Colorado Humanities 

Motheread Study 

Final Report 2017

Submitted To: Mile High United Way

Revised report submitted June 1, 2017
Colorado Humanities 

Motheread Study

Final Report 2017

For more information, please contact:

Holen Hirsh, PhD

hhirsh@omni.org

303-839-9422, extension 122

Melissa Richmond, PhD

mrichmond@omni.org

303-839-9422, extension 166

For General Inquiries/Questions

p. 303-839-9422

f. 303-839-9420

OMNI Institute

899 Logan Street, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80203

www.omni.org

Acknowledgements: Program and evaluation activities described in this report were made possible by

Mile High United Way, Colorado Humanities and Morgan County Early Childhood Council. This report is 

based upon work supported by the Social Innovation Fund (SIF), a key White House initiative and 

program of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). The Social Innovation Fund 

combines public and private resources to grow the impact of innovative, community-based solutions 

that have compelling evidence of improving the lives of people in low-income communities throughout 

the United States.
Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Program Overview ........................................................................................................................................4

Evaluation Overview .....................................................................................................................................7

Implementation Study Research Questions .............................................................................................8

Impact Study Research Questions............................................................................................................9

Methods......................................................................................................................................................10

Data Collection Tools..............................................................................................................................10

Outcome Measures.................................................................................................................................11

Child-Level Outcomes: Teacher Reports on Child (Teaching Strategies Gold) ...................................11

Child-Level Outcomes: Parent Reports on Child.................................................................................12

Parent Behaviors.................................................................................................................................13

Procedures..............................................................................................................................................13

Data Collection....................................................................................................................................13

Randomization....................................................................................................................................14

Data Preparation.................................................................................................................................15

Implementation Findings............................................................................................................................15

Implementation Question 1: How many parents and children were reached by the Study and what 

were their demographic characteristics? ...............................................................................................16

Implementation Question 2: How much programming did parents receive (number of sessions)? .....16

Implementation Question 3: How frequently were parents reading with children between Motheread 

sessions? .................................................................................................................................................17

Implementation Question 4: Within each Motheread session, to what degree were all program 

components covered (i.e., Literacy as Art, Literacy as Experience, Literacy as Process, and Story 

Extenders)? .............................................................................................................................................17

Implementation Question 5: How many coaching sessions were delivered to Motheread adult 

educators and what was their timing with respect to program implementation (e.g., session # during 

which coaching occurred)? .....................................................................................................................18

Implementation Question 6: What were the successes, barriers and challenges in delivering 

Motheread with fidelity? ........................................................................................................................18

Feedback from Motheread Coaches...................................................................................................26

Impact Findings...........................................................................................................................................26

Pretest Equivalence Analysis...................................................................................................................26

Missing Data and Attrition......................................................................................................................29

Power Analysis Findings..........................................................................................................................34

Type of Analysis ......................................................................................................................................34

Impact Question 1 (Confirmatory): To what extent do children exposed to Motheread through their 

parents’ participation demonstrate greater gains in literacy and language outcomes than similar

children whose parents did not participate in the program?.................................................................36
Impact Question 2 (Confirmatory): To what extent do parents participating in Motheread 

demonstrate behaviors more supportive of reading than similar parents not participating in the 

program?.................................................................................................................................................39

Impact Question 3 (Confirmatory): To what extent do changes in reading behaviors of parents 

participating in Motheread mediate changes in literacy outcomes of children exposed to Motheread?

................................................................................................................................................................40

Impact Question 4 (Exploratory): To what extent does the exposure to Motheread benefit children 

who begin with low literacy and a poor literacy home environment more than other children?.........42

Impact Question 5 (Exploratory) To what extent does the amount of parents’ participation in 

Motheread (i.e., number of sessions) correlate with gains in children’s literacy?.................................43

Impact Question 6 (exploratory): To what extent are posttest improvements in Motheread children 

maintained over the next months and year? .........................................................................................44

Lessons Learned & Recommendations.......................................................................................................57

Recruitment Challenges..........................................................................................................................57

Conducting Rigorous Research in an Applied Setting.............................................................................57

Create More Intentional “Closings” of the Motheread Class.................................................................58

Longitudinal TS Gold Collection Extension..............................................................................................58

Considerations and Limitations ..................................................................................................................59

Next Steps...................................................................................................................................................60

Study Administration ..................................................................................................................................61

Human Subjects Protection ....................................................................................................................61

