Buzick, H., & Stone, E. (2014). A meta-analysis of research on the read aloud accommodation . Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , 33 (3), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12040
Buzick, H., & Stone, E. (2014). A meta-analysis of research on the read aloud accommodation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12040
This meta-analysis examined the effects of read-aloud accommodations in studies between 1998–2013, comparing them in various formats and delivery mechanisms, including human voice—in-person, audio-recorded, and video-recorded, and synthesized via computer platforms (including text-to-speech and screen reader).
Information on the participants in this meta-analysis of 19 studies included that they were elementary, middle school, and high school students, with various disabilities and without disabilities. Assessment data for study participants were partitioned and compared by grade level and by academic content separately into independent data sets for analyses. The students with disabilities had 2,668 reading scores and 3,806 math scores, totaling 6,474 test scores. The students without disabilities had 3,366 reading scores and 7,602 math scores, totaling 10,968 test scores.
Information on the dependent variables in this random-effects meta-analysis of 19 studies included that the studies used were assessments administered to students throughout grades K–12; the academic content measured included mathematics and reading. There were 18 effect size differences calculated for math and 8 effect size differences calculated for reading.
Effect sizes indicated that read-aloud (or oral-delivery) accommodations support both students with and without disabilities in higher scores in reading and to a lesser extent, mathematics. Further, reading score differences were larger for students with disabilities than for students without disabilities. The researchers also discussed that grade level and the manner by which the oral delivery accommodations were presented were factors contributing to variation in effect sizes. Limitations of the study were reported, and future research directions were suggested.