded language practice to advance vocabulary, language, and print knowledge. The unit includes related vocabulary words associated with safety (e.g., helmet, fire engine, siren, escape) and during large-group activities, preschool children are given opportunities to use the vocabulary and concepts associated with safety (e.g., dramatic play involving safety personnel and materials, artwork making traffic signs to use in play). Prior literature indicated these focused activities enhanced children’s targeted literacy skills (Farver et al., 2009; Lonigan et al., 2011).
Skills-focused curricula emphasize explicit teaching, as indicated in the above example, often incorporate play-based activities that leverage children’s natural curiosity to foster their learning and development within intentional small-group, large-group, and individual activities, and provide guidance for additional practice during guided or free play (Diamond, 2013; National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2022; Toub et al., 2018). For instance, Building Blocks is a skills-focused curriculum in math that includes small- and large-group activities to provide children with systematic instructions. In one small-group activity, children are read the book “Blueberries for Sal,” count manipulatives, and drop these into a container like Sal did. At the end of the activity, children are asked to count on their fingers how many items are in the container and check their counting as the container is emptied. Research has documented positive effects of this math skills-focused curriculum (Clements & Sarama, 2008, 2011). Skills-focused curricula emphasize intentional approaches that also consider instructional goals, child needs and interests, and suitable methods to best support children’s subject learning while also allowing for incidental teaching (Burchinal et al., 2022). The curricula we discuss in this study are those meant to be implemented by regular classroom teachers in early childhood classrooms.
1.2. Skills-Focused Curricula Compared to Non-Skills-Focused Curricula
Skills-focused curricula can be contrasted with non-skills-focused curricula, such as emergent and comprehensive (Lonigan et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2018) curricular approaches. Emergent approaches individualize instructional objectives, content, and activities in response to specific children’s strengths, interests, needs, and experiences (Schachter et al., 2020); the scope and sequence depend on individual children’s needs. In addition to teacher-led activities, children engage in self-interested learning in centers and other contexts. Similarly to emergent curricula, comprehensive curricula (e.g., High/Scope or Creative Curriculum, whole-child) are typically highly child-centered and follow a constructivist approach (Lonigan et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2018), emphasizing children’s exploration and engagement with the environment in all learning areas (i.e., not focused on one specific domain). Whole-child curricula, for example, are widely used in U.S. preschools and guide teachers to support children’s social-emotional, physical, cognitive, and language development (Schweinhart et al., 2005). These curricula provide teachers with general guidance on classroom organization and activity planning to support children’s learning (Lonigan et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2018). Both emergent and comprehensive curricula include learning objectives for particular domains, such as literacy or math, as part of their holistic scope and sequence. However, these objectives may be addressed with less depth, specificity, explicitness, or systematicity than those in skills-focused curricula (Gerde et al., 2019; Skibbe et al., 2016). For instance, Creative Curriculum includes literacy objectives for phonological awareness, print and letter knowledge, and comprehension. However, the curriculum guides teachers to “infuse literacy practices in their classrooms and use the environment as a natural source to create literacy-related experience” (i.e., classroom objects, displays, centers, and daily activities, Teaching Strategies, Inc., 2018, p. 2), suggesting that activities may target learning objectives in more implicit than explicit ways. Additional research suggests that non-skills-focused curricula employ a broad approach rather than providing explicit, systematic, and skill-focused instruction (Gerde et al., 2019; Skibbe et al., 2016). These curricula typically prioritize exploration, social interaction, and emergent literacy opportunities that arise naturally in classroom routines and centers rather than through direct, systematic instruction.
Currently, the What Works Clearinghouse indicates that non-skill-focused curricula reviewed to date do not show effects or have uncertain effects on preschool children’s oral language, print and letter knowledge, phonological processing, or math achievement (WWC, 2013); as many comprehensive curricula are designed to be broad, child-centered approaches that support multiple domains simultaneously, such breadth may result in fewer gains in any specific domain. In contrast, evidence from several recent studies (Jenkins et al., 2018; Joo et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016; see also Jenkins et al., 2019; WWC, 2010) indicates that skills-focused curricula are effective in supporting children’s literacy and math learning. For example, a meta-analysis by Wang and colleagues (2016) found that mathematics-focused curricula in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten yielded moderate to large learning gains. In reanalysis of the Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008), Jenkins et al. (2018) and Nguyen et al. (2018) showed that skills-focused curricula in literacy and mathematics produced better outcomes in their respective domains compared to locally developed curricula or whole-child (non-skills-focused) curricula. Given that most of these studies were conducted using data from 20 years ago, more research is needed to understand whether skills-focused curricula produce better outcomes than non-skills-focused curricula (NASEM, 2024). We respond to calls for additional and more nuanced research examining associations between skills-focused curricula and children’s literacy outcomes.
1.3. Literacy-Focused Curricula
In the current study, we focus specifically on one type of skills-focused curriculum: literacy-focused. Literacy-focused curricula explicitly target preschool children’s foundational skills in print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, and emergent writing. These emergent literacy skills predict later conventional reading and writing and are major components of children’s early overall development because they support the two essential pathways for skilled reading: decoding (e.g., phonological awareness, print and letter knowledge) and language/comprehension (Hjetland et al., 2020; Reynolds et al., 2017). Additionally, prior research demonstrates that literacy-focused curricula that provide explicit, structured, repeated, scaffolded opportunities that could support emergent bilingual children and those identified as at risk for later reading difficulties (Goodrich et al., 2017; Joo et al., 2020; Madsen et al., 2023; Mashburn et al., 2016; Wilcox et al., 2011). Based on this evidence, as well as the findings of aforementioned studies comparing skills-focused and non-skills-focused curricula (Jenkins et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2018), we might expect preschool children, whether considered typically developing or at risk for later reading difficulties, to perform better on emergent literacy outcomes when enrolled in classrooms featuring use of literacy-focused curricula.
Intervention studies suggest that literacy-focused curricula targeting preschool children’s emergent literacy skills have benefitted their language and literacy development (Beck & McKeown, 2007; Cabell et al., 2025; Cervetti et al., 2023; Coyne et al., 2010; Hwang et al., 2022; Language and Reading Research Consortium et al., 2022). For example, Fischel et al. (2007) evaluated two curricula designed to enhance the early literacy skills of preschool children, comparing them to a third, control condition. Thirty-five Head Start preschool classrooms were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) Let’s Begin with the Letter People (literacy-focused), (2) Waterford Early Reading Program Level 1 (emergent literacy-focused), both in conjunction with their existing High/Scope Educational Approach (whole-child), or (3) continuing with the High/Scope method alone (whole-child). They found that preschool children in classrooms in which literacy-focused curriculum was added made significant gains in print and letter knowledge and emergent writing across the Head Start preschool year compared to preschool children in classrooms that used the whole-child curriculum alone. Similarly, Farver et al. (2009) examined the effects of the Literacy Express curriculum. They randomly assigned 94 preschool children to receive (1) High/Scope (whole-child), (2) Literacy Express (literacy-focused) in English-only, or (3) Literacy Express initially in Spanish transitioning to English (transitional). They found that preschool children receiving Literacy Express (literacy-focused) made significant gains in their vocabulary, phonological awareness, and print and letter knowledge compared to the whole-child condition. These findings are consistent with evidence from the intervention report of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2010) and recent studies (Jenkins et al., 2018; Joo et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2018) that suggest that literacy-focused curricula are more effective than comprehensive approaches in supporting preschool children’s oral language, print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and literacy composite score outcomes.
Yet, evidence suggests that literacy-focused curricula are not widely used, with potential consequences for preschool children’s early literacy learning (Walsh & Petty, 2007). For example, Schachter and colleagues (2020) documented the curricula reported by preschool teachers in one state, including key quality features (e.g., learning objectives, curricula, specified scope, specified sequence) and research evidence of impacting early literacy learning. Although most curricula (i.e., 69%) reported including language and literacy content, the study highlighted the limited use of literacy skills-focused curricula, particularly those that are research-tested. The more frequently used comprehensive curricula included some key quality features and literacy content, but less than 15% had evidence of positive effects on preschool children’s literacy learning. Although Schachter et al. (2020) call for greater use of literacy-focused curricula, they did not directly examine associations between the use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s literacy learning (see examples of testing the direct association from Jenkins et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2018). As noted above, current evidence linking literacy-focused curricula to preschool children’s literacy outcomes is largely based on intervention studies (Piasta et al., 2024; Language and Reading Research Consortium et al., 2022; WWC, 2010).
As use of the literacy-focused curricula has expanded into authentic or real-world early childhood classrooms (i.e., classrooms functioning with their normal routines with their typical staffing) beyond intervention settings, few have undergone rigorous evaluation (Piasta et al., 2024). Evidence of literacy-focused curricula being associated with literacy outcomes remains primarily limited to literacy composite scores (Jenkins et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2018). Additionally, studies examining specific literacy content suggest that key areas such as vocabulary, phonological awareness, and writing are rarely addressed in classrooms not using emergent literacy-focused curricula (Gerde et al., 2019; Neuman & Dwyer, 2009; Nguyen et al., 2018). Thus, more research is needed to determine whether using literacy-focused curricula in real-world preschool classrooms predicts better early literacy learning as opposed to not using such curricula in such classrooms. In this study, we explore literacy-focused curricula as reported and implemented by teachers in authentic preschool environments on preschool children’s print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, and emergent writing.
1.4. Child Risk Status, Emergent Literacy Intervention, and Preschool Settings as Moderators
In addition, the extent to which associations between real-world use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s emergent literacy gains may depend on sample characteristics remains underexplored. Given that some curricula have evidenced “Matthew effects” (Pfost et al., 2014; Stanovich, 1986) whereas others have evidenced “compensatory effects” (Sameroff & Chandler, 1975; Sattler, 2023), it is crucial to understand whether the use of literacy-focused curricula is associated with gains for preschool children who have initially lower emergent literacy skills, particularly those identified as at risk for later reading difficulties. Specifically, Matthew effects suggest that literacy-focused curricula will boost literacy skills for preschool children who have initially strong literacy skills (Cabell et al., 2011; Coyne et al., 2018; Cunha & Heckman, 2007). Preschool children who begin with strong literacy skills often benefit from factors such as interactions with knowledgeable others and a supportive home environment; these preschool children may learn language and literacy regardless of the curricula used in the classroom or even outside of the ECE context (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Neuman, 2006). Conversely, compensatory effects suggest that literacy-focused curricula will boost outcomes for preschool children with low initial skills who may need extra support (Sameroff & Chandler, 1975; Sattler, 2023). For such children, explicit and targeted literacy instruction can be effective (NASEM, 2024). For example, some prior research suggests that literacy-focused curricula can be particularly beneficial for preschool children’s vocabulary learning such that those with lower initial vocabulary skills make greater gains (e.g., Madsen et al., 2023).
Moreover, the benefits of literacy-focused curricula might be amplified when used in conjunction with emergent literacy intervention, as recommended in current response-to-intervention and multitiered systems of support frameworks (Carta et al., 2016; Greenwood et al., 2013). Emergent literacy intervention is supplemental, often small-group instruction that provides more intensive, tailored support for specific skills through structured and scaffolded explicit teaching (Lonigan et al., 2013 see also Sayers et al., 2020, 2021 for a detailed description of the emergent literacy intervention used in the study). Given research suggesting better outcomes when high-quality core instruction (Tier 1) is paired with emergent literacy intervention (Tier 2; Gettinger & Stoiber, 2008; Stoiber & Gettinger, 2016), literacy-focused curricula plus literacy intervention may result in greater effects than either intervention or curriculum alone. Alternatively, in cases in which classroom teachers do not use literacy-focused curricula, emergent literacy interventions may still foster literacy gains, indicating the robustness of intervention impacts.