Timeline...................................................................................................................................................61

Evaluation Budget...................................................................................................................................61

Evaluator /Subgrantee Role and Involvement........................................................................................61

Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................62
Figures

Figure 1. Motheread Structure ....................................................................................................................6

Figure 2. MFC Impact Study Design ..............................................................................................................8

Figure 3. Trend by Group in Mean TS Gold Language Score.......................................................................48

Figure 4. Trend by Group in Predicted TS Gold Language Score ................................................................52
Tables

Table 1. MFC Impact Study Participation......................................................................................................8

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Tests for Equivalence of Pretest Variables...........................................27

Table 3. Attrition Analysis of Missing Values on Three Sets of Measures..................................................32

Table 4. Power Analysis ..............................................................................................................................34

Table 5. Results from Analysis of Intervention on Posttest Child-Level Outcomes....................................38

Table 6. Results from Analysis of Intervention on Posttest Parent Behaviors ...........................................40

Table 7. Results of Mediation Analysis for Indirect Influence of Program on Child Literacy Scale through 

Parent Reading Aloud and Active Reading .................................................................................................42

Table 8. Influence of Participation on TS Gold Language and Literacy Categories (N = 60-67)..................43

Table 9. Group Means and Standardized Differences (d) for Three Study Groups....................................46

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics for TS Gold Measures by Treatment Group and Assessment Period .......48

Table 11. Repeated-Measures Mixed-Model Estimates for TS Gold Language and Literacy Scores: 

Posttest to Follow-up..................................................................................................................................51

Table 12. Repeated-Measures Mixed-Model Estimates for TS Gold Language and Literacy Grade-Based 

Categories: Posttest to Follow-up...............................................................................................................54

Table A.1. Parent Race ................................................................................................................................62

Table A.2. Parent Ethnicity..........................................................................................................................62

Table A.3. Family Language Spoken at Home.............................................................................................62

Table A.4. Parent Education Status.............................................................................................................63

Table A.5. Number of Children in Household .............................................................................................63

Table A.6. Annual Household Income.........................................................................................................63

Table A.7. Family Free and Reduced Lunch Status.....................................................................................64

Table A.8. Child Race...................................................................................................................................64

Table A.9. Child Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................64

Table A.10. Hopes for Child Longevity in Formal Schooling .......................................................................65

Table A.11. Expectations for Child Longevity in Formal Schooling.............................................................65
1

Executive Summary

Overview: Colorado Humanities, in partnership with OMNI Institute and funded by the Corporation for 

National and Community Service via the Mile High United Way, conducted a randomized controlled trial 

impact study of the Motheread ® (Motheread/Fatheread Colorado; MFC) program. MFC is a communitybased program delivered to parents to help enhance shared reading skills and the home literacy 

environment. The study was designed to test the impact of parents’ participation in the MFC program 

on child literacy outcomes. The study also tests the impact of the program on parents’ reading 

behaviors. OMNI also conducted an implementation study to track fidelity of program delivery over the 

course of the impact study. 

Motheread, Inc., their affiliates, and independent researchers have conducted outcome evaluations 

across multiple states and through programs serving a variety of populations. Overall, results from the 

evaluations have demonstrated positive links between participation in the program and improvements 

in adult and child literacy outcomes and have provided ‘preliminary’ evidence of program impact on 

literacy outcomes. The current investigation targeted a ‘moderate’ level of evidence through a study 

with strong internal controls. 

One hundred and forty-eight parents with children in five schools in Morgan County, Colorado were 

enrolled in the study between spring 2014 and spring 2016. Parents were randomly assigned to 

intervention or waitlist-control conditions (parents in the waitlist control were offered the program the 

following semester). Teachers and parents reported on children’s literacy behaviors at the beginning 

and end of the semester. Teachers completed the TS Gold assessment and parents completed the Early 

Literacy Parent Questionnaire. Parents also reported on their reading behaviors at the beginning and 

end of the semester.

