Brief Summaries of 14 Scientific Studies on “Your Baby Can Read” Briefly, here are some highlights from the following 14 studies: * When babies who had used YBCR for about 7 months for about an hour a day were tested by teams of researchers, the babies who had used YBCR scored significantly higher than a same-socio-economic status control group who did not use YBCR on measures of language and cognition: receptive language, expressive language, overall language abilities, and overall cognitive abilities. If you read highlights from studies 10-11, you will see that these are not small differences. * On the PSL-4 overall language test that has normative data, the babies who consistently used YBCR for at least 7 months only about 15% ended up in the “average” range. The other 85% of babies who used YBCR were in the “high average” (36.4%), “superior” (33.3%), or “very superior” (15.2%) ranges. On the same test, a same-socio-economic status control group had 76% in the “average” range with 12% of babies in the “low average” range and 9% in the “high average” range and 3% in and the “superior” range. None of the control group babies were in the “very superior” range. * Even on tests of overall cognitive ability, the babies who had used the YBCR program consistently for at least 7 months scored significantly higher than a same-socio-economic status control group. The control group had 3% in the “extremely low” range, 13%, in the “borderline” range, 31% in the “low average” range, 50% in the “average” range, and 3% in the “high average” range. The YBCR group had 45% in the “average” range, 19% in the “high average” range, 23% in the “superior” range, and 13% in the “very superior” range. * When combining three studies (with more than 750 parents in total) where parents were asked similar questions about whether or not YBCR was teaching their babies, toddlers, or preschoolers to read, more than 90% of parents said that YBCR “helped significantly” or “helped more than any other activity” (or “yes” when that was the option) and none said that it hurt their child’s ability to read. The studies on Your Baby Can Read are consistent – babies, toddlers, and preschoolers who frequently use the program learn reading skills. In addition, the infants and children also score better on language tests (receptive, expressive, and overall language) after using YBCR. Additionally, when they were tested on overall cognition, the babies who used the program did significantly better than a same-socio-economic status control group. The parents who have actually used the program generally “like” or “love” YBCR. To find out more about the long-term benefits of early reading, click here.** 1. Titzer, R. (1998, April). Case Study of an Infant Exposed to Written Language. Presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies. Atlanta, Georgia. Case Study of an Infant Exposed to Written Language. The participant began the program at age 3 months, 8 days and her progress was followed through six years of age. The baby viewed words on paper plates, word cards, books and a prototype of the “Your Baby Can Read” videotapes using a multisensory, interactive approach. Through these activities, the baby was allowed to see the words, hear the words, see and hear what the words meant, and often perform physical actions related to the words, such as clapping or waving. The baby viewed words daily. She watched the videotape nearly every day for seven months. She watched the tape one to three times a day but she did not watch any entertainment-based television as a baby. The amount of time spent playing with words and looking at words varied from day-to-day based on the baby’s interest and the researcher’s schedule. On average, she spent about an hour a day watching the videos or looking at words on cards or in books until the age of 12 months. 3 to 7 months No indication that she recognized any of the words; however she enjoyed the interactive activities. New words were generally added a few times a week 7½ months First demonstrated that she recognized a word – she touched her foot when she saw (but did not hear) the word “foot” 9 months Demonstrated that she recognized 30 consecutive words by saying the word or performing an appropriate physical activity for each word 10 months Consistently recognized more than 100 words visually 12 months Consistently recognized more than 400 words visually, showed some generalizability of learning by flipping novel word cards from upside-down to up-right positions 14 months New words were learned quickly by the parents simultaneously pointing and saying words in books, reading Go Dog, Go! By Dr. Seuss, favorite books – Word Bird ™series by Moncure, books with Tweety™ 18 months Could phonetically read most words (including nonsense words), read first grade level books from the library that she had never seen, often generalized lower case learning 19 months Used character voices when reading stories 24 months Read an average of around 20 books per day – favorites included The Ladybug and Other Insects™, The Earth and Sky™, and the Frog and Toad™ series 3 years Preferred non-fiction books about dinosaurs, archeology, and geography; Read the 314 page The World of Pooh book by A.A. Milne in less than 2 hours 4 years Continued interest in non-fiction books – mostly science related topics; Favorite series – The Magic School Bus, also had a high interest in fiction 4 years, 15 days Was tested by an independent clinical psychologist using the following tests with the following results: Woodcock-Johnson –Revised Tests of Achievement (for reading skills) Test Grade Level Percentile Letter-word Identification 5.8 Above 99.9 Word Attack 11.9 Above 99.9 Passage Comprehension 4.2 Above 99.9 Received a perfect score on a standardized IQ test administered by an independent psychologist. The probability of receiving this score was 0.00003 or 1 out of 33,333. 