Additionally, risk for reading difficulties might be due to experiential factors such as the quantity or quality of early literacy experiences (McGinty & Justice, 2009; Myrtil et al., 2019). The latter may be affected by opportunity gaps related to poverty (Murnane & Duncan, 2011; Neuman, 2006), which disproportionately affects children and families from minoritized backgrounds (Chatterji, 2006). Researchers often use program characteristics as proxies for measuring poverty in preschool, including whether the programs are publicly funded, affiliated with Head Start, or accept subsidies (Watts et al., 2023). Urbanicity is also related to socioeconomics and thus can proxy poverty (Kuddus et al., 2020; Xie et al., 2020). Because literacy-focused curricula are one way to support early literacy learning and thus potentially mitigate opportunity gaps, these program settings may also moderate associations between the use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s literacy gains.
1.5. The Current Study
In this study, we examined the extent to which teachers used literacy-focused curricula in preschool classrooms and whether use of literacy-focused curricula was associated with preschool children’s emergent literacy gains (i.e., print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, emergent writing). We then examined whether such associations were moderated by child risk status, receipt of emergent literacy intervention, and program settings. We addressed three research questions: To what extent do preschool teachers report using literacy-focused curricula in their classrooms, and what specific literacy-focused curricula do they report using? Is the use of literacy-focused preschool curricula, compared to not using literacy-focused curricula (e.g., emergent, comprehensive, or whole-child approaches), associated with greater gains in print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, and emergent writing skills for preschool children? Is the association between use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool literacy gains moderated by child risk status, receipt of early literacy intervention, or program settings?
With respect to our first question, based on previous research (Jenkins et al., 2018; Schachter et al., 2020), we hypothesized that a minority of preschool teachers would report using literacy-focused curricula in their classrooms. We did not have strong hypotheses as to which literacy-focused curricula preschool teachers would use, given that only a few studies have reported on this (e.g., Schachter et al., 2020; Walsh & Petty, 2007). We expected that teachers would report a variety of literacy-focused curricula, with some curricula being more prevalent due to established reputations and/or commercial marketing, ease of use, or alignment with educational standards and policies. Second, we hypothesized that the use of literacy-focused curricula within classrooms would be positively associated with preschool children’s emergent literacy gains. Specifically, preschool children in classrooms featuring use of literacy-focused curricula would have greater improvements in literacy skills compared to children in classrooms in which literacy-focused curricula were not used. Third, given the lack of evidence concerning interactions between the use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s risk status, receipt of emergent literacy intervention, and program settings, we did not have strong hypotheses concerning moderation. However, we did expect either “Matthew effects” or “compensatory effects” based on prior research.
2. Materials and Methods
To answer our research questions, we conducted a secondary data analysis of the Nemours BrightStart! (NBS!) project, which was collected during a randomized control trial (RCT) of the NBS! intervention under authentic preschool conditions (see Piasta et al., 2021, 2025 for full details on the RCT and results). NBS! is a small-group, supplemental early literacy intervention intended to be implemented with groups of four or fewer children who are identified as at risk for literacy difficulties. The intervention utilizes systematic and explicit instruction to promote print knowledge, phonological awareness, oral language and comprehension, and emergent writing skills. In the RCT, we randomly assigned classrooms to one of three study conditions: two intervention conditions, which were implemented by either classroom teachers or visiting “community aides” (i.e., adults affiliated with a local kindergarten readiness initiative who visited classrooms to provide intervention), or one business-as-usual control condition. In the current study, we focus on the curriculum used in the classroom, regardless of study condition, as (a) we included intervention as a potential moderator and (b) the original study showed minimal effects of the intervention on children’s emergent literacy learning. The current study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (
2.1. Participants
2.1.1. Classrooms and Teachers
The research team collected data from 98 preschool classrooms within one midwestern state in which the original project was conducted. Each classroom participated for one academic year. Eligibility criteria included: (a) enrolling preschool children aged 3 to 5 years, (b) the lead or co-lead teacher voluntarily providing informed consent and agreeing to all study activities, (c) administrator approval and signing of the project’s memorandum of understanding, and (d) at least one child in the classroom meeting the study’s participation criteria (see details in Piasta et al., 2023). At the beginning of the academic year, classroom teachers completed a questionnaire to provide background information about themselves and their classrooms. Classrooms were mostly situated within center-based programs (84%) or public schools (9%) and located in urban settings (77%). Just under half of the classrooms were affiliated with Head Start (40%), and more than half of the classrooms accepted subsidies (62%; 11% unreported). Approximately one-fourth of the programs were National Association for the Education of Young Children accredited (26%; 8% unreported). Class sizes ranged from 6 to 24 preschool children (M = 13.96, SD = 4.59). Our data indicated that classrooms were predominantly staffed by only one teacher (79%) or two teachers (18%) per classroom, and 75% of classrooms did not have instructional specialists or additional support staff. Most participating teachers were female (97%); 53% were Black, 44% were White, 3% were Asian, American Indian, Alaska Native, or Puerto Rican, and 3% were Hispanic/Latinx (3% unreported). Twenty-three percent held teaching licenses. Teachers’ education levels were distributed across six categories ranging from a high school diploma (6%) to a master’s degree (7%); 31% had an associate’s degree as the highest degree earned, and 33% had a bachelor’s degree. Teachers’ experience with preschool children ranged from 0 to 33 years (M = 10.66, SD = 8.18). Nearly three-quarters (74%) of teachers reported receiving training specific to the curricula used in their classrooms.
2.1.2. Preschool Children
In this study, we included all 571 preschool children who participated in the larger project. Children were an average of 49 months old (SD = 6.41) at the beginning of the study. Most children were Black (60%) or White (24%). About half of the children were girls (52%). Approximately 2% of children had either individual educational plans (IEP) or received 504 services; we note that many children of this age have yet to be identified as requiring such supports, especially in non-Head Start classrooms (NASEM et al., 2023). In terms of parental education, 5% of children’s parents did not have high school diplomas; 57% had a high school diploma as the highest degree earned, 12% had an associate’s degree, and 24% had a bachelor’s degree or higher (2% unreported). Over half of children’s families (63%) reported earning less than $35,000 in income per year.
The sample included both preschool children considered typically developing peers and those identified as at risk for later literacy difficulties. To determine risk, trained assessors conducted the Get Ready to Read-Revised emergent literacy screener (GRTR-R; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2010) one-on-one with all participating children at the beginning of the academic year/prior to intervention. The GRTR-R assesses print concepts, letter knowledge, and phonological awareness in children aged 3.0 to 5.11 years. This assessment includes 25 multiple-choice questions, requiring children to select the picture that best answers the question posed by the assessor. The responses are totaled to produce a raw score, which is then benchmarked against age-normed standards to identify children at potential risk for later reading difficulties. The internal consistency of the GRTR-R, as reported in the normative sample, is high with α = 0.88 (Lonigan & Wilson, 2008). Based on the Test of Preschool Early Literacy Index, the GRTR-R shows a sensitivity of 0.90 and a specificity of 0.69, indicating its accuracy in identifying children who are truly at risk or not for reading difficulties (Wilson & Lonigan, 2010). Furthermore, it has demonstrated high positive predictive power of 0.97 and negative predictive power of 0.38 (Wilson & Lonigan, 2010). Children who scored below-average/at-risk on the GRTR-R (n = 281) were identified as being at risk for later reading difficulties and eligible to receive the NBS! intervention. All other children (n = 290) were identified as typically developing peers.
2.2. Planned Missingness Design
In the RCT, we employed an a priori planned missingness design (PMD, Xu & Logan, 2021) for typically developing peers (n = 290), meaning that these children did not complete the full assessment battery in order to save participants’ time and project resources (Graham et al., 2006). For purpose of this planned missingness design, we included both efficient and gold-standard measures in the assessment battery to measure four outcomes: print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, and emergent writing. We used two types of measures: efficient measures that are cheaper and quicker to administer but may be less reliable or measured with inherent bias (e.g., Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Literacy, 2nd edition; IGDIs; Wackerle-Hollman et al., 2015), and gold standard measures that have excellent reliability but are more costly in terms of financial expense, administration, and personnel training (e.g., the Test of Preschool Early Literacy [TOPEL]; Lonigan et al., 2007). All children, both those identified as at risk for later reading difficulties and typically developing peers, were administered all of the efficient measures included in the assessment battery: the Quick Letter Name Knowledge Assessment, Letter Sound Short Forms, IGDI Alliteration, and IGDI Rhyming, Picture Naming IGDI. Additionally, children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties, based on GRTR-R, were administered all gold standard measures: TOPEL Print Knowledge, TOPEL Phonological Awareness, Narrative Assessment Protocol, Woodcock–Johnson Oral Comprehension, and the Gerde Writing Measure (i.e., Name Writing, Letter Writing, and Invented Spelling). Typically developing peers were randomly divided into three groups and administered one of the following three gold standard measures in the fall: TOPEL Print Knowledge, TOPEL Phonological Awareness, or Narrative Assessment Protocol; all typically developing peers were administered the Woodcock–Johnson Oral Comprehension and Gerde Writing Measure. In the spring, we administered only the gold standard measures that children were administered in the fall. Prior research indicated that utilizing PMD can maintain statistical power and obtain reliable estimates (Little & Rhemtulla, 2013; Rhemtulla & Hancock, 2016).
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Classroom Curriculum
We asked teachers to complete a teacher background questionnaire in the fall. The questionnaire included adapted items from the preschool teacher version of the Professional Demographics and Current Program and Classroom subscale in Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten: 1998–1999 (Tourangeau et al., 2009) and documented teacher demographics and educational experiences. We asked teachers to “Please identify whether you currently use any of the following curricula in your classroom” and listed 27 curricula derived from Schachter et al. (2020; e.g., OWL; Let’s Begin with Letter People; Creative Curriculum; Read, Play, and Learn!) from which teachers could choose. Teachers could also indicate a curriculum not listed or if they did not use a curriculum. We dummy coded all teacher-reported curricula as to whether (1) or not (0) each was emergent literacy-focused following definitions and codes used in previous studies (Jenkins et al., 2018; Schachter et al., 2020). In instances in which multiple curricula were reported, we designated any use of a literacy-focused curriculum as a literacy-focused classroom. When multiple curricula were reported, but none were considered literacy-focused, the classroom was designated as not using a literacy-focused curriculum.1
2.3.2. Child Outcome Measures
All children completed GRTR-R screening plus pretest assessments at the begining of preschool year (prior to the NBS! Intervention) and the same assessments as posttests at the end of the preschool year. All assessments were conducted 1:1 by trained assessors in quiet spaces at children’s preschools. Research staff, supervised by the principal investigator and PhD-level project coordinator with expertise in literacy and language assessment, completed training on each assessment prior to the assessment administration. This included reviewing technical manuals and administration protocols, scoring at least 80% correct on administration quizzes, and completing practice administrations while being observed. Additional information about data collection is available at (Piasta et al., 2021).
We included four outcome measures of print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, and emergent writing. We used three measures to create a latent variable outcome measure for each construct of interest, which is one method for analyzing PMDs (Xu & Logan, 2021). We describe each outcome measure in detail below.
Print and Letter Knowledge. We included three measures to create a latent measure of children’s print and letter knowledge (i.e., TOPEL Print Knowledge, the Quick Letter Name Knowledge Assessment, and Letter Sound Short Forms). We used the Print Knowledge subtest of the TOPEL (Lonigan et al., 2007) to assess children’s understanding of print and letter concepts. TOPEL Print Knowledge measures a child’s alphabet knowledge and understanding of concepts of print. Children are shown individual print and letters or groups of print and letters in both uppercase and lowercase forms, and they are then asked to identify or name the letters or different parts of letters. The maximum score is 36 (i.e., total number of items correct), and the internal consistency of the TOPEL Print Knowledge subtest is α = 0.93–0.96.
We used the Quick Letter Name Knowledge Assessment (Q-LNK; Tortorelli et al., 2017) and Letter Sound Short Forms (LSSF), (Piasta et al., 2016) to measure children’s knowledge of letter names and sounds, respectively. The Q-LNK offers a quick evaluation of children’s knowledge of eight uppercase and lowercase letters. Children are shown letters on one of six equivalent test forms, with one letter displayed per page. They are then asked to name each letter presented. The total number of correctly named letters is tallied and converted into predicted scores (ranging from 0 to 49), reflecting what the child would have scored if they were shown all 52 uppercase and lowercase letters. The LSSF measures children’s knowledge of letter sounds. Children are presented with pairs of uppercase and lowercase letters on one of four equivalent forms and are asked to provide a sound associated with each letter pair. Any correct associated sound is counted as accurate. The total correct responses are converted into predicted scores (ranging from 0 to 26), representing what the child would have scored if they had been presented with all 26 letter pairs. The IRT reliability across forms ranged from 0.89 to 0.92 for the Q-LNK and from 0.88 to 0.92 for the LSSF.