The following measures of child outcomes were used in the study: 

▪ Teacher Assessment on TS Gold Literacy Scale

▪ Teacher Assessment on TS Gold Language Scale

▪ Parent Assessment on Language Awareness Scale

▪ Parent Assessment on Reading Scale

▪ Parent Assessment on Response to Print Scale

▪ Parent Assessment on Interest in Letters Scale

▪ Parent Assessment on Writing Scale
2

The following measures of parent outcomes were used in the study: 

▪ Frequency of Reading Aloud

▪ Active Reading Scale

▪ Minutes per Week Spent Reading

▪ Designated Time for Reading

▪ Number of Books Read in a Sitting

Child Literacy Skills Results: Results for the impact of the MFC program on child literacy outcomes were 

mixed. There was not a statistically significant impact of the program on teacher-reported, child literacy 

outcomes, as measured by TS Gold. At the end of the semester, children whose parents participated in 

the program had similar TS Gold literacy and language scores as children whose parents did not 

participate in the program. However, exploratory analyses examining TS Gold scores approximately 15 

months after parents completed the program suggests that the MFC program may have a delayed but 

meaningful effect on the TS Gold Language score. Children whose parents participated in the MFC

program showed higher rates of growth on the TS Gold Language domain after the program ended than 

children whose parents were in the control group (those who never received the program and those 

who received the program after being waitlisted).

There was a statistically significant impact of the MFC program on parent-reported, child literacy 

outcomes, as measured by the Early Literacy Parent Questionnaire. At the end of the semester, children 

whose parents participated in the program had higher scores on the Reading, Language Awareness, and 

Print scales than children whose parents did not participate in the program. The Reading scale assesses 

how children interact around books, including engagement in shared reading. The Language Awareness 

scale assesses children’s interest in and use of rhymes. The Response to Print scale assesses how 

children respond to words in their environment. 

Parent Reading Behaviors: There was as statistically significant impact of the MFC program on parent 

reading behaviors. Parents who participated in MFC read aloud more often and indicated more active 

reading skills (e.g., stopping to point out letters, rereading stories, encouraging child to read with 

parent, etc.) after completing the program than parents who did not participate.
3

Results at a Glance

Outcome Measures Impact Child Literacy Skills

Teacher Assessment on TS Gold Literacy Scale: End of semester

Teacher Assessment on TS Gold Language Scale: End of semester

Teacher Assessment on TS Gold Literacy Scale: Longitudinal

Teacher Assessment on TS Gold Language Scale: Longitudinal

Parent Assessment on Language Awareness Scale

Parent Assessment on Reading Scale

Parent Assessment on Response to Print Scale

Parent Assessment on Interest in Letters Scale

Parent Assessment on Writing Scale

Parent Reading 

Behaviors

Frequency of Reading Aloud

Active Reading Scale

Minutes per Week Spent Reading

Designated Time for Reading

Number of Books Read in a Sitting

Statistically significant positive difference between intervention and control

Statistically significant positive difference between intervention and control; results from exploratory 

 analysis should be interpreted with caution

No difference between intervention and control

Conclusions: In sum, the results of the study indicate that MFC has a positive impact on the way parents 

read with their children. Parents in the study had more active reading behaviors and read aloud more 

often with their children after participating in MFC. Parents’ participation in MFC also had an impact on 

their children’s literacy skills, as measured by parent assessment. Finally, the results of the study 

indicate that there may be a delayed effect of parental participation in MFC on their children’s literacy 

skills as measured by TS Gold. 
4

Program Overview

Motheread ®, is an early childhood literacy intervention that aims to develop children’s schoolreadiness, grow early literacy skills, and promote ongoing success in school by enhancing the reading 

environment in the home, including increasing the frequency and quality of reading with young children 

by parents. Motheread works to help close the third grade reading achievement gap by making books 

and reading a part of every home, including those in which parents cannot read or read well.

Motheread is delivered in Colorado through Colorado Humanities’ program department, Colorado 

Center for the Book, under the Motheread/Fatheread Colorado (MFC) program umbrella. The mission 

of Colorado Humanities is to inspire the people of Colorado to explore ideas and to appreciate its 

diverse cultural heritage. The mission of Colorado Center for the Book, now a program department of 

Colorado Humanities, is to inspire Coloradans to read and write. Colorado Humanities & Center for the 

Book programs facilitate reading, listening, writing and learning in cultural activities and participation in 

civic dialogue. Colorado Humanities chose Motheread because it encourages parents and caregivers to 

read with children and talk about issues in their lives, which models civic dialogue. Moreover, Colorado 

Humanities recognizes that fostering language and literacy skills early in a child’s life is critical to 

providing the foundation for a lifelong love of reading and learning in the humanities. 