5 years Preferred fiction, especially mysteries and Winnie-the-Pooh stories 6 years Preferred mysteries, fantasies and classics DISCUSSION This study detailed the remarkable progress of a baby who was allowed to see the language from the age of 3 months, 8 days onward. This illustrates that it is possible for babies to learn to read at high levels at the same time they are learning to understand and say words. This exposure appears to have enhanced her overall language mastery as was evident in the testing. 2. TITZER, R. (1998, April). Evidence that 2- and 3-Year-Old Babies and Toddlers Can Visually Discriminate Written Words. Presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies. Atlanta, Georgia. Converging evidence in the areas of reading education, language acquisition, brain development and infant research indicates that most of our nation’s reading problems could be prevented by teaching reading during the window of opportunity for learning language. Developmentalists have discovered that young infants have remarkable perceptual abilities (e.g., Baillargeon, 1986, 1991). In these studies, infants as young as 3.5 months old visually perceived differences in complex events. Additionally, infants can also perceive figure-ground relationships (e.g., Bertenthal, 1993; Craton & Yonas, 1990). In a related area of study, neurobiologists have revealed that infants’ brains develop differently based on the age at which they learn a second language (Posner, 1997). Children’s brains were able to adapt and become more efficient when they learned the language before the age of four compared with learning later in life. Moreover, other studies suggest that infants learn language faster than older children (e.g., fast mapping). Combined, all of this work suggests that infants are capable of learning to visually discriminate written language much earlier than age six and that learning to recognize written language during infancy may allow their brains to develop more efficiently for recognizing written words. PURPOSE This study investigates 2- and 3- year old babies’ and toddlers’ abilities to visually discriminate written words. METHOD Thirty-two children (ages 24 to 40 months, 18 African-American and 14 Caucasian) participated in this double-blind study. Half of the children viewed an interactive videotaped segment from the “Your Baby Can Read” video which displayed six words and video images representing those words for two minutes prior to beginning the test. First, the children viewed the word. An arrow moved from left to right under each word as the word was verbalized. Next they viewed images that represented the meaning of the word. The following target words were used: crawling, eyes, ears, smiling, clap, and gorilla. The other half of the participants did not view the “Your Baby Can Read” videotape prior to being tested. During the test, children viewed the target word and a novel word that were presented simultaneously. The target was either above or below the novel word in one test, and to the left or right in the other test. Children were asked to point to the target words. The children were tested two times on each word. The order of the positioning of the target words (right or left, up or down) was counterbalanced. For the first three words, the target word was displayed on the TV monitor while the child was tested. For the final three words, the monitor was turned off before the test words were presented. RESULTS The control group of 16 children did not recognize the correct words above chance. Both the two-year-old and three-year-old participants in the experimental group could recognize the written words above chance p < .05). This was true even when the TV monitor was turned off. DISCUSSION Children are able to visually discriminate words much earlier than what is currently accepted. This study suggests that 2- and 3-year-old babies and toddlers are capable of visually recognizing words. This is an age range that is about 3 or 4 years younger than the current age at which reading is taught in the U.S. Other studies support that very young infants may have the perceptual abilities to recognize written words and that exposure to language while the brain is rapidly developing may influence the effectiveness of brain connections. There is much evidence that acquiring language skills in early childhood affects the long range performance of those skills. For instance, syntax ability (Coppieters, 1987), grammatical ability (Johnson & Newport, 1991), speech production (Oyama, 1976) and sentence processing skills (Mayberry, 1993) are better when learned in early childhood rather than in adolescence. Children who learned to read at age 3 and 4 read a couple of grades above same-IQ children who learned to read at later stages – this advantage continued throughout childhood (Durkin, 1970). In contrast, language deprivation during early childhood has lasting negative effects (Curtiss, 1977). OVERALL CONCLUSIONS OF STUDY ONE AND STUDY TWO The study with 32 2- and 3-year-olds demonstrated that children are capable of visually differentiating written words several years