Phonological Awareness. We included three measures to create a latent measure of children’s phonological awareness (i.e., TOPEL Phonological Awareness, Alliteration IGDI and Rhyming IGDI). We used the TOPEL Phonological Awareness subtest (Lonigan et al., 2007) to assess the elision and blending of various sound units (syllables, onsets, rimes, phonemes). For the 12 elision items, the assessor presents a word, and the child is asked to say what is left after removing a specific part of the word. For the 15 blending items, children hear a word divided into two segments and are asked to combine the segments to form the complete word. The number of items answered correctly is summed, with a maximum possible raw score of 27. The reliability of the phonological awareness subtest is good (α = 0.87; Lonigan et al., 2007).
We also used Alliteration and Rhyming IGDIs. The Rhyming IGDI measures children’s abilities to select words that rhyme, and the Alliteration IGDI measures children’s abilities to identify the first sounds in words. Rhyming is a timed measure in which children are asked to point to one of three pictures that shows a word that rhymes with a target picture. The total score is the number of items correctly identified in 2 min. Alliteration is a timed assessment in which children are shown four pictures and are asked to point to which of the items in the pictures has the same initial sound as that of a target picture. The total score is the number of words correctly identified in 2 min. Rhyming and Alliteration each have a maximum total score of 15. Test–retest reliabilities for the IGDIs range from r = 0.93–0.97.
Language and Comprehension. We included three measures to create a latent measure of children’s language and comprehension (i.e., Narrative Assessment Protocol, Woodcock–Johnson Oral Comprehension, and Picture Naming IGDI). We measured children’s narrative language abilities using the IRT-based scaled score (α = 0.82) of the Narrative Assessment Protocol-2 (NAP-2; (Bowles et al., 2020)). For the NAP-2 assessment, assessors tell children a story based on pictures in a wordless book, including a sequence of events, characters, and a clear beginning, middle, and end. Next, children are asked to tell a story based on the same wordless picture book. Children’s storytelling is recorded for later coding. The narrative is coded for the presence and frequency of 20 structural aspects of language, and an IRT (Rasch)-based scaled score (M = 20, SD = 2) is produced for each child.
We measured children’s language comprehension via the IRT (Rasch)-based W score (α = 0.85–0.90) of the Oral Language Comprehension subtest of the Woodcock–Johnson (WJ) Tests of Achievement III-NU (McGrew et al., 2007). The W score is an equal interval, ability-based metric centered at 500 (Jaffe, 2009). Median W scores vary by age and grade. The WJ is a widely used, standardized, and comprehensive measure. In the Oral Language Comprehension subtest, assessors ask children to produce a missing keyword that makes sense in an orally presented passage. The average scores for this subtest range from 443.76 to 459.78, with a standard deviation between 16.09 and 16.23 for preschool children.
We measured children’s expressive vocabulary via the Picture Naming IGDI (McConnell et al., 2014; Wackerle-Hollman et al., 2015). For this subtest, assessors present children with a set of picture cards. Children are asked to correctly name as many of the pictures as possible in 1 min. The number of items answered correctly is summed, with a maximum possible score of 15 (α = 0.73).
Emergent Writing. We used three tasks from the Gerde Writing Measure (Gerde et al., 2015): Name Writing (6 items), Letter Writing (10 items), and Invented Spelling (5 items) to create a latent variable. In these tasks, children are provided with paper and writing utensils. They are asked to write their name, each of ten dictated letters, and five dictated consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words. As there was little variance between the scribbling and drawing codes from the original Gerde et al. (2015) scale, we merged these codes into a single category. Name writing was scored on a five-point, ordinal scale (0 = refusal/no response, 1 = scribbling/drawing, 2 = use of letter-like shapes, 3 = use of at least one letter, 4 = name spelled correctly). Letter writing was scored similarly, with 0 = refusal/no response, 1 = scribbling/drawing, 2 = letter-like shape, 3 = a letter other than the letter dictated to the child, or 4 = correct letter. Letter writing scores were averaged across the ten letters (α = 0.92). Invented spelling, based on the spelling of the CVC words, was scored on an ordinal scale of 0 = refusal/no response, 1 = scribbling/drawing, 2 = use of letters or letter-like shapes, 3 = use of a letter to represent an initial or salient sound, 4 = use of letters to represent multiple sounds in the word, or 5 = word spelled correctly. Scores were averaged across the five CVC words (α = 0.93). Coders were required to maintain interrater reliability > 0.70. In the current study, kappas ranged from 0.71–0.91 for name writing; 0.73–0.93 for letter writing; and 0.72–0.93 for invented spelling.
2.4. Moderator Variables
Because early disparities in emergent literacy are associated with later reading and writing difficulties, it is important to examine how the associations between literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s literacy gains may be moderated by child risk status. We identified children as at risk for later reading difficulties if they scored below the age-based cutoff on the screener of GRTR-R emergent literacy screener (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2010; risk status = 1) and as typically developing peers if they scored at or above the age-based cutoff (risk status = 0).
To test whether the benefits of literacy-focused curricula may be amplified when used in conjunction with emergent literacy intervention, we included receipt of emergent literacy intervention as a moderator. Receipt of emergent literacy intervention was operationalized as whether an individual child had been randomly assigned to one of the intervention conditions in the original project. Given the lack of evidence of differential effects in original intent-to-treat analyses (Piasta et al., 2023), we combined the teacher and community-aide intervention conditions such that intervention condition = 1 and control condition = 0.
Preschool settings may shape instructional quality (Nguyen et al., 2018; Zhai et al., 2013); therefore, our last set of moderators were preschool setting variables, including public-funded programs (public-funded program = 1, non-public funded program or other = 0), Head Start (Heat Start affiliated = 1, no Head Start affiliation = 0), subsidy acceptance (programs accepting subsidies = 1, programs not accepting subsidies = 0), and urban location (program is located in urban area = 1, program is located in a non-urban setting = 0).
2.5. Covariates
Because children and family characteristics may shape how children experienced curricula in their classrooms, we examined the following covariates to determine whether they were associated with the spring latent variables (p < 0.05): child age, child gender, child race/ethnicity, household income, whether the child had an IEP or 504 plan, parents’ highest degree earned, pre-intervention emergent literacy skills as represented by the GRTR-R raw score (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2010), and the relevant fall scores (individual and latent) for each posttest indicator/construct. Several covariates were correlated with the spring latent outcomes and therefore included in analyses (see details in Supplemental Material Table S1).
2.6. Analytic Approach
2.6.1. Missingness
We examined missingness by examining the percentage of missing item-level data and the percentage of cases with any missing data. Missing data ranged from 0% to 45% across assessment points and measures, with an average missingness of 9%. As expected, given the PMD, the three gold-standard measures of TOPEL print knowledge, TOPEL phonological awareness, and the Narrative Assessment Protocol had the most missing data, with an average missingness of 38% (i.e., very close to the 33% we would expect given how we operationalized the PMD). We included all children (n = 571) in our analysis. We followed PMD analysis recommendations (see Xu & Logan, 2021) and used Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) to account for the missingness in these and other measures in the analysis.
2.6.2. Analyses
To examine the extent to which and what specific emergent literacy-focused curricula were used in preschool classrooms, we conducted a descriptive analysis of teachers’ reported use of emergent literacy-focused and non-emergent literacy-focused curricula. We describe the number of each type of curricula that teachers used in their classrooms and the frequency of the specific emergent literacy-focused curricula reported by teachers.
We used multilevel structural equation modeling (SEM) to estimate associations between use of literacy-focused curricula in classrooms and preschool children’s residualized gains in emergent literacy skills. In all models, we used FIML estimation to account for missingness (planned or unplanned) and indicator variables for each construct from all measures to estimate fall and spring latent construct scores. When building the multilevel SEM models, we included between-level variables, including (1) a dummy indicator of the use of literacy-focused curricula and (2) between-level posttest latent factor, as well as within-level variables including (3) pretest latent factor, (4) within-level posttest latent factor, and (5) covariates that were correlated with the outcome. We used the between-level literacy-focused curriculum dummy variable, pretest latent factor, and covariates to predict the posttest latent factors in their corresponding level. Additionally, we accounted for nesting at the classroom level, given that our sample averaged 1.88 classrooms per school and most schools had only a single classroom represented. We also tested ICCs between school and classroom levels, and the results indicated there was a statistically significant variance at the classroom level (19%), but the variance at the school level was not statistically significant. These findings align with prior literature suggesting considerable within-school, between-classroom variance (Sabol et al., 2020).
To address whether associations between literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s emergent literacy residualized gains were moderated by different factors (i.e., the presence of child risk status, receipt of emergent literacy intervention, or program settings), we added each moderator and the interaction term between the moderator and literacy-focused curricula at the within level to the previous models and predicted the posttest latent factor.
We used Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp, 2021) for descriptive analysis and Mplus 8.8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) for SEM analysis. SEM models were evaluated using the following guidelines: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) above 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) below 0.08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). As indicated in our preregistration, we also considered whether associations were educationally meaningful. We interpreted our results using an educationally meaningful effect size threshold of 0.20 or greater following Kraft’s (2020) benchmarks. These benchmarks are increasingly used in the field (e.g., Cabell et al., 2025; Hwang et al., 2022). Note that all our results are reported and interpreted as z-scores based on the latent variables.
3. Results
3.1. Reported Use of Literacy-Focused Curricula by Preschool Teachers
We present results for teachers’ reported use of literacy-focused curricula in Table 1. Teachers reported using literacy-focused curricula in 15 classrooms; of these, teachers in 3 classrooms reported using both literacy-focused and non-literacy-focused curricula. The most frequently reported literacy-focused curriculum was Handwriting Without Tears (Olsen, 2003), which teachers reported using in 8 classrooms, followed by Building Language for Literacy (Neuman & Snow, 2000) used in 7 classrooms, and Opening the World of Learning (OWL; Ashe et al., 2009) used in 5 classrooms. Additionally, although Handwriting Without Tears was the most frequently used literacy-focused curriculum, it was consistently implemented alongside other literacy-focused curricula, such as Building Language for Literacy (see details in Table 1 notes). In contrast, teachers in 83 classrooms did not report using any literacy-focused curricula; Creative Curriculum/Teaching Strategies Gold was used in most of these classrooms (n = 76). Correspondingly, the number of preschool children who experienced literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) was smaller than the number of preschool children who did not (n = 479).
3.2. Associations Between Use of Literacy-Focused Curricula and Emergent Literacy Gains
We present descriptive statistics for preschool children’s observed emergent literacy scores and moderators in Table 2 and Table 3. In Table 4, we present the results of the SEM multilevel models in which we examined associations between use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s gains in print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, language and comprehension, and emergent writing. All models fit well with the data (see Table 4 note). We found that teacher-reported use of literacy-focused curricula in classrooms was positively associated with preschool children’s residualized gains in phonological awareness (β = 0.77, p = 0.01), which also met our criterion for an educationally meaningful effect per our preregistration (≥0.20). We did not find statistically significant associations between use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s residualized gains in print and letter knowledge (β = 0.22, p = 0.10), language and comprehension (β = 0.15, p = 0.36), or emergent writing (β = 0.20; p = 0.14), although the association with print and letter knowledge met our criterion for being potentially educationally meaningful.
