**5. Method**

#### **5.1 Sample**

The present investigations focus on students who conducted the training in the parents' condition. *N* = 67 students at Grade 3 did the PR training with a parent tutor (57 with their mother, 7 with their father, 2 with another legal guardian, and 1 student with missing information). Fifty-six pairs met the basic requirement of having conducted at least 40 training sessions, and therefore, were considered for the following analyses. The students were divided into terciles according to their gain in reading fluency. Reading fluency was measured with a standardized German test called LDL ([62]; see Section 5.2.1). The students read the same text at each measurement points. The test counts the correctly read words within 1 minute. Reading gain was calculated as the difference between the individual raw score at pretest and posttest (Min. = −2, Max = 47, *M* = 13.68, *SD* = 10.20). To address the above research questions, the group with very little gain (tercile 1, *n* = 20) and the one with very big gain in

**39**

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General…*

Sex (male) 65.0% 76.5% *z* = −0.75, *p* = 0.45 Age 8.83 8.83 *z* = −0.29, *p* = 0.77 Reading fluency T1 31.50 36.00 *z* = −0.81, *p* = 0.42 Reading fluency T2 37.00 63.00 *z* **= −4.55,** *p* **< 0.00** Vocabulary T11 32.50 33.00 *z* = −1.03, *p* = 0.30 Cognitive abilities T1<sup>2</sup> 62.50 66.00 *z* = −0.06, *p* = 0.95

**Tercile 3 Big gain in reading fluency (***N* **= 17)**

**Statistical comparison**

**Tercile 1 Little gain in reading fluency (***N* **= 20)**

reading fluency (tercile 3, *n* = 17) will be compared. **Table 2** shows the results of a statistical comparison of relevant child characteristics of the two groups. In the total sample (*N* = 198), boys were overrepresented (62.1%). The percentage of boys in this subgroup is even higher (see **Table 2**). Whereas the groups do not differ in reading fluency at pretest (T1), they significantly do at posttest. No significant differences were found for any other individual characteristic relevant

In the following, instruments used for measuring aspects, which are supposed to

The assessment of the reading level at pretest relied on the standardized test LDL [62]. The instrument used for assessing reading fluency was already presented

Several aspects of reading motivation were measured. For this comparison, the dimension of achievement-oriented reading motivation was used (e.g., "I read to get better in reading"; four-point Likert-type scale, according to an earlier version of the scale published in [65]). The scale showed a satisfactory reliability with

The children reported on their reading behavior during spare time with a single

item on a three-point Likert-type scale ("How often do you read in your spare time?"). The item was self-constructed (1 = almost never or never; 2 = about once a

be responsible for differential effects on training success, are presented.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*

*Assessed by a subtest of the standardized SET 5–10 [63].*

*Descriptive data of the two groups (little and big gain in reading fluency).*

*Assessed by non-verbal test called CFT 1-R [64].*

for reading development.

*5.2.1 Child characteristics*

*5.2.1.1 Reading level at pretest*

*5.2.1.2 Reading motivation*

**5.2 Instruments**

*1*

*2*

**Table 2.**

(see Section 5.1).

Cohen's *α* = 0.80.

*5.2.1.3 Reading frequency*

week; and 3 = almost every day).

<sup>2</sup> I wish to mention at this point my esteemed colleagues who were actively involved in this research project: Annette Tettenborn, Alois Niggli, Silke Hauri, Catherine Näpflin, Isabelle Hugener, Erich Hartmann, and Kathrin Krammer.

*Benefits and Constraints of Parent Involvement in Children's Reading Promotion: General… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93136*


#### **Table 2.**

*Parenting - Studies by an Ecocultural and Transactional Perspective*

**4. Explorative investigations on data of a Swiss PR study2**

The investigated data are derived from an extracurricular PR study with third grade students (*N* = 198) conducted in Switzerland from 2014 to 2015. The target group consisted of students struggling with reading fluency who were determined as "in need for training" by means of a standardized screening test and by their teachers' perception. A randomized control field trial with two experimental groups (parent tutors and volunteer tutors) was conducted (pretest, posttest, and follow-up). The findings showed that children who trained with volunteer tutors developed significantly better reading fluency after 20 weeks compared to the children with parent tutors and control group [10]. Great efforts were put into checking treatment fidelity, by collecting self-reported data (questionnaires and record books), and observational data (video-taped). Most of the participants conducted the training as intended. However, the variability of implementation fidelity among the participants was rather high, also among parent tutors [42]. Moreover, some children with parent tutors still showed high gain in reading fluency. Therefore, the present investigations focus on possible differences between students within this condition (parent tutor) with very low and very high gain in reading fluency. The following research questions are

1.Do students with very little and very big gain in reading fluency differ in rel-

2.Do their parents differ in relevant characteristics such as family background

3.Do the training intensity and implementation fidelity of the two groups differ?

The present investigations focus on students who conducted the training in the parents' condition. *N* = 67 students at Grade 3 did the PR training with a parent tutor (57 with their mother, 7 with their father, 2 with another legal guardian, and 1 student with missing information). Fifty-six pairs met the basic requirement of having conducted at least 40 training sessions, and therefore, were considered for the following analyses. The students were divided into terciles according to their gain in reading fluency. Reading fluency was measured with a standardized German test called LDL ([62]; see Section 5.2.1). The students read the same text at each measurement points. The test counts the correctly read words within 1 minute. Reading gain was calculated as the difference between the individual raw score at pretest and posttest (Min. = −2, Max = 47, *M* = 13.68, *SD* = 10.20). To address the above research questions, the group with very little gain (tercile 1, *n* = 20) and the one with very big gain in

<sup>2</sup> I wish to mention at this point my esteemed colleagues who were actively involved in this research project: Annette Tettenborn, Alois Niggli, Silke Hauri, Catherine Näpflin, Isabelle Hugener, Erich

**38**

Hartmann, and Kathrin Krammer.

addressed:

**5. Method**

**5.1 Sample**

evant child characteristics?

variables and expectations?

*Descriptive data of the two groups (little and big gain in reading fluency).*

reading fluency (tercile 3, *n* = 17) will be compared. **Table 2** shows the results of a statistical comparison of relevant child characteristics of the two groups. In the total sample (*N* = 198), boys were overrepresented (62.1%). The percentage of boys in this subgroup is even higher (see **Table 2**). Whereas the groups do not differ in reading fluency at pretest (T1), they significantly do at posttest. No significant differences were found for any other individual characteristic relevant for reading development.

#### **5.2 Instruments**

In the following, instruments used for measuring aspects, which are supposed to be responsible for differential effects on training success, are presented.

#### *5.2.1 Child characteristics*

#### *5.2.1.1 Reading level at pretest*

The assessment of the reading level at pretest relied on the standardized test LDL [62]. The instrument used for assessing reading fluency was already presented (see Section 5.1).

#### *5.2.1.2 Reading motivation*

Several aspects of reading motivation were measured. For this comparison, the dimension of achievement-oriented reading motivation was used (e.g., "I read to get better in reading"; four-point Likert-type scale, according to an earlier version of the scale published in [65]). The scale showed a satisfactory reliability with Cohen's *α* = 0.80.

#### *5.2.1.3 Reading frequency*

The children reported on their reading behavior during spare time with a single item on a three-point Likert-type scale ("How often do you read in your spare time?"). The item was self-constructed (1 = almost never or never; 2 = about once a week; and 3 = almost every day).