earlier than school age. The longitudinal case study suggests that babies and toddlers who are frequently exposed to written language may learn this aspect of language at the same time as they learn auditory and spoken language. This study indicates that it is possible for an 18-month-old infant to read at a level that is higher than the average seven year old American. Neuroplasticity in Broca’s area appears more efficient when the child learns language skills in the first four years of life compared to age five or later (Hirsch, 1997). It is possible that the baby in the case study similarly developed efficient pathways for reading because she learned to read as an infant. Rather than utilizing a separate area of the brain for reading, it is possible that babies develop more efficient pathways more closely connected to spoken and receptive language areas. 3. TITZER, R. (1995). Pilot study to determine if other infants could learn to recognize written words from a video and to determine an optimal pace for the video. (Unpublished pilot study). Eleven parents were given one VHS “Your Baby Can Read” pilot video and detailed instructions. The infants’ ages varied from 8 months of age to 12 months of age at the beginning of the study. The pace of the video varied from relatively slow to relatively fast. According to the parents’ reports, the fast paced parts of the video held the infants’ attention better than the slow-paced parts. The parent instructions appeared to be too complicated. In order to follow the instructions, parents had to rewind the VHS video to a particular point on the video and stop the video at a different point. The starting and ending points changed as the babies were supposed to have new words on the video introduced weekly. Most of the parents did not follow the instructions. All four parents who followed the instructions reported that their babies could “act out” at least one word when they saw, but did not hear, the words within three months. This study showed how important it is to make a program that is easy for the parents to use. It also verified that it is possible for babies to learn to read words from watching a video. 4. TITZER, R. (1997). Case Study of a Second Infant Learning Written Language. (Unpublished study on Keelin Titzer). Keelin began viewing her reading video on June 15, 1994 at the age of two months, 0 days. On average, she watched the video for about 45 minutes per day. Keelin did not watch any other TV programs or videos in early infancy. Keelin could demonstrate the meanings of seven consecutive written words without hearing them when she turned 8 months of age when given recall tests. In other words, when the word “clap” was shown to her – she consistently would clap. When she saw the word “wave” she would wave her hand. By 12.5 months of age, Keelin would generally turn her head upside down when shown a long word (five or more letters) that was upside down. This appeared to demonstrate that she had learned a general pattern of what words look like and she recognized when the individual or groups of letters in a long word did not fit that pattern. Keelin became skilled at matching toys or objects with the written words that represented the toys or objects. By 15 months of age, when four words were scattered on the floor where she could see them and she was handed a small toy/object that matched one of the words, she would take the object and place it on or next to the corresponding word. By 18 months of age, when Keelin was given two novel written words – for example “newspaper” and “computer” – she would consistently point to the word that was spoken. This appeared to show that Keelin had learned some phonetic patterns by 18 months of age. 5. TITZER, R. (1999). Five-month-old infants’ abilities to discriminate written language. Invited guest speaker. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. This study used common looking time measures to determine if 5 month-old infants could visually differentiate written words. Twenty-eight 5-month-old infants were habituated to written words. A double-blind procedure was used to investigate whether 5-month-old infants could visually differentiate the word “clapping” from the word “wave.” Looking times decreased over trials, then leveled off, for the word “clapping.” When the novel word “wave” was introduced, looking times increased significantly indicating that the babies could visually differentiate those written words. Note: At the time the study was completed, it was commonly believed by many people that infants had the perceptual abilities to notice small differences in visual stimuli – such as the differences among written words. There is now an abundance of evidence that infants can not only differentiate similar visual stimuli, but they can also figure out patterns in many stimuli. 6. Downey, E. M. (2002). Video Tape as an Instructional Strategy for Developing Reading Vocabulary for Children with Autism, Presented to the Faculty of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree, Master of Arts in Education. This thesis used part of the YBCR system to successfully teach children with autism reading vocabulary. It was a completely independent longitudinal study and randomized controlled trials with a pre-test and post-test design. The experimental group’s reading vocabulary increased after viewing YBCR for three weeks. The control group’s reading vocabulary remained constant. 