3.3. Moderating Roles of Child Risk Status, Receipt of Early Literacy Intervention, and Preschool Settings
We present descriptive statistics for potential child (risk status, literacy intervention status) and program (publicly funded program, Head Start, acceptance of subsidies, and urban location) moderators in Table 3. We present the results of SEM multilevel models, including interactions between these factors and use of literacy-focused curricula in Table 5. All models fit well with the data (see Table 5 note). Risk status significantly moderated associations between use of literacy-focused curricula and children’s residualized gains in print and letter knowledge (β = 0.12; p < 0.01), phonological awareness (β = 0.10; p < 0.01), and language and comprehension (β = 0.11; p < 0.01). Although statistically significant, we note that the magnitudes of these associations were smaller than our criterion for being educationally meaningful. Risk status did not moderate the association between literacy-focused curricula use and children’s residualized gains in emergent writing (β = 0.06; p = 0.13). None of the other potential moderators (i.e., literacy intervention status, public or center-based programs, Head Start, acceptance of subsidies, urban location) significantly interacted with use of literacy-focused curricula in predicting children’s residualized gains (all ps > 0.05).
To understand the moderating effects of risk status, we probed the interactions using four group indicators (i.e., children in classrooms using literacy-focused curricula-at risk, non-literacy-focused curricula-at risk, literacy-focused curricula-not at risk, non-literacy-focused curricula-not at risk), with one group as a reference group for each model (e.g., non-literacy-focused curricula-at risk was the reference group in comparison to non-literacy-focused curricula-not at risk, literacy-focused curricula-at risk, literacy-focused curricula-not at risk). We used these group indicators as independent variables to predict children’s residualized gains in print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and language and comprehension. We included the same control variables used in previous models, excluding the GRTR-R score, for the reason noted below. Results are presented in Table 6.
For print and letter knowledge, children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties in classrooms where teachers reported using literacy-focused curricula had greater residualized gains than children in the other groups, including children at risk (β = 0.11, p < 0.01) or not at risk (β = 0.10, p = 0.01) in classrooms where teachers did not use literacy-focused curricula, and children not at risk in classrooms where teachers reported using literacy-focused curricula (β = 0.10, p = 0.02). For phonological awareness, children identified as at risk (β = 0.08, p = 0.02) and not at risk (β = 0.11, p = 0.01) for later reading difficulties in classrooms where teachers reported using literacy-focused curricula had greater residualized gains than children who were at risk in classrooms where literacy-focused curricula were not used. In classrooms where literacy-focused curricula were not used, we also found that children not identified as at risk for later reading difficulties had greater phonological awareness compared to children identified at risk for later reading difficulties (β = 0.17, p < 0.01). For language and comprehension, children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties in classrooms where teachers reported using literacy-focused curricula had greater residualized gains than children identified as at risk in classrooms where teachers did not use literacy-focused curricula (β = 0.10, p < 0.01). In classrooms where literacy-focused curricula were not used, we found that children not identified as at risk for later reading difficulties had greater language and comprehension (β = 0.15, p < 0.01) gains than children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties. We present these comparisons graphically in Figure 1, displaying z-scores of gains between latent pretest and posttest scores for the four different groups for print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and language and comprehension. Overall, results indicated that the group of children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties in classrooms where teachers reported using literacy-focused curricula had greater gains in print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and language and comprehension (see comparison between the top left graph a and other three graphs b, c, and d in Figure 1).
Note that, for the risk status moderator analysis only, GRTR-R score was not included in analysis models because risk status was defined based on this measure. Results when GRTR-R was included in risk status analyses are reported in Supplemental Material Table S2; estimates were slightly smaller for print and letter knowledge and phonological awareness and slightly larger for language and comprehension and emergent writing in the models when GRTR-R score was included.
4. Discussion
Early literacy education is crucial for supporting equitable developmental outcomes for all children (Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Lonigan, 2015; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008). In preschool, emergent literacy-focused curricula may be one way to support literacy development for children from diverse backgrounds. To this end, we examined teachers’ reported use of literacy curricula in authentic preschool settings and tested whether use of literacy-focused curricula was associated with preschool children’s literacy gains. We also examined the potential moderating roles of child risk status, intervention status, and preschool settings.
We found that teachers did not widely use literacy-focused curricula. Yet, preschool children enrolled in classrooms where teachers used literacy-focused curricula had greater phonological awareness gains than those who did not, and preschool children who were identified as at risk for later reading difficulties who experienced literacy-focused curricula had greater gains in print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and language and comprehension as compared to other groups. We did not find any significant associations between use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s emergent writing gains. Below, we discuss these key findings.
4.1. Preschool Curriculum
Consistent with available prior literature (Jenkins et al., 2018; Schachter et al., 2020), we found that literacy-focused curricula were not widely used. Our percentage of teachers’ reported use of literacy-focused curricula (15%) is larger than the 4% indicated by Schachter et al. (2020) and slightly smaller than the 20% suggested by Jenkins et al. (2018). The smaller percentage reported by Schachter and colleagues (2020) might be because their teacher sample and study period were different from ours. Schachter and colleagues (2020)’s sample involved preschool teachers who self-selected to participate in free state-sponsored professional development between 2010 and 2014. Our study included preschool teachers from an emergent literacy intervention study between 2016 and 2019, aiming to support children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties. Teachers might have become increasingly familiar with literacy curricula in later years (2016–2019) compared to earlier years (2010–2014; Mihai et al., 2017). Further, the higher percentage of preschool teachers using literacy-focused curricula reported by Jenkins et al. (2018) might be because of the different literacy-focused curricula included. Their study included 8 literacy-focused curricula, with the most used curriculum being Ready Set Leap. In our study, teachers reported using more than 12 literacy-focused curricula, with the most used curriculum being Handwriting Without Tears. As such, our findings update prior findings by including more literacy-focused curricula with recent data.
Most preschool teachers reported using non-literacy-focused curricula (88%). Although Creative Curriculum was the most used curriculum, 43% of the teachers indicated using other types of non-literacy-focused curricula, such as Reggio Emilia Approach. Non-literacy-focused curricula may have been most frequently used for a variety of reasons. These curricula are typically designed to provide a holistic educational experience that covers all developmental domains, not just literacy (WWC, 2013). Many preschool programs operate under guidelines set by state and federal education agencies, which may mandate addressing multiple learning domains in early childhood classrooms (Haslip & Gullo, 2018). As such, some non-literacy-focused curricula might be more appealing for programs to remain eligible for funding and accreditation (Karch, 2013; Neuman & Roskos, 2005). Teachers/programs using skills-focused curricula, on the other hand, might need to use multiple curricula (e.g., social emotional, math)—and coordinate among these multiple curricula—to meet regulatory requirements.
4.2. Literacy-Focused Curricula and Children’s Gains
We found that preschool children enrolled in classrooms where teachers used literacy-focused curricula had significantly higher gains in phonological awareness than those who did not. We also found associations between use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and language and comprehension, depending on children’s risk status, as we discuss below. We did not find any significant associations between use of literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s emergent writing gains.
With respect to the lack of associations with emergent writing gains, research indicates that children often make minimal improvements in writing across the preschool year. This may be because writing is a complex skill involving fine motor skills, cognitive abilities, and language development (Puranik & Lonigan, 2014), and preschool classrooms tend to provide limited opportunities for preschool children to engage in writing (Bingham et al., 2017; Gerde et al., 2012; Gerde et al., 2019). Additionally, emergent writing is often less prioritized in both curricula and assessments (Puranik & Lonigan, 2014). In our study, with the exception of Handwriting Without Tears, the extent to which the literacy-focused curricula reported by teachers included writing components is unclear. Thus, attention to emergent writing might have been too limited for children to make substantial writing gains regardless of whether literacy-focused were used. Future research could analyze the writing skills included within preschool curricula and the extent to which these are taught within the classroom relative to other emergent literacy skills. Further, the scale that we used to assess writing (ranging from 0 to 4) has a restricted range and shows the least variability compared to our other measures. With a limited range of scores, we were less likely to detect gains in writing. Although the effect on emergent writing was not statistically significant, the effect size was modest (β = 0.20), considered educational meaningful (Cabell et al., 2025; Kraft, 2020).
We did not observe gains in print and letter knowledge or language and comprehension outcomes for the whole sample when teachers reported using emergent literacy-focused curricula in preschool classrooms as opposed to when they did not. Although prior research has indicated that certain targeted literacy interventions (e.g., Fischel et al., 2007; Madsen et al., 2023) can yield significant improvements in print and letter knowledge, when implemented by teachers in authentic preschool classroom settings the overall effectiveness of literacy-focused curricula on children’s print and letter knowledge, appears inconsistent. Other studies have reported no overall effects on language and comprehension skills (e.g., Engel et al., 2018; Language and Reading Research Consortium et al., 2022; Piasta et al., 2024), as such skills are regarded as particularly challenging to improve (Piasta, 2016; Snow & Matthews, 2016). However, main effects for these outcomes as well as phonological awareness outcomes were modified by the significant interactions with children’s risk status that we found.
4.3. Better Gains for Literacy-Focused Curricula for Children at Risk for Later Reading Difficulties
Children’s risk status moderated the associations between literacy-focused curricula and preschool children’s emergent literacy gains. In classrooms where literacy-focused curricula were used, children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties had significantly greater gains in print and letter knowledge, as well as similar gains in phonological awareness and language and comprehension, to those of typically developing peers in classrooms with non-literacy-focused curricula. Literacy-focused curricula seem specifically tailored to enhance these essential areas of print and letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and language and comprehension for the children with the most need. Consequently, these curricula may be particularly beneficial for children at risk of reading difficulties, as they provide explicit, targeted instruction in emergent literacy areas in which children often struggle (Fancher et al., 2018). The structured and intensive approach of literacy-focused curricula may offer the precise reinforcement needed to support children at risk for later reading difficulties in developing these essential early literacy skills, thereby laying a robust foundation for future reading success (Lonigan et al., 2013).
These results suggest that incorporating literacy-focused curricula in preschool classrooms may be beneficial particularly for children most in need of additional literacy support. The findings are encouraging as they indicate compensatory effects (Sattler, 2023), with children who require the most literacy support making the biggest improvements. Adding literacy-focused curricula in preschool classrooms may provide additional support, such as curricula training for teachers to plan their lessons and support children with different literacy needs (Weiland et al., 2018). Notably, the effect sizes for the moderator analyses do not meet our preregistered criterion for being educationally meaningful, based on Kraft’s (2020) guidelines. Rather, these were generally in the range of 0.10 to 0.17. We note that interaction effects are often small and thus difficult to detect (Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008). Additionally, effect size estimates for preschool curricula and interventions, specifically, are often small (Camilli et al., 2010; Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008). For example, a meta-analysis of 123 early childhood intervention studies reported effects between −0.1 and 0.1 on language learning (Camilli et al., 2010). These align with other broader literature on the estimates for preschool curricula. Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium (2008) reported that the effect sizes of various literacy-focused curricula ranged from −0.22 to 0.40, with the majority of effect sizes approximately 0.10 for language and literacy outcomes. Taken together, these results suggest that (a) small moderator effects in this domain are common, (b) greater statistical power or pooled evidence may be necessary to detect and precisely estimate moderator effects, and (c) interpretations might focus on practical translations (e.g., educational benchmarks; Kraft, 2020) that can help identify where effects produce meaningful gains for particular children or settings.
Findings for classrooms using only non-literacy-focused curricula evidenced a very different pattern than those found for classrooms using literacy-focused curricula. In classrooms using non-literacy-focused curricula, children not identified as at risk for later reading difficulties made significantly greater gains in phonological awareness and language and comprehension compared to their peers who were at risk for later reading difficulties. This finding suggests a Matthew Effect (Pfost et al., 2014; Stanovich, 1986) for non-literacy-focused curricula, in that the children who benefited the most were not necessarily those most in need of literacy support. This suggests that non-literacy-focused curricula may be insufficient for supporting children who are identified as at risk for later reading difficulties. This finding needs to be further examined in future research, given the implication that, rather than ameliorating early literacy disparities, the use of these curricula may exacerbate and perpetuate differences in children’s emergent literacy learning.