The MFC program was initiated by Colorado Humanities to address the challenges Colorado faces in 

ensuring that all children are reading on grade level by the end of third grade. In 2012, more than onequarter of Colorado’s third graders did not meet proficiency standards on Colorado’s state test of 

reading, and these rates were higher for children living in poverty and English language learners.

1

 

Specifically, 79% of third graders in Colorado fluent in English demonstrated proficiency on the state 

reading assessment, compared to only 53% of children with Limited English Proficiency and only 11% of 

children who were Not English Proficient. Additionally, only 60% of Colorado children who met income 

eligibility for free/reduced lunch were reading at or above proficiency standards compared to 86% of 

children who were not eligible for free/reduced lunch.

The State of Colorado has recognized these gaps and the importance of quality early childhood 

programming that will provide children with the language and literacy skills that are critical for success 

in school. Colorado also has recognized that early childhood programming can be difficult to access and 

can vary in quality, and that “those of the highest quality serve relatively few children.”2 MFC aims to 

address these gaps by conducting trainings with adult educators that will provide adults with the 

necessary skills to improve children’s reading environment and foster the skills needed to prepare 

children for success in school. 

 

1 2012 TCAP data from the Colorado Department of Education, accessed at http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/CoAssessDataAndResults.asp

2 Colorado Reads: The Early Literacy Initiative, Spring 2012, accessed at 

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/GovHickenlooper/CBON/1251617165703
5

With the goal of closing the third grade reading achievement gap in Colorado, Colorado Humanities 

offers statewide trainings on the MFC program developed by Motheread, Inc. This program has a strong 

grounding in research and is aligned with Colorado Humanities’ mission to engage Coloradans in the 

appreciation of our shared, yet diverse, culture and encourage a love of reading and books. Specifically, 

Motheread, Inc. developed a series of lessons that use award-winning children’s literature as texts, 

many of which come from African-American, Latino, Native American and other ethnic cultures. The 

program uses great children’s literature to instill reading as a way to access personal and cultural 

narratives and to introduce children to the humanities more generally. Each text has an accompanying 

curriculum that engages adults and children in story themes by promoting an interactive reading 

experience that relates to children’s developmental experiences, such as expressing needs and feelings, 

establishing independence, understanding each family's values, and sharing and cooperating. The 

Motheread program focuses on adult participants’ strengths; is learner-centered; includes reading, 

writing, listening, and speaking components; and promotes a social context supportive of collaborative 

learning.

MFC trains educators in Motheread, who then deliver it to adult caregivers. Adult educators trained in 

Motheread receive an initial 3-day training followed by one-on-one coaching during implementation. 

During MFC sessions, parents learn critical literacy skills, the “why” of reading, and specific instruction 

on how to “share stories” with children in an engaging and effective manner. These programs also seek 

to increase participants’ frequency, enjoyment, comfort and skill in reading with children, even if the 

participants cannot read or have low reading levels. MFC is based on the theory that sharing stories in a 

manner that encourages child engagement is an effective and powerful instructional practice that 

improves children’s literacy development.3

The following visual (Figure 1) portrays the structure of MFC. In brief, adult educators participate in a 

Motheread Institute, during which they are trained on the MFC curriculum by certified instructors. Adult 

educators then return to their organizations and provide classes to parents. It is recommended by MFC 

that sessions are led by two co-facilitators. Parents then apply what they learned in the classes when 

reading with children in their care, which in turn leads to improved children’s literacy. 

 

3 Teale, W. H. (2003). Reading aloud to young children as a classroom instructional activity: Insights from research and practice. 

In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (pp.114-139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
6

Figure 1. Motheread Structure

Training

•Motheread certified trainers deliver 3-day Motheread Institutes to adult educators

Instruction

•Adult educators return to their organizations and deliver Motheread classes to parents, 

while also receiving coaching from certified, Colorado-based trainers

Shared

Reading

•Participating parents engage in more frequent and higher quality reading with children in 

their care.

Child 

Literacy 

Skills

•Children in the care of Motheread participants improve their literacy skills.

MFC sessions are made up of the following components: 

▪ Literacy as Experience. The goal of Literacy as Experience is to build adult literacy skills 

(comprehension, vocabulary, higher level questioning, discussion, etc.) through skill-building 

exercises. Along with skill-building, Literacy as Experience also is designed to help adults connect 

their life experiences to the story. 

▪ Literacy as Art. In Literacy as Art, participants gain story-sharing skills such as reading with props, 

changing tone and inflection, etc.