7. Perkins, A. (2009). A Study of the Effectiveness of Robert Titzers Your Baby Can Read! Multi-Sensory Reading Approach. University of West Georgia. In 2009, Perkins conducted a completely independent longitudinal study using YBCR. She reported babies learning to read when parents used the program consistently. The babies and children who rarely used the program did not learn to read according to their parents. Twin 20-month-olds learned to read according to the mom and Ms. Perkin’s informal observations. Perkins (p. 31): “The bottom line is that, when you implement the program correctly, “Your Baby Can Read!” is an effective means of teaching reading to infants and toddlers, along with making the child a lot more aware of the world in which he/she lives.” 8. Titzer, R. (2010a). The Effectiveness of the YBCR Program on Reading and Vocabulary Skills: Study 1. Funded by the company Your Baby Can, this study included participants who generally watched YBCR fewer than five times per week. All of the infants and children in this study watched the DVDs for at least two months. Dozens of studies show that parental reports of their children’s language and cognitive abilities are reliable and valid measures of their children’s abilities. The study was designed so that the parents had five options for responding: a very positive response, a positive response, a neutral response, a negative response, or a very negative response. None of 440 parents in this study selected any of the negative or very negative responses. This study found that babies, toddlers, and preschoolers learned to read according to 88% of the 296 parents even though the parents did not show the DVDs as frequently as recommended in the Parents’ Guide. Parental reports indicate increases in vocabularies and other learning from using the program for 98% of the babies (under 18 months of age), 95% of the toddlers 18-35 months), and 100% of the other children (older than 35 months). This indicates that YBCR can work even when the parents don’t follow the instructions as long as the children use the program over at least two months. Some of the relevant findings include: • 94% of the parents who did not follow the instructions said the YBCR program helped their 0-17 month-old babies learn physical actions. • When asked “How do you think the YBCR program influenced your child’s overall learning?” 93% of the parents who did not follow the instructions said the YBCR program “helped significantly” or “helped more than any other activity” while none of the parents said that it hurt their child’s learning. • When asked “How do you think the YBCR program influenced your child’s ability to read?” out of the parents who did not follow the instructions, 88% of the parents said YBCR “helped significantly” or “helped more than any other activity” and none said that it hurt their child’s ability to read. Note: When YBC owned the data, a different name was used to describe this study. Dr. Golshan, a statistician at a top US university, did the statistical analyses for this study. 9. TItzer, R. (2010b). The Effectiveness of the YBCR Program on Reading and Vocabulary Skills: Study 2. This study was funded by the company Your Baby Can. This study included participants who generally watched YBCR at least seven times a week for seven months. The research on parental reports is consistent – parents provide reliable and valid reports on their infants’ and children’s language and cognitive abilities. Parents could choose two positive responses, a neutral answer, or two negative responses. None of the 300 parents in this study chose a negative answer for any of the questions. The main difference between this study and the previous study is that the parents in this study used the DVDs more frequently (generally at least 7 times a week) and they had watched for at least 7 months. The parental reports showed that babies, toddlers, and preschoolers learned to read according to 95% of the 258 parents. Parental reports by 261 participants indicate increases in vocabularies and other learning from using the program by 99.6% of the babies, 100% of the toddlers, and 100% of the children older than 35 months of age. Here are some more of the highlights of this study: • 99% of the parents said the YBCR program helped their 0-17 month-old babies learn physical actions. • 97% of the parents with children 0-17 months stated that YBCR helped their child learn to understand the meanings of words. • 100% of the parents with toddlers 18-35 months and 100% of the parents with children 36 months and up -- stated that they believed that YBCR helped their child learn to understand the meanings of words. • When asked “How do you think the YBCR program influenced your child’s overall learning?” 98% of the parents said the YBCR program “helped significantly” or “helped more than any other activity” while none of the parents said that it hurt their child’s learning. When parents were asked “How do you think the YBCR program influenced your child’s ability to read?” – 95% said YBCR “helped significantly” or “more than any other activity” and none of the parents said that it hurt their child’s ability to read. • When parents who followed the instructions for at least seven months were asked, “What was the potential impact of the YBCR program on your baby’s future?” – 260 out of 261 said that it had a “positive” or “very positive” effect. None of the parents said it had a “negative” or “very negative” effect. 