Non-literacy-focused curricula do not have documented evidence of positive effects on literacy skills (WWC, 2013) and may dilute the emphasis on any single domain, such as literacy (Burchinal et al., 2016). In contrast, literacy-focused curricula are specifically structured to allocate more instructional time, resources, and targeted activities to literacy (Lonigan et al., 2013). This concentrated focus may make it easier for teachers to implement activities that are known to boost literacy outcomes, such as guided play activities or systematic phonological awareness instruction (Cabell et al., 2025; Hwang et al., 2022). Prior studies suggest that curricula designed to focus on literacy tend to yield better outcomes in that domain, whereas non-literacy-focused curricula often do not yield positive outcomes due to their broad nature (Jenkins et al., 2018; Schachter et al., 2020). The insights from prior literature and our study highlight the need for curricula that either integrate literacy-specific instruction more effectively or for a deliberate shift towards using literacy-focused curricula in contexts where literacy development is a primary concern (Farver et al., 2009; Lonigan et al., 2011). Educators and policymakers should consider how curricula can be adapted or supplemented to ensure that children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties receive the focused literacy instruction they need.
Our data do not provide information about how teachers implemented the curricula. As such, there remains a need for a more nuanced understanding of how factors such as content, implementation quality, and teacher support could moderate the impacts of literacy-focused curricula (Weiland et al., 2018; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). Future researchers could conduct content analyses of curricula to better understand the mechanisms that support children’s literacy learning (see Gerde et al., 2019; Neuman & Dwyer, 2009; Skibbe et al., 2016). Future researchers could also systematically examine the mechanisms by which different curriculum types or combinations of curricula influence the implementation of targeted literacy instruction. A mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative measures of implementation with qualitative insights from teachers and administrators would be particularly valuable.
4.4. Similar Gains for Children Not at Risk Regardless of Curricula
Whereas literacy-focused curricula appear to be particularly important for preschool children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties, our results suggest that the curricula used may not be as influential for preschool children not identified as at risk for later reading difficulties. We found that preschool children not identified as at risk for later reading difficulties made similar gains in phonological awareness and language and comprehension regardless of whether or not non-literacy-focused curricula were used. This finding is not surprising given that some children learn to read with relative ease, even prior to formal reading instruction or in the absence of explicit instruction (Lyon, 2002; Papadopoulos et al., 2021; Vaughn & Fletcher, 2021). Additionally, children not identified as at risk for later reading difficulties may have other advantages (i.e., supportive home environment, early exposure to literacy activities) that make their literacy development more resilient to the type of curriculum to which they are exposed (Dickinson & Porche, 2011; Neuman, 2006). Such children might acquire literacy skills to a sufficient degree regardless of whether they are explicitly targeted in their school curriculum. These findings imply that educational resources to support early literacy development might best be strategically directed to children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties (NASEM, 2024).
4.5. Additional Findings
We did not find statistically significant moderating effects of intervention status or preschool settings on associations between literacy-focused curricula and literacy gains, with most effect sizes well below 0.10. Although we must be cautious in interpreting null effects, the absence of these moderating effects suggests that use of literacy-focused curricula was uniformly related to children’s emergent literacy gains regardless of the presence of early literacy intervention or the type of preschool setting. The lack of moderation could be interpreted as signaling that the benefits of using literacy-focused curricula are not amplified or diminished by the broader educational context, possibly indicating a need for more targeted or differentiated instructional strategies to effectively support diverse groups of children (NASEM, 2024). It is also important to consider that our study might have been underpowered to detect statistically significant interaction terms, meaning that although the sample size was sufficient to detect main effects, it may not have been large enough to reveal more subtle, yet potentially meaningful, moderating effects. We also examined only one specific intervention. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution, as they might not fully capture the nuanced ways in which intervention status and preschool settings interact with literacy-focused curricula to influence literacy gains.
4.6. Limitations and Conclusions
One of the limitations of our study is that the sample included participants from only one state. The participants might not represent the diversity of broader populations, thereby affecting generalizability to different teachers, children, settings, or geographic locations. For example, our sample has a lower percentage of children with IEPs than typical Head Start settings (NCES, 2024). Most children in the U.S. in early childhood programs, however, are not enrolled in Head Start (Friedman-Krauss & Bernett, 2023), and our sample reflects a broader range of early childhood classroom settings. Many children in preschool, particularly those attending non-Head Start classrooms, have not yet been identified with disabilities and thus would not (yet) have IEPs. Another limitation is that curricula information was teacher-reported, which may be affected by social desirability or other biases (Copur-Gencturk & Thacker, 2021), and did not include indicators of the quality with which or how curricula were implemented. Our results reflect curricula outcomes as implemented by the teachers in our sample in their real-world classrooms; these associations include variation in teacher practices, fidelity, adaptations, and intensity of use. Future research may incorporate additional curricula and implementation data (e.g., direct measures of implementation via observations, teacher ratings) to better tease apart curricula effects versus implementation effect. Additionally, more research is needed concerning the long-term effects of literacy-focused curricula (NASEM, 2024). Moreover, although we tried to control various confounding factors, there is a possibility that unmeasured variables could have influenced the results. For example, parental involvement is an important factor to consider as a moderator or covariate in future research. Given that this was a correlational rather than experimental study, we cannot make strong causal claims. Finally, due to our study aims, sample size, and data structure, we estimated separate models for each outcome. Future researchers might consider modeling all outcomes simultaneously, if the goal is to account for interrelationships among outcomes. Future researchers might also consider alternative statistical models to test moderation (e.g., group comparison models by fixing the paths of interest and examining whether the path is equivalent across groups) with larger samples or simpler model structures to further validate and extend our findings.
5. Conclusions
Despite these limitations, our study provides additional evidence concerning teachers’ use of literacy-focused curricula in real-world preschool classrooms and the extent to which use of such curricula is associated with preschool children’s emergent literacy gains. We found that literacy-focused curricula were infrequently used by preschool teachers despite positive associations with emergent literacy learning, particularly for children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties and most in need of literacy support. This limited use of literacy-focused curricula in authentic preschool classrooms is concerning. As such, our findings suggest that integrating or supplementing existing classroom instruction with literacy-focused curricula could better support children identified as at risk for later reading difficulties. Greater attention to curricula use and implementation as these may affect learning is warranted.
Conceptualization, Z.M.S. and S.B.P.; methodology, Z.M.S. and Y.S.; software, Z.M.S. and Y.S.; validation, Z.M.S., S.B.P. and J.A.R.L.; formal analysis, Z.M.S., Y.S. and J.A.R.L.; investigation, Z.M.S., Y.S. and A.K.H.; resources, S.B.P.; data curation, Z.M.S., S.B.P. and J.A.R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.M.S., S.B.P., Y.S., A.K.H., C.M.Z.-G. and K.L. writing—review and editing, Z.M.S., S.B.P., Y.S., A.K.H., C.M.Z.-G., K.L. and J.A.R.L.; visualization, Z.M.S., Y.S. and J.A.R.L.; supervision, Z.M.S. and S.B.P.; project administration, Z.M.S. and S.B.P.; funding acquisition, S.B.P., C.M.Z.-G., K.L. and J.A.R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable because this study involves a secondary analysis of data reported in Piasta,
Not applicable because this study involves a secondary analysis of data reported in Piasta,
This study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KFZP5). Publicly available datasets are available via the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR; DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR38663.v1). Analysis code is available at the Open Science Framework DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/MQFGN), and study materials beyond those posted to ICPSR are available upon request from the second author. This study involves a secondary analysis of data reported in Piasta,
Zhiling Meng Shea is now at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Ye Shen is now at John Hopkins University. Nemours receives royalties through the sale of the commercially available curriculum involved in this research. The potential for bias in reporting study results was minimised through the adoption of the following precautions, as outlined in the investigators’ signed Memorandum of Understanding: (a) Nemours’ institutional responsibilities for this grant were limited to instructor professional development curriculum training and implementation fidelity monitoring, including the development and maintenance of the implementation fidelity database for this study, (b) Nemours investigators Zettler-Greeley, Bailet (affiliated with Nemours until April 2018; at Kaplan Early Learning Company until June 2021), and Lewis had no role in participant/site recruitment or data collection for the study, were blind to classroom and participant study assignment, and did not participate in data analyses concerning programme impacts, (c) the Ohio State University (OSU) and Vanderbilt University (VU) investigators conducted all data analyses concerning impacts of the Nemours BrightStart! programme, and (d) OSU and VU investigators retained the final decision as to the findings and interpretation that are reported. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or U.S. Department of Education. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of co-investigator Laura Bailet, the research project staff, the cooperation of the Ready4Success initiative as led by Shelby Dowdy, and the early childhood professionals and children/families without whom this research would not be possible.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
1. Of the 571 children included, 395 (69.2%) received the literacy intervention and 176 (30.8%) did not. Of the 395 intervention recipients, only 44 (11.1%) were in classrooms using a literacy-focused curriculum.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Differences in Children’s Latent Emergent Literacy Gains Based on Risk Status and Use of Emergent Literacy-Focused Curricula. Notes. The Y axis indicates children’s emergent literacy gains. PK = Print and letter knowledge, PA = Phonological awareness, and LC = Listening and comprehension.
Frequency of Curricula Reported by Preschool Teachers.
| Teacher-Reported Curriculum | Literacy-Focused | Non-Literacy-Focused |
|---|---|---|
| Handwriting Without Tears | 8 | |
| Building Language for Literacy | 7 | |
| Opening the World of Learning (OWL) | 5 | |
| The Emerging Language and Literacy Curriculum | 4 | |
| Language for Learning | 4 | |
| Letter People | 3 | |
| Nemours BrightStart! | 3 | |
| Read, Play, and Learn! | 3 | |
| Ready, Set, Leap | 3 | |
| Innovations | 2 | |
| Read it Again! PreK | 2 | |
| Dynamic Learning Maps® (DLM) Early Childhood Express | 1 | |
| Curiosity Corner | 1 | |
| Imagine it! | 1 | |
| McGraw Hill | 1 | |
| Reading Street | 1 | |
| Storytown | 1 | |
| Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System | 13 | |
| Creative Curriculum/Teaching Strategies Gold | 76 | |
| Everyday Mathematics | 7 | |
| High Scope | 1 | |
| Reggio Emilia Approach | 11 | |
| Scholastic | 10 | |
| The Core Knowledge Preschool Sequence | 4 | |
| Other | 10 | |
| Total number of classrooms in which curriculum was used | 15 | 83 |
| Total number of teachers reporting use of the curriculum | 50 | 132 |
Notes. Some teachers co-taught in the same classrooms, which is why the total number of classrooms and the total number of teachers using a given curriculum do not match. For the one math curriculum (Everyday Mathematics), teachers also reported using a whole curriculum. Teachers often reported using multiple literacy-focused curricula in one classroom. For example, teachers reported Handwriting Without Tears was jointly used with Building Language for Literacy in 6 classrooms, Imagine it! in 1 classroom, Language for Learning in 4 classrooms, Letter People in 3 classrooms, McGraw Hill in 1 classroom, Nemours BrightStart! in 3 classrooms, OWL in 4 classrooms, Reading Street in 1 classroom, Read it Again! PreK in 2 classrooms, Read, Play, and Learn! in 4 classrooms, Ready, Set, Leap in 2 classrooms, Storytown in 1 classroom, and Emerging Language and Literacy Curriculum in 2 classrooms.