▪ Literacy as Process. During Literacy as Process, adults explore the selected book’s theme through 

other pieces of adult reading or writing. 

▪ Story Extenders. The supplementary Story Extenders provide specific activities for parents to do 

with children that foster creative thinking and problem solving, and promote conversations 

between parents and their children. 

MFC, in conjunction with Motheread, Inc., also developed a structured coaching model to help Colorado 

implementers solidify the techniques learned during Motheread Institutes and to deliver MFC with high 

fidelity. A Colorado-based trainer, trained and certified to conduct Motheread Institutes, delivers the 

coaching sessions. Specifically, each adult educator providing MFC to parents receives three in-person 

coaching sessions during their first six months of MFC implementation. Each coaching session includes 

the following activities:
7

o Observation of the full MFC session, using a structured observation instrument developed in 

partnership with Motheread, Inc.; 

o A follow-up debrief/feedback session, approximately 30 minutes in length, immediately after 

the observation with the adult educator(s) being observed (MFC classes are often co-taught);

o An in-depth follow-up discussion (via phone or in-person) within 2 weeks of the observational 

session to review the completed observation tool, discuss strengths and opportunities for 

improvement in the delivery of MFC; and 

o A short, written summary of the observational session that is shared with adult educators and 

program directors.

Motheread is based on research indicating that adult guidance and instruction are key factors in 

developing children’s literacy skills.4 The model teaches skills to adults to facilitate shared reading 

experiences with children that promote children’s comprehension, the use of oral and written language, 

vocabulary development, and engagement in and enjoyment of reading. The program also promotes 

access to reading through the provision of high-quality books, accompanied by tools adults can use to 

facilitate ongoing reading experiences and utilize books effectively. Through high quality shared reading 

experiences and increased access to books, it is hypothesized that children reached by the program will 

increase language and literacy skills, leading to an increase in the number of children reading at grade 

level by third grade. Motheread bridges the academic gap by enabling all parents, even non-readers and 

second language learners, to explore books with the children in their care.

Evaluation Overview

The MFC impact study was a randomized controlled trial designed to test the impact of the program on 

child literacy outcomes with the aim of yielding a ‘moderate’ level of evidence for the efficacy of MFC. 

The impact study was designed to fill existing gaps in the literature base of Motheread. Specifically, 

existing studies have successfully demonstrated that adult participants improve their own literacy skills, 

and observe changes in their children’s literacy behaviors. 5 However, none of the Motheread program 

evaluations utilized objective measures of changes in child literacy outcomes and none included a 

comparison or control group. To address these gaps, the Motheread impact evaluation was designed in 

 

4 Bus, A.G., van Ijzendorn, M.H., & Pellegrini, A.D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A metaanalysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy, Review of Educational Research, 65(1), 1-21.

5 Gorham, Bertha. Measuring Success in Motheread® Classes: Literacy and Parental Support Results. Raleigh: Motheread, Inc., 

2001.

5 Wilder Research Center. Minnesota Humanities Commission Motheread/Fatheread® Program Evaluation. St. Paul, 2001.

5 Clegg and Associates. Motheread/Fatheread®: An Evaluation of Five Program Sites in Southwest Washington State. Seattle, 

1999. 5 Wilder Research Center. Minnesota Humanities Commission Motheread/Fatheread® Evaluation. St. Paul, 1995.

5 Morgan, Marcyliena. Motheread® Program Evaluation: Goals, Literacy and Training. Los Angeles, 1994.

5 Martin, Sandra L., Niki U. Cotton, Browne Dorothy C., Kurz, Branda, and Robertson, Elizabeth. Family violence and depressive 

symptomatology among incarcerated women. Journal of Family Violence, Dec 1995: 399-411.
8

a manner that 1) included objective, standardized measures of child literacy outcomes, and 2) increased

the level of evidence through use of an experimental design. 

The study recruited parents from four preschool sites (five schools with two schools combined to make 

one site) in Morgan County, Colorado (see Table 1 for study participation). Each semester in each 

preschool, parents were randomly assigned to an intervention or waitlist control condition, and they 

and their eldest child in preschool were assessed before and after the 12-week MFC program (see Figure 

2 for study design for two cohorts as an example). The assessments came from parent surveys (intake 

and follow-up surveys, including measures of child literacy and parental behavior supportive of reading 

at home) and preschool teacher ratings of children’s literacy and language skills (TS Gold scores). In 

tandem with the MFC impact study, an implementation study was also conducted to assess MFC 

program fidelity. This report details the final findings of the study. 