100% of the parents in this study with babies aged 18 months to 35 months of age said that YBCR had a “positive” or “very positive” effect. None said that it had “no effect,” a “negative” or “very negative” effect. Highlights from the Two Studies: • Out of the 510 parents who had infants or toddlers 36 months of age or younger, who answered the question “How do you think the YBCR program influenced your child’s ability to read?” – 91.6% of the parents with infants (35 months or younger) said that it “helped significantly” or it “helped more than any other activity.” None of the parents selected that it hurt their child’s reading ability. • 96.8% of all parents (with babies, toddlers, or pre-schoolers – whether or not the parents had followed the instructions) said the “future impact of the YBCR program” on their child was “positive” or “very positive” and none said that it was “negative” or “very negative.” These two studies with 740 parents participating provided evidence that babies 18 months and younger, toddlers, and preschoolers are all learning to read using YBCR. Parents who use the program – whether or not they follow they follow the instructions – also say YBCR teaches their babies, toddlers, and preschoolers new vocabulary words. Over 95% of parents with babies -- whether or not they followed the instructions – recommend the program to others. Note: When YBC owned the data, a different name was used to describe this study. Dr. Golshan, a statistician at a top US university, did the statistical analyses for this study. 10.-11. Thompson, Tarver, & Woods, (2011a); Thompson & Tarver, (2011). Dr. Thompson was the lead scientist for several studies that used YBCR. As she states in her preface, YBC funded the studies, but she was in control over all aspects of the study and manuscripts. Each child was administered the following norm-referenced tests designed to test the language and cognitive abilities of infants and toddlers: Language Scales of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (3rd edition Bayley-III) Cognitive Scale of the Bayley-III The Preschool Language Scale – 4th edition (PLS-4) 72 babies were tested between the ages of 10 months and 23 months, with the mean age of 17.26 months. The results from the Dr. Thompson studies are very impressive for babies who watched YBCR an average of 7 hours or more a week for at least 7 months. The babies were tested on standardized tests that also have normative data. The YBCR Group had significantly higher scores than a same-socio-economic status control group on the following standardized tests: * receptive language * expressive language * overall language * overall cognition The YBCR group did significantly better than the same-socio-economic status control group on every standardized test. The control group’s mean score (M=100) on the overall language test was within the “average” classification on the test. The YBCR group’s mean score (M=120.03) on the overall language test was within the “superior” classification on the test -- the seven classifications are: Extremely Low, Borderline, Low Average, Average, High Average, Superior, and Very Superior. The differences between the groups were very large even though the babies in the control group were matched for socio-economic status. For example – even on the overall cognitive tests, 55% of the babies from the YBCR group scored in the high average (19%), superior (23%), or very superior range (13%) on the overall cognitive testing while 3% of babies in same-socio-economic status control group scored in the high average group and 0% scored in the superior or very superior range. In the control group, 3% scored in the “extremely low” range, 13%, in the “borderline” range, 31% in the “low average” range, and 50% in the “average” range. None of the YBCR babies scored in the “extremely low,” “borderline,” or “low average” ranges and 45% scored in the “average” range. When babies who had used YBCR for about 7 months for about an hour a day were tested by teams of researchers, the babies who had used YBCR scored significantly higher than a same-socio-economic status control group who did not use YBCR on measures of language and cognition: receptive language, expressive language, overall language abilities, and overall cognitive abilities. If you read highlights from studies 10-11, you will see that these are not small differences. On the PSL-4 overall language test that has normative data, the babies who consistently used YBCR for at least 7 months only about 15% ended up in the “average” range. The other 85% of babies who used YBCR were in the “high average” (36.4%), “superior” (33.3%), or “very superior” (15.2%) ranges. On the same test, a same-socio-economic status control group had 76% in the “average” range with 12% of babies in the “low average” range and 9% in the “high average” range and 3% in and the “superior” range. None of the control group babies were in the “very superior” range. The results clearly show that using the YBCR program was associated with superior scores on actual standardized tests related to language and cognition. 