Descriptive Statistics for Literacy Measures by Curricula.
| Observed Variable. | Print and Letter Knowledge | ||||
| Pretest | Posttest | ||||
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| Print knowledge | Overall sample (N = 571) | 8.50 | 8.41 | 17.28 | 10.74 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 8.85 | 9.17 | 20.90 | 10.69 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 8.48 | 8.34 | 16.85 | 10.67 | |
| Letter-name knowledge | Overall sample (N = 571) | 15.56 | 16.46 | 25.56 | 17.05 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 17.95 | 18.29 | 29.90 | 16.38 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 15.15 | 16.05 | 24.96 | 17.07 | |
| Letter-sound knowledge | Overall sample (N = 571) | 5.18 | 6.62 | 9.54 | 8.06 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 6.06 | 7.30 | 12.26 | 8.59 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 5.06 | 6.51 | 9.21 | 7.87 | |
| Observed Variable | Phonological awareness | ||||
| Pretest | Posttest | ||||
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| Phonological awareness | Overall sample (N = 571) | 9.70 | 4.92 | 12.80 | 5.15 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 9.85 | 4.36 | 13.56 | 4.82 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 9.78 | 5.02 | 12.68 | 5.23 | |
| Rhyme awareness | Overall sample (N = 571) | 3.18 | 4.16 | 5.89 | 5.41 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 2.52 | 3.84 | 5.24 | 5.44 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 3.34 | 4.22 | 6.05 | 5.43 | |
| Initial sound awareness | Overall sample (N = 571) | 6.67 | 3.61 | 8.48 | 3.74 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 6.45 | 3.70 | 9.04 | 3.39 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 6.75 | 3.60 | 8.41 | 3.81 | |
| Observed Variable | Language and comprehension | ||||
| Pretest | Posttest | ||||
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| Narrative language | Overall sample (N = 571) | 18.57 | 2.03 | 19.71 | 1.79 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 18.91 | 2.11 | 19.92 | 1.54 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 18.55 | 2.00 | 19.66 | 1.84 | |
| Listening comprehension | Overall sample (N = 571) | 439.61 | 15.26 | 448.59 | 16.13 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 441.85 | 15.79 | 450.67 | 17.01 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 439.44 | 15.18 | 448.52 | 16.04 | |
| Vocabulary | Overall sample (N = 571) | 5.00 | 3.02 | 7.10 | 3.15 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 4.61 | 3.04 | 7.09 | 3.34 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 5.09 | 3.02 | 7.12 | 3.14 | |
| Observed Variable | Emergent writing | ||||
| Pretest | Posttest | ||||
| M | SD | M | SD | ||
| Name writing | Overall sample (N = 571) | 2.05 | 1.08 | 2.93 | 0.96 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 2.20 | 1.18 | 3.23 | 0.88 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 2.05 | 1.06 | 2.91 | 0.96 | |
| Letter writing | Overall sample (N = 571) | 1.66 | 0.85 | 2.41 | 1.00 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 1.77 | 0.90 | 2.65 | 0.98 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 1.66 | 0.85 | 2.39 | 1.00 | |
| Invented spelling | Overall sample (N = 571) | 1.24 | 0.53 | 1.65 | 0.82 |
| Literacy-focused curricula (n = 80) | 1.32 | 0.65 | 1.84 | 0.93 | |
| Non-literacy-focused curricula (n = 479) | 1.23 | 0.51 | 1.63 | 0.81 | |
Descriptive Statistics for Moderators.
| Full Sample | Emergent Literacy-Focused | Non-Emergent Literacy-Focused | ||||
| Variable | n | % | n | % | n | % |
| Children at risk of later reading difficulties | 280 | 49.21 | 39 | 48.75 | 236 | 49.27 |
| Received intervention | 394 | 69.18 | 44 | 55.00 | 340 | 71.19 |
| Head Start | 251 | 44.49 | 12 | 15.38 | 235 | 48.76 |
| Public school | 508 | 89.15 | 58 | 72.5 | 441 | 91.97 |
| Programs accepting subsidies | 383 | 66.67 | 35 | 43.75 | 340 | 70.79 |
| Urban | 126 | 21.52 | 18 | 22.5 | 101 | 21.35 |
Associations between Literacy-Focused Preschool Curricula and Preschool Children’s Emergent Literacy Gains (N = 571).
| Variable | β | SE | p |
| Print and letter knowledge | |||
| Literacy-focused curricula | 0.217 | 0.132 | 0.10 |
| Hispanic/Latinx | −0.067 | 0.031 | 0.03 |
| Age | 0.157 | 0.036 | <0.01 |
| Child had an Individualized Education Program or 504 plan | −0.047 | 0.031 | 0.13 |
| Parents’ highest degree | 0.024 | 0.033 | 0.47 |
| Get Ready to Read-Revised | 0.024 | 0.054 | 0.66 |
| Latent print and letter pretest | 0.759 a | 0.048 | <0.01 |
| Phonological awareness | |||
| Literacy-focused curricula | 0.774 | 0.302 | 0.01 |
| Age | −0.030 | 0.059 | 0.61 |
| Annual household income | 0.076 | 0.035 | 0.03 |
| Get Ready to Read-Revised | −0.031 | 0.100 | 0.76 |
| Latent phonological awareness pretest | 0.971 a | 0.122 | <0.01 |
| Language and comprehension | |||
| Literacy-focused curricula | 0.148 | 0.162 | 0.36 |
| Hispanic/Latinx | −0.037 | 0.030 | 0.22 |
| Race | −0.062 | 0.030 | 0.04 |
| Age | −0.015 | 0.042 | 0.72 |
| Annual household income | −0.055 | 0.037 | 0.14 |
| Get Ready to Read-Revised | 0.025 | 0.050 | 0.61 |
| Latent language and comprehension pretest | 1.002 a | 0.059 | <0.01 |
| Emergent writing | |||
| Emergent literacy-focused curricula | 0.198 | −0.135 | 0.14 |
| Age | 0.172 | 0.043 | <0.01 |
| Girl | 0.103 | 0.031 | <0.01 |
| Parents’ highest degree | 0.047 | 0.034 | 0.17 |
| Child had an Individualized Education Program or 504 plan | 0.021 | 0.033 | 0.52 |
| Get Ready to Read-Revised | 0.166 | 0.045 | <0.01 |
| Latent emergent writing pretest | 0.638 a | 0.054 | <0.01 |
Notes. We ran tests of correlations between each outcome measure and child characteristics, and only covariates statistically significantly related to outcome measures were included in the analysis. All the estimates are standardized values. Fit indices are indicated below by model. Print and letter knowledge: (χ2 [44, N = 571] = 204.310; CFI = 0.946; RMSEA = 0.080). Phonological awareness: (χ2 [24, N = 571] = 90.085; CFI = 0.964; RMSEA = 0.069); Language and comprehension: (χ2 [41, N = 571] = 199.907; CFI = 0.082; RMSEA = 0.925); Emergent writing: (χ2 [43, N = 571] = 196.095; CFI = 0.938; RMSEA = 0.079). a The latent language and comprehension pretest might be different from the posttest because of scaling factor using three different observed variables. This could lead to higher beta coefficients.
Moderation of Associations of Literacy-Focused Curricula and Literacy Gains by Child Risk Status, Receipt of Early Literacy Intervention, and Program Settings.
| Risk Status | Intervention | Public | Head Start | Subsidy | Urban | |||||||||||||
| β | SE | p | β | SE | p | β | SE | p | β | SE | p | β | SE | p | β | SE | p | |
| Print & letter knowledge | ||||||||||||||||||
| Literacy-focused curricula | −0.03 | 0.15 | 0.82 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.63 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.74 | 0.19 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.22 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
| Moderator | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.79 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.41 | −0.15 | 0.04 | 0.00 | −0.03 | 0.04 | 0.49 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.81 | −0.07 | 0.04 | 0.08 |
| Curricula X Moderator | 0.12 | 0.03 | <0.01 | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.63 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.93 |
| Phonological awareness | ||||||||||||||||||
| Literacy-focused curricula | −0.33 | 0.21 | 0.12 | 0.42 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.47 | 0.17 | 0.01 | 0.74 | 0.34 | 0.03 | 0.83 | 0.31 | 0.01 | 0.87 | 0.33 | 0.01 |
| Moderator | −0.07 | 0.05 | 0.14 | −0.02 | 0.03 | 0.59 | −0.10 | 0.03 | 0.00 | −0.04 | 0.04 | 0.35 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.46 | −0.05 | 0.04 | 0.13 |
| Curricula X Moderator | 0.10 | 0.04 | <0.01 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.08 | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.81 | −0.02 | 0.05 | 0.77 | −0.03 | 0.04 | 0.42 |
| Language & comprehension | ||||||||||||||||||
| Literacy-focused curricula | −0.16 | 0.20 | 0.43 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.70 | 0.03 | 0.23 | 0.88 | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.61 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.85 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.29 |
| Moderator | −0.04 | 0.04 | 0.26 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.83 | −0.02 | 0.04 | 0.66 | −0.06 | 0.04 | 0.12 | −0.04 | 0.04 | 0.31 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.50 |
| Curricula X Moderator | 0.11 | 0.04 | <0.01 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.58 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.52 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.72 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.49 | −0.02 | 0.04 | 0.56 |
| Emergent writing | ||||||||||||||||||
| Literacy-focused curricula | 0.09 | 0.16 | 0.59 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.64 | 0.02 | 0.21 | 0.92 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.28 |
| Moderator | −0.09 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.02 | 0.04 | 0.70 | −0.09 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.07 | 0.05 | 0.12 | −0.03 | 0.05 | 0.59 | −0.08 | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Curricula X Moderator | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.40 | −0.01 | 0.05 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.97 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.58 |
Notes. Fit indices are indicated below by each model above. Print & letter knowledge-Risk: (χ2 [55, N = 571] = 243.674; CFI = 0.930; RMSEA = 0.078). Print & letter knowledge-Intervention: (χ2 [65, N = 571] = 249.485; CFI = 0.938; RMSEA = 0.071). Print & letter knowledge-Public: (χ2 [65, N = 571] = 238.873; CFI = 0.942; RMSEA = 0.068). Print & letter knowledge-Head Start: (χ2 [65, N = 571] = 276.859; CFI = 0.930; RMSEA = 0.076). Print & letter knowledge-Subsidized: (χ2 [65, N = 571] = 262.356; CFI = 0.934; RMSEA = 0.073). Print & letter knowledge-Urban: (χ2 [65, N = 571] = 329.746; CFI = 0.914; RMSEA = 0.084). Phonological awareness-Risk: (χ2 [33, N = 571] = 141.703; CFI = 0.930; RMSEA = 0.076). Phonological awareness-Intervention: (χ2 [41, N = 571] = 138.996; CFI = 0.941; RMSEA = 0.065). Phonological awareness-Public: (χ2 [41, N = 571] = 117.996; CFI = 0.958; RMSEA = 0.057). Phonological awareness-Head Start: (χ2 [41, N = 571] = 157.903; CFI = 0.938; RMSEA = 0.071). Phonological awareness-Subsidized: (χ2 [41, N = 571] = 160.608; CFI = 0.937; RMSEA = 0.071). Phonological awareness-Urban: (χ2 [40, N = 571] = 177.074; CFI = 0.930; RMSEA = 0.077). Language & comprehension-Risk: (χ2 [48, N = 571] = 188.457; CFI = 0.927; RMSEA = 0.072). Language & comprehen-sion-Intervention: (χ2 [62, N = 571] = 251.230; CFI = 0.912; RMSEA = 0.073). Language & comprehension-Public: (χ2 [62, N = 571] = 236.032; CFI = 0.918; RMSEA = 0.070). Language & comprehension-Head Start: (χ2 [61, N = 571] = 263.140; CFI = 0.907; RMSEA = 0.076). Language & comprehension-Subsidized: (χ2 [62, N = 571] = 279.743; CFI = 0.900; RMSEA = 0.078). Language & compre-hension-Urban: (χ2 [59, N = 571] = 269.171; CFI = 0.907; RMSEA = 0.079). Emergent writing-Risk: (χ2 [54, N = 571] = 223.258; CFI = 0.924; RMSEA = 0.074). Emergent writing-Intervention: (χ2 [64, N = 571] = 233.853; CFI = 0.931; RMSEA = 0.068). Emergent writing-Public: (χ2 [64, N = 571] = 227.650; CFI = 0.934; RMSEA = 0.067). Emergent writing-Head Start: (χ2 [64, N = 571] = 283.272; CFI = 0.913; RMSEA = 0.077). Emergent writing-Subsidized: (χ2 [64, N = 571] = 261.189; CFI = 0.921; RMSEA = 0.073). Emergent writing-Urban: (χ2 [64, N = 571] = 313.903; CFI = 0.902; RMSEA = 0.083).
