Parent-Mediated Reading Interventions With Children Up To Four Years Old: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research demonstrates that literacy and academic achievement are predicated on the emergent literacy knowledge and skills children acquire from birth up to 4 years of age. Parents are children's first and most important language and literacy teachers, yet not all parents have the capacity to establish an adequate early literacy foundation. Efforts to address this situation have resulted in numerous programs aimed at fostering emergent literacy development. This systematic review evaluates evidence on the effectiveness of parent-mediated interventions that increase the time parents spend reading with young children up to 4 years old. Four studies met inclusion criteria, reporting outcomes for 664 children. Three provided data for meta-analysis of effects on reading duration. The standardized mean difference in reading duration was 1.61 (95% CI, 1.03, 2.19 fixed-effect), favoring intervention over control. Results indicate that interventions aimed at increasing the amount of time parents spend reading interactively with their children yield positive results. Findings also demonstrate that pediatric primary care providers are well positioned to deliver reading promotion programs to parents and preschoolers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".