12. Thompson, Tarver, and Woods (2011b). As described above, YBC funded the studies, but Dr. Thompson was in control over all aspects of the study and manuscripts. In the previous studies, Dr. Thompson and colleagues used standardized measures to test the babies where the measures existed. Since infant reading is a developing interdisciplinary field, there are not yet any standardized tests with normative data. Traditional reading specialists may think that one of their established “pre-reading” tests such as naming the letters of the alphabet should have been used, but knowing the names of the letters of the alphabet may not even be related to one’s ability to read. Those types of “reading readiness” tests would not be a good measure of the babies’ actual reading abilities. There are numerous tests of that kind, but none of them measure actual reading abilities during infancy, so Dr. Thompson designed her own test. Dr. Thompson developed her own test that was very similar to the test I made about a decade earlier (Titzer, 1998b). The test consisted of 20 words from the YBCR program. Ten pairs of words were presented two times each. The babies were asked to identify a spoken word while that word and another word from the program were shown. The babies responded by pointing or verbally, with some doing both. A double-blind testing procedure was used. The examiner was blind to the words on the cards. The backs were marked with an “A” or a “B.” The recording examiner could only see whether card “A” or “B” was selected. Verbal responses were recorded on the test form. The total raw score was a sum of the correct responses out of a total of a maximum of 20. The participating babies from the YBCR Group scored a mean of 17.17 correct out of 20 words. The range was 3 to 20 as some babies did not participate after several words and the testing was discontinued for that baby. This study is competent and reliable scientific evidence that babies who consistently use YBCR can read after consistently using the program for about seven months. The YBCR babies consistently demonstrated that they understood the meaning of written words. Dr. Thompson also reports information about the babies reading novel words, but this happened spontaneously and was not formally tested. The control group did not appear to understand what a “written word” was and rarely responded to the test appropriately. 13. Anonymous Researcher at a Major US University (2011). This study was funded by Your Baby Can, LLC. There were 16 participants who had used YBCR between 3 weeks and 2 years of age who were tested later. There were six 2-year-olds and ten 3- to 5-year-olds. There were 6 Caucasians, 6 were African-Americans, 2 were Hispanic, and 2 were Asian. There was no control group, but it is highly likely that any control group who had not been taught to read would not have performed well on the reading tests. The tests for this study were actual reading tests designed to measure reading vocabulary, reading aloud, reading comprehension, and acting out words. Each test was designed to measure a different aspect of the child’s reading ability including expressive reading ability (i.e., can the child read/say the words aloud), receptive reading ability (i.e., can the child identify a written word if given the corresponding spoken word), comprehension (i.e., does the child understand the meaning of written words?), and acting out (i.e., can a child act out simple phrases from the Your Baby Can Read program?). The mean age of the sample was 44.41 months. The mean time using YBCR was 63.17 weeks. All of the tests in this study were administered by examiners who were not familiar with YBCR. The examiners were not given detailed information about the purpose of the tests, so the examiners were blind to any theoretical position the lead researcher may have had. Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Reading Test This test consisted of 36 vocabulary words printed with the same font. There was one target word that would be spoken and two foil words, one of which from the YBCR program and one that was not part of the program. All three words contained the same number of letters within each trial. Half of the target words were from YBCR and half were not part of the program to test whether the child could read novel words. The infants were shown three words on a screen. The experimenter directed the babies to “Point to ‘nose’ ” (or whatever the target word was). If the baby did not respond, the statement was repeated. There were 12 trials. The mean correct score was reported to be 86.7% correct – which is obviously a significant finding since the chance score would be 33.3% correct. The tests were made more difficult for the babies who had “only memorized” the words since each group of three words had the same number of letters for each trial. The researcher found evidence that the children had not simply memorized the words since the infants/children were reading words that were not in the program. Expressive Reading Test This test was designed to determine whether the children could read the words aloud. The words “clap,” “baby,” “mouth,” and “wave” were used as sample words. The test administrators read the words while the child watched. The child was then told to read the sample words. If the child was correct on all of the words, then testing continued. Children under the age of three could gesture to show they were reading the words. For the test, the administrators shuffled the cards, then used a stopwatch for one minute to determine how many words the child could read. Sixty total words were used in the assessment. Scores ranged from 0 to 34 words correct in one minute. The average overall score was 9.64 correct in one minute. There were no statistical differences between the younger and older children which would be against the expectation of the traditional view of professors who still believe in reading readiness approaches. The children read, on average, about one word every 6 seconds