Probing Results of Group Indicators on Children’s Literacy Gains.
| Print and Letter Knowledge | Phonological Awareness | Language and Comprehension | ||||
| Group Comparisons | β | p | β | p | β | p |
| Literacy-curricula-at risk vs. Non-literacy-curricula-at risk | 0.110 | <0.001 | 0.080 | 0.016 | 0.096 | 0.004 |
| Literacy-curricula-at risk vs. Non-literacy-curricula-not at risk | 0.096 | 0.016 | −0.029 | 0.510 | 0.059 | 0.142 |
| Literacy-curricula-not at risk vs. Non-literacy-curricula-not at risk | −0.006 | 0.862 | 0.016 | 0.673 | −0.044 | 0.185 |
| Non-literacy-curricula-not at risk vs. Non-literacy- curricula-at risk | 0.036 | 0.323 | 0.166 | <0.001 | 0.151 | <0.001 |
| Literacy-curricula-at risk vs. Non-literacy-curricula-not at risk | 0.091 | 0.003 | −0.012 | 0.736 | 0.016 | 0.626 |
| Literacy-curricula-not at risk vs. Non-literacy-curricula-at risk | 0.014 | 0.693 | 0.105 | 0.006 | 0.037 | 0.260 |
Note. “Literacy curricula” in the table refers to literacy-focused curricula.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
Aikens, N. L.; Barbarin, O. Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology; 2008; 100,
Ashe, M. K.; Reed, S.; Dickinson, D. K.; Morse, A. B.; Wilson, S. J. Opening the world of learning: Features, effectiveness, and implementation strategies. Early Childhood Services: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Effectiveness; 2009; 3,
Beck, I. L.; McKeown, M. G. Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal; 2007; 107,
Bingham, G. E.; Quinn, M. F.; Gerde, H. K. Examining early childhood teachers’ writing practices: Associations between pedagogical supports and children’s writing skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2017; 39, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.01.002]
Bowles, R. P.; Justice, L. M.; Khan, K. S.; Piasta, S. B.; Skibbe, L. E.; Foster, T. D. Development of the narrative assessment protocol-2: A tool for examining young children’s narrative skill. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools; 2020; 51,
Browne, M. W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models; Bollen, K. A.; Long, J. S. Sage Publication: 1993; pp. 136-162.
Burchinal, M.; Whitaker, A. A.; Jenkins, J. M. The promise and purpose of early care and education. Child Development Perspectives; 2022; 16,
Burchinal, M.; Zaslow, M.; Tarullo, L.; Votruba-Drzal, E.; Miller, P. Quality thresholds, features, and dosage in early care and education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development; 2016; 81, pp. 1-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mono.12236]
Cabell, S. Q.; Justice, L. M.; Piasta, S. B.; Curenton, S. M.; Wiggins, A.; Turnbull, K. P.; Petscher, Y. The impact of teacher responsivity education on preschoolers’ language and literacy skills. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology; 2011; 20,
Cabell, S. Q.; Kim, J. S.; White, T. G.; Gale, C. J.; Edwards, A. A.; Hwang, H.; Petscher, Y.; Raines, R. M. Impact of a content-rich literacy curriculum on kindergarteners’ vocabulary, listening comprehension, and content knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology; 2025; 117,
Camilli, G.; Vargas, S.; Ryan, S.; Barnett, W. S. Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record; 2010; 112,
Carta, J. J.; Greenwood, C. R.; Goldstein, H.; McConnell, S. R.; Kaminski, R.; Bradfield, T. A.; Wackerle-Hollman, A.; Linas, M.; Guerrero, G.; Kelley, E.; Atwater, J. Advances in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Prekindergarten children: Lessons learned from 5 years of research and development from the center for response to intervention in early childhood. Handbook of response to intervention; Springer US: 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_33]
Cervetti, G. N.; Fitzgerald, M. S.; Hiebert, E. H.; Hebert, M. Meta-analysis examining the impact of vocabulary instruction on vocabulary knowledge and skill. Reading Psychology; 2023; 44,
Chambers, B.; Cheung, A.; Slavin, R. E. Literacy and language outcomes of comprehensive and developmental-constructivist approaches to early childhood education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review; 2016; 18, pp. 88-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.03.003]
Chatterji, M. Reading achievement gaps, correlates, and moderators of early reading achievement: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) kindergarten to first grade sample. Journal of Educational Psychology; 2006; 98,
Clements, D. H.; Sarama, J. Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal; 2008; 45,
Clements, D. H.; Sarama, J. Early childhood mathematics intervention. Science; 2011; 333,
Copur-Gencturk, Y.; Thacker, I. A comparison of perceived and observed learning from professional development: Relationships among self-reports, direct assessments, and teacher characteristics. Journal of Teacher Education; 2021; 72,
Coyne, M. D.; McCoach, D. B.; Loftus, S.; Zipoli, R.; Ruby, M.; Crevecoeur, Y. C.; Kapp, S. Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness; 2010; 3,
Coyne, M. D.; Oldham, A.; Dougherty, S. M.; Leonard, K.; Koriakin, T.; Gage, N. A.; Burns, D.; Gillis, M. Evaluating the effects of supplemental reading intervention within an mtss or rti reading reform initiative using a regression discontinuity design. Exceptional Children; 2018; 84,
Cunha, F.; Heckman, J. The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review; 2007; 97,
Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology; 2013; 64, pp. 135-168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750]
Dickinson, D. K.; Caswell, L. Building support for language and early literacy in preschool classrooms through in-service professional development: Effects of the Literacy Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP). Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2007; 22,
Dickinson, D. K.; Porche, M. V. Relation between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child Development; 2011; 82,
Duncan, G. J.; Dowsett, C. J.; Claessens, A.; Magnuson, K.; Huston, A. C.; Klebanov, P.; Pagani, L.; Feinstein, L.; Engel, M.; Brooks-Gunn, J.; Sexton, H.; Duckworth, K.; Japel, C.; Cordray, D.; Ginsburg, H.; Grissmer, D.; Lipsey, M.; Raver, C.; Sameroff, A. … Zill, N. School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology; 2007; 43,
Engel, A.; Bönisch, H.; Ostermöller, J.; Chipperfield, M. P.; Dhomse, S.; Jöckel, P. A refined method for calculating equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics; 2018; 18,
Fancher, L. A.; Priestley-Hopkins, D. A.; Jeffries, L. M. Handwriting acquisition and intervention: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention; 2018; 11,
Farver, J. A. M.; Lonigan, C. J.; Eppe, S. Effective early literacy skill development for young Spanish-Speaking English language learners: An experimental study of two methods. Child Development; 2009; 80,
Fielding, L.; Kerr, N.; Rosier, P. Annual growth for all students: Catch up growth for those who are behind; The New Foundation Press: 2007.
Fischel, J. E.; Bracken, S. S.; Fuchs-Eisenberg, A.; Spira, E. G.; Katz, S.; Shaller, G. Evaluation of curricular approaches to enhance preschool early literacy skills. Journal of Literacy Research; 2007; 39,
Friedman-Krauss, A. H.; Bernett, W. S. State(s) of early intervention and early childhood special education|national institute for early education research; The National Institute for Early Education Research: 2023; Available online: https://nieer.org/research-library/states-early-intervention-early-childhood-special-education (accessed on 1 March 2024).
Gerde, H. K.; Bingham, G. E.; Pendergast, M. L. Reliability and validity of the Writing Resources and Interactions in Teaching Environments (WRITE) for preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2015; 31, pp. 34-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.008]
Gerde, H. K.; Bingham, G. E.; Wasik, B. A. Writing in early childhood classrooms: Guidance for best practices. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2012; 40,
Gerde, H. K.; Skibbe, L. E.; Wright, T. S.; Douglas, S. N. Evaluation of head start curricula for standards-based writing instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2019; 47,
Gettinger, M.; Stoiber, K. Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education; 2008; 27,
Goodrich, J. M.; Lonigan, C. J.; Farver, J. A. M. Impacts of a literacy-focused preschool curriculum on the early literacy skills of language-minority children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2017; 40, pp. 13-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.02.001] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28970649]
Graham, J. W.; Taylor, B. J.; Olchowski, A. E.; Cumsille, P. E. Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods; 2006; 11,
Greenwood, C. R.; Carta, J. J.; Atwater, J.; Goldstein, H.; Kaminski, R.; McConnell, S. Is a response to intervention (RTI) approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction needed?. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education; 2013; 33,
Haslip, M. J.; Gullo, D. F. The changing landscape of early childhood education: Implications for policy and practice. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2018; 46,
Hjetland, H. N.; Brinchmann, E. I.; Scherer, R.; Hulme, C.; Melby-Lervåg, M. Preschool pathways to reading comprehension: A systematic meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review; 2020; 30, 100323. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100323]
Hu, L.; Bentler, P. M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal; 1999; 6,
Hwang, H.; Cabell, S. Q.; Joyner, R. E. Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading; 2022; 26,
Jaffe, L. E. Development, interpretation, and application of the W score and the relative proficiency index; Riverside Publishing: 2009.
Jenkins, J. M.; Duncan, G. J.; Auger, A.; Bitler, M.; Domina, T.; Burchinal, M. Boosting school readiness: Should preschool teachers target skills or the whole child?. Economics of Education Review; 2018; 65, pp. 107-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.001]
Jenkins, J. M.; Whitaker, A. A.; Nguyen, T.; Yu, W. Distinctions without a difference? Preschool curricula and children’s development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness; 2019; 12,
Joo, Y. S.; Magnuson, K.; Duncan, G. J.; Schindler, H. S.; Yoshikawa, H.; Ziol-Guest, K. M. What works in early childhood education programs?: A meta–analysis of preschool enhancement programs. Early Education and Development; 2020; 31,
Justice, L. M.; Meier, J.; Walpole, S. Learning new words from storybooks. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools; 2005; 36,
Karch, A. Early start: Preschool politics in the United States; University of Michigan: 2013.
Kraft, M. A. Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher; 2020; 49,
Kuddus, M. A.; Tynan, E.; McBryde, E. Urbanization: A problem for the rich and the poor?. Public Health Reviews; 2020; 41,
Language and Reading Research Consortium Lo, M.-T.; Xu, M. Impacts of the let’s know! Curriculum on the language and comprehension-related skills of prekindergarten and kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology; 2022; 114,
Little, T. D.; Rhemtulla, M. Planned Missing Data Designs for Developmental Researchers. Child Development Perspectives; 2013; 7,
Logan, J. A.; Piasta, S. B.; Purtell, K. M.; Nichols, R.; Schachter, R. E. Early childhood language gains, kindergarten readiness, and Grade 3 reading achievement. Child Development; 2024; 95,
Lonigan, C. J. Literacy development. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Cognitive processes; 7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 2015; Vol. 2, pp. 763-805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy218]
Lonigan, C. J.; Farver, J. M.; Phillips, B. M.; Clancy-Menchetti, J. Promoting the development of preschool children’s emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacy-focused curriculum and two professional development models. Reading and Writing; 2011; 24,
Lonigan, C. J.; Purpura, D. J.; Wilson, S. B.; Walker, P. M.; Clancy-Menchetti, J. Evaluating the components of an emergent literacy intervention for preschool children at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology; 2013; 114,
Lonigan, C. J.; Wagner, R. K.; Torgesen, J. K. Test of preschool early literacy (TOPEL); PRO-ED: 2007; Available online: https://www.proedinc.com/Products/12440/topel-test-of-preschool-early-literacy.aspx (accessed on 1 March 2025).
Lonigan, C. J.; Wilson, S. B. Report on the revised Get Ready to Read! Screening tool: Psychometrics and normative information; National Center for Learning Disabilities: 2008.
Lurie, L. A.; Hagen, M. P.; McLaughlin, K. A.; Sheridan, M. A.; Meltzoff, A. N.; Rosen, M. L. Mechanisms linking socioeconomic status and academic achievement in early childhood: Cognitive stimulation and language. Cognitive Development; 2021; 58, 101045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2021.101045]
Lyon, R. Testimonies to congress; Center for the Development of Learning: 2002; Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475205.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025).