Figure 2. MFC Impact Study Design

Table 1. MFC Impact Study Participation (Total N with Intervention and Control Group Ns in 

Parentheses)

Participating Schools Spring 

2014

Fall 

2014

Spring 

2015

Fall 

2015

Spring 

2016

Total Study 

Participants

Site #1 (Wiggins & Weldona) 18 (9, 9) 8 (4, 4) 6 (3, 3) 17 (8, 9) 1 (0, 1) 50

Site #2 (Thomson Primary) - 14 (7, 7) 6 (3, 3) 10 (5, 5) 4 (2, 2) 34

Site #3 (Sherman Early 

Childhood Center)

- - 22 (11, 11) 20 (10, 10) 12 (6, 6) 54

Site #4 (Trinity Lutheran 

Preschool

- - - - 10 (5, 5) 10

Total 18 22 34 47 27 148

IMPLEMENTATION STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The implementation study addresses questions related to program fidelity, participant characteristics, 

and participant adherence to recommended practices. These questions are addressed through data 
9

collected on participant forms, observations conducted by the research team, and coaching 

observations made by the MFC Coaches. The research questions are as follows: 

1. How many parents and children were reached by the study and what are their demographic 

characteristics? 

2. How much programming did parents receive (i.e., number of sessions)? 

3. How frequently were parents reading with children between Motheread sessions?

4. Within each Motheread session, to what degree were all program components covered (i.e., 

Literacy as Art, Literacy as Experience, Literacy as Process, and Story Extenders)? 

5. How many coaching sessions were delivered to Motheread adult educators and what was their 

timing with respect to program implementation (e.g., session # during which coaching 

occurred)?

6. What were the successes, barriers and challenges in delivering Motheread with fidelity?

IMPACT STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The impact study addresses a set of confirmatory questions about the efficacy of the MFC program on

children’s literacy and language outcomes and mediation of those outcomes via parents’ outcomes. A 

set of exploratory questions further evaluate the impact of MFC, although they do not allow for 

confirmation from randomized comparisons.

Confirmatory Research Questions

1. To what extent do children exposed to Motheread through their parents’ participation demonstrate 

greater gains in literacy and language outcomes than similar children whose parents did not 

participate in the program? 

2. To what extent do parents participating in Motheread demonstrate behaviors more supportive of 

reading than similar parents not participating in the program?

3. To what extent do changes in reading behaviors of parents participating in Motheread mediate 

changes in literacy outcomes of children exposed to Motheread?

Exploratory Research Questions 

4. To what extent does the exposure to Motheread benefit children who begin with low literacy and a 

poor literacy home environment more than other children? 

5. To what extent does the amount of parents’ participation in Motheread (i.e., number of sessions) 

correlate with gains in children’s literacy? 

6. To what extent are posttest improvements in Motheread children maintained over the next months 

and year? 
10

Methods

DATA COLLECTION TOOLS

Questions for the implementation and impact studies are addressed using a variety of data collection 

tools and measures. The data collection tools used for the impact and implementation studies include 

the following: 

▪ Participant Intake Forms. The Participant Intake Form is used to gather demographic information 

about participating parents and their children. Additionally, this form asks parents to describe their 

current practices with respect to reading in the home and to obtain a baseline measure of parent 

reading behaviors and children’s literacy skills in the areas of reading, language, knowledge of 

letters, writing, and response to print. 

▪ Participant Follow-up Forms. The Participant Follow-up form includes a post-measure of the parent 

reading behaviors and children’s literacy skills assessed at intake. The form also asks about 

exposure to other literacy programs over the past 12 weeks and, for parents in MFC, satisfaction 

with the program.

▪ Parent Reading Logs. The Parent Reading Logs document the amount of home reading using MFC

books with children, non-MFC books with children, and home reading without children. 

▪ Attendance Logs. Attendance Logs are used by adult educators delivering MFC to track the name 

and number of parents attending each of the 12 MFC class sessions. 

▪ Educator Session Logs. To support monitoring of implementation fidelity, the Educator Session Log 

is used by adult educators to provide information on whether the fundamental components of MFC

(e.g., Literacy as Art, Experience, and Process) are delivered at each session. 

▪ Observation Inventory (3 per adult educator). The Observation Inventory instrument includes 

similar items