for a minute. Reading Comprehension Test The test was used to determine if the child understands the meaning of the written words. There were 12 vocabulary words in this test – half from YBCR and half that were not part of the program. For each trial, the infant/child was shown one word across the top of a screen, below the word there were three pictures -- placed in a random order. The experimenter pointed to the word on the screen and said “Which one does this mean?” If the infant/child did not respond, the command was repeated. The mean correct score was 63% ranging from 0% to 100%. Impressively, the children comprehended 68% of the YBCR words and 59% of the non-YBCR words when the chance score would have been 33.3% correct. Again, this showed that the infants/children had learned to read novel words using Your Baby Can Read. Acting Out Reading Test The infants/children were asked to “act them out as fast as you can.” The mean number of correct responses in one minute was 4.5. The younger group was non-significantly faster than the older group (4.7 to 4.0). The infants/children who had used YBCR longer could act out many more words (11 phrases in one minute) compared to the infants/children who had used YBCR for less time (1.13 phrases). The researcher found a result that is consistent, using YBCR over a long time period leads to reading. Most of the children could identify and comprehend words that were taught by YBCR as well as words that were not specifically taught in the program, indicating that these children could read phonetically. This study provides additional evidence that the children were not simply memorizing words, but that at least the children in this study could read words phonetically. It was concluded that the enrolled children could decode the words and were using these skills to understand novel words. The infants and children performed about as well on the most difficult tests as they did on the other tests. The infants/children in this study learned to read novel words in addition to the words in the program. In other words, the infants/children had NOT “simply memorized” all 177 key words from the DVDs. They could also read words that were not in the program. The infants/children could comprehend the meanings of the words, read the words aloud, and act out the meanings of written phrases. The children in this study – who were tested by unfamiliar administrators in novel test situations – could read on four fairly advanced tests that much older children would typically not be able to do. 12. Hare, Baldwin, & Okoth, (2013). This was a completely independent longitudinal study completed in the Department of Preventive Medicine at University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center. The study assigned low socio-economic status participants to use the YBCR program and followed them for six months. Most (81%) of the caregivers who completed a final assessment felt that their child had learned to read some words because of their use of the YBCR materials. When asked, “Do you think [the] child’s vocabulary has increased because of YBCR?,” 95% of the caregivers said “yes.” After the respondents said “yes” to the previous question, they were asked, “How much do you think it increased?” 68% of them said it helped “a lot” compared to 32% who said it helped “not much.” In this longitudinal study, parents were also asked questions after only using the program for about one month. When parents were asked, “How much did you like the materials? – 65% of parents/caregivers “loved it,” while 25% “definitely liked it,” 10% “sort of liked it,” and no one disliked it. After one month, when asked, “How much did your child like the materials?” 60% of the parents stated that their children “loved it,” 25% of the children “definitely liked it,” 5% “sort of liked it,” and 10% “did not like” it. The majority of child participants’ fathers (67%) had a high school education or less. Highest level of education completed (child’s father) Frequency Percent Notes 8th grade or less 3 6.67 Some high school 7 15.56 High school grad/GED 20 44.44 Some college 9 20.00 College grad or more 5 11.11 Missing 1 2.22 TOTAL 45 100.00 Three of the parents were under the age of 18. Monthly Household Income Frequency/Percent Notes Less than $500 per month 11 24.44 80% of households in the study reported an income of less than $2000 per month. Almost a quarter of the households were living on less than $500 per month. $500-$999 per month 11 24.44 $1000-$1999/month 14 31.11 $2000-$2999/month 5 11.11 $3000-$3999/month 0 0.00 More than $4000/month 3 6.67 Missing 1 2.22 TOTAL 45 100 This study did have attrition (or participants not completing the study), however that is common with longitudinal studies especially with lower socio-economic status participants. Although it was evident that many of the participants were not following the instructions from which DVDs their children were watching, 81% of the caregivers stated that their children had learned to read words from doing the program. In addition, 95% stated that the program had helped their children learn vocabulary and 90% “liked” or “loved” the program. Remember, the participants were assigned to use the program. YBC had nothing to do with any part of the design or implementation of the study, yet the results were similar with the low socio-economic status group of families comp
Posted on: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 03:32:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015