Madsen, K. M.; Peters-Sanders, L. A.; Kelley, E. S.; Barker, R. M.; Seven, Y.; Olsen, W. L.; Soto-Boykin, X.; Goldstein, H. Optimizing vocabulary instruction for preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention; 2023; 45,
Mashburn, A.; Justice, L. M.; McGinty, A.; Slocum, L. The impacts of a scalable intervention on the language and literacy development of rural pre-kindergartners. Applied Developmental Science; 2016; 20,
McConnell, S. R.; Bradfield, T. A.; Wackerle-Hollman, A. K. Early childhood literacy screening. Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools; American Psychological Association: 2014; pp. 141-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14316-006]
McGinty, A. S.; Justice, L. M. Predictors of print knowledge in children with specific language impairment: Experiential and developmental factors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research; 2009; 52,
McGrew, K.; Dailey, D.; Shcrank, F. Woodcock-Johnson III/Woodcock-Johnson III normative update score differences: What the user can expect and why (Woodcock-Johnson III assessment service bulletin No. 9); Riverside Publishing: 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5052.3129]
Mihai, A.; Butera, G.; Friesen, A. Examining the use of curriculum to support early literacy instruction: A multiple case study of head start teachers. Early Education and Development; 2017; 28,
Murnane, R. J.; Duncan, G. J. Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances; Russell Sage Foundation: 2011; Available online: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/207/monograph/book/26993 (accessed on 14 March 2025).
Muthén, L.; Muthén, B. Mplus (Version 8) [Computer software]; Muthén & Muthén: 2017.
Myrtil, M. J.; Justice, L. M.; Jiang, H. Home-literacy environment of low-income rural families: Association with child- and caregiver-level characteristics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology; 2019; 60, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2018.10.002]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. A new vision for high-quality preschool curriculum; National Academies Press: 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17226/27429]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and MedicineDivision of Behavioral and Social Sciences and EducationBoard on Children, Youth, and Families. Closing the opportunity gap for young children [Consensus Study Report]; National Academies Press (US): 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17226/26743]
National Association for the Education of Young Children. The power of playful learning; 2022; Available online: https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/summer2022/power-playful-learning (accessed on 14 March 2025).
National Center for Education Statistics. Students with disabilities; Condition of education U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences: 2024; Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg (accessed on 14 March 2025).
National Early Literacy Panel. Developing early literacy; National Institute for Literacy: 2008; Available online: https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2025).
Neuman, S. B. The knowledge gap: Implications for early education. Handbook of early literacy research; Dickinson, D. K.; Neuman, S. B. Guilford: 2006; pp. 29-40.
Neuman, S. B.; Dwyer, J. Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in Pre-K. The Reading Teacher; 2009; 62,
Neuman, S. B.; Roskos, K. The state of state pre-kindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2005; 20,
Neuman, S. B.; Snow, C. Instructional material: Building language for literacy (Research-based early literacy instruction); Scholastic: 2000.
Nguyen, T.; Duncan, G. J.; Jenkins, J. M. Boosting school readiness with preschool curricula. Sustaining early childhood learning gains; Cambridge University Press: 2018; pp. 74-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108349352.005]
Olsen, J. Z. Handwriting without tears: Teacher’s guide; 9th ed. Handwriting Without Tears: 2003.
Papadopoulos, T. C.; Spanoudis, G.; Ktisti, C.; Fella, A. Precocious readers: A cognitive or a linguistic advantage?. European Journal of Psychology of Education; 2021; 36, pp. 63-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00470-9]
Pfost, M.; Hattie, J.; Dörfler, T.; Artelt, C. Individual differences in reading development: A review of 25 years of empirical research on matthew effects in reading. Review of Educational Research; 2014; 84,
Piasta, S. B. Current understandings of what works to support the development of emergent literacy in early childhood classrooms. Child Development Perspectives; 2016; 10,
Piasta, S. B.; Hudson, A.; Sayers, R.; Logan, J. A. R.; Lewis, K.; Zettler-Greeley, C. M.; Bailet, L. L. Small-Group Emergent Literacy Intervention Dosage in Preschool: Patterns and Predictors. Journal of Early Intervention; 2024; 46,
Piasta, S. B.; Logan, J. A. R.; Thomas, L. J. G.; Zettler-Greeley, C. M.; Bailet, L. L.; Lewis, K. Implementation of a small-group emergent literacy intervention by preschool teachers and community aides. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2021; 54, pp. 31-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.08.002]
Piasta, S. B.; Logan, J. A. R.; Zettler-Greeley, C. M.; Bailet, L. L.; Lewis, K.; Thomas, L. J. G. Small-group, emergent literacy intervention under two implementation models: Intent-to-treat and dosage effects for preschoolers at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2023; 56,
Piasta, S. B.; Phillips, B. M.; Williams, J. M.; Bowles, R. P.; Anthony, J. L. Measuring young children’s alphabet knowledge: Development and validation of brief letter-sound knowledge assessments. Elementary School Journal; 2016; 116,
Piasta, S. B.; Shea, Z.; Hudson, A. K.; Shen, Y.; Logan, J. A.; Zettler-Greeley, C. M.; Lewis, K. Initial Skills Predict Preschoolers’ Emergent Literacy Development but Do Not Moderate Response to Intervention. Infant and Child Development; 2025; 34,
Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness (NCER 2008–2009); National Center for Education Research: Institute of Education Sciences: U.S. Department of Education: U.S. Government Printing Office: 2008.
Puranik, C. S.; Lonigan, C. J. Emergent writing in preschoolers: Preliminary evidence for a theoretical framework. Reading Research Quarterly; 2014; 49,
Reynolds, A. J.; Ou, S.-R.; Mondi, C. F.; Hayakawa, M. Processes of early childhood interventions to adult well-being. Child Development; 2017; 88,
Rhemtulla, M.; Hancock, G. R. Planned missing data designs in educational psychology research. Educational Psychologist; 2016; 51,
Ritchie, S.; Willer, B. Curriculum: A guide to the NAEYC early childhood program standard and related accreditation criteria; National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC): 2008.
Sabol, T. J.; Ross, E. C.; Frost, A. Are all head start classrooms created equal? Variation in classroom quality within head start centers and implications for accountability systems. American Educational Research Journal; 2020; 57,
Sameroff, A. J.; Chandler, M. J. Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty. Review of Child Development Research; 1975; 4,
Sattler, K. M. P. Can early childhood education be compensatory? Examining the benefits of child care among children who experience neglect. Early Education and Development; 2023; 34,
Sayers, R.; Piasta, S. B.; Logan, J. A. R. Implementing a small-group literacy program in preschool classrooms: Impacts of the Nemours BrightStart! Program [Study Protocol Preregistration]; Open Science Framework: 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CG9MB]
Sayers, R.; Piasta, S. B.; Logan, J. A. R.; Zettler-Greeley, C. M.; Bailet, L. L.; Lewis, K. Identifying and helping preschoolers in Columbus needing extra literacy support [White paper]; Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy: 2021; Available online: https://crane.osu.edu/our-work/identifying-and-helping-preschoolers-in-columbus-who-may-benefit-from-extra-literacy-support (accessed on 20 May 2024).
Schachter, R. E.; Piasta, S.; Justice, L. An investigation into the curricula (and quality) used by early childhood educators. HS Dialog: The Research to Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field; 2020; 23,
Schweinhart, L.; Montie, J.; Xiang, Z.; Barnett, S.; Belfield, C.; Nores, M. The high/scope perry preschool study through age 40 summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions; High/Scope® Educational Research Foundation: 2005; pp. 194-215. Available online: www.highscope.org (accessed on 20 May 2024).
Shea, Z. M.; Jenkins, J. M. Examining heterogeneity in the impacts of socio-emotional curricula in preschool: A quantile treatment effect approach. Frontiers in Psychology; 2021; 12, 624320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624320]
Skibbe, L. E.; Gerde, H. K.; Wright, T. S.; Samples-Steele, C. R. A content analysis of phonological awareness and phonics in commonly used head start curricula. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2016; 44,
Snow, C. E.; Matthews, T. J. Reading and language in the early grades. The Future of Children; 2016; 26,
Stanovich, K. E. Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly; 1986; 21,
StataCorp. Stata statistical software: Release 17 [Computer software]; StataCorp LLC: 2021.
Stoiber, K. C.; Gettinger, M. Multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based practices. Handbook of response to intervention; Jimerson, S. R.; Burns, M. K.; VanDerHeyden, A. M. Springer US: 2016; pp. 121-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_9]
Teaching Strategies, Inc. The critical role of instructional strategies in promoting early literacy; 2018; Available online: https://teachingstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TSI_Research-Paper_Literacy.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2025).
Tortorelli, L. S.; Bowles, R. P.; Skibbe, L. E. Easy as AcHGzrjq: The quick letter name knowledge assessment. The Reading Teacher; 2017; 71,
Toub, T. S.; Hassinger-Das, B.; Nesbitt, K. T.; Ilgaz, H.; Weisberg, D. S.; Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Golinkoff, R. M.; Nicolopoulou, A.; Dickinson, D. K. The language of play: Developing preschool vocabulary through play following shared book-reading. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2018; 45,
Tourangeau, K.; Nord, C.; Lê, T.; Sorongon, A. G.; Najarian, M. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K): Combined User’s Manual for the ECLS-K Eighth-Grade and K-8 Full Sample Data Files and Electronic Codebooks;
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. WWC intervention report: Literacy express; 2010; Available online: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_lit_express_072710.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2024).
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. The creative curriculum® for preschool; 2013; Available online: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_creativecurriculum_081109.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2024).
Vaughn, S.; Fletcher, J. M. Identifying and teaching students with significant reading problems. American Educator; 2021; 44,
Wackerle-Hollman, A. K.; Rodriguez, M. I.; Bradfield, T. A.; Rodriguez, M. C.; McConnell, S. R. Development of early measures of comprehension: Innovation in individual growth and development indicators. Assessment for Effective Intervention; 2015; 40,
Walsh, B. A.; Petty, K. Frequency of six early childhood education approaches: A 10-year content analysis of early childhood education journal. Early Childhood Education Journal; 2007; 34,
Wang, A. H.; Firmender, J. M.; Power, J. R.; Byrnes, J. P. Understanding the Program Effectiveness of Early Mathematics Interventions for Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Environments: A Meta-Analytic Review. Early Education and Development; 2016; 27,
Watts, T. W.; Jenkins, J. M.; Dodge, K. A.; Carr, R. C.; Sauval, M.; Bai, Y.; Escueta, M.; Duer, J.; Ladd, H.; Muschkin, C.; Peisner-Feinberg, E.; Ananat, E. Understanding heterogeneity in the impact of public preschool programs. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development; 2023; 88,
Weiland, C.; McCormick, M.; Mattera, S.; Maier, M.; Morris, P. Preschool curricula and professional development features for getting to high-quality implementation at scale: A comparative review across five trials. AERA Open; 2018; 4,
Whitehurst, G. J.; Lonigan, C. J. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development; 1998; 69,
Whitehurst, G. J.; Lonigan, C. J. Get read to read!—Revised edition; Pearson Assessments: 2010.
Wilcox, M. J.; Gray, S. I.; Guimond, A. B.; Lafferty, A. E. Efficacy of the TELL language and literacy curriculum for preschoolers with developmental speech and/or language impairment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly; 2011; 26,
Wilson, S. B.; Lonigan, C. J. Identifying preschool children at risk of later reading difficulties: Evaluation of two emergent literacy screening tools. Journal of Learning Disabilities; 2010; 43,
Xie, S.; Hubbard, R. A.; Himes, B. E. Neighborhood-level measures of socioeconomic status are more correlated with individual-level measures in urban areas compared to less urban areas. Annals of Epidemiology; 2020; 43, pp. 37-43.e4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.01.012]
Xu, M.; Logan, J. A. R. Treatment effects in longitudinal two-method measurement planned missingness designs: An application and tutorial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness; 2021; 14,
Yoshikawa, H.; Weiland, C.; Brooks-Gunn, J. When does preschool matter?. Future of Children; 2016; 26,
Yoshikawa, H.; Weiland, C.; Brooks-Gunn, J.; Burchinal, M.; Espinosa, L. M.; Gormley, W. T.; Jens, L.; Magnuson, K. A.; Phillips, D.; Zaslow, M. J. Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education; Foundation for Child Development: 2013.
Zhai, F.; Waldfogel, J.; Brooks-Gunn, J. Head start, prekindergarten, and academic school readiness: A comparison among regions in the united states. Journal of Social Service Research; 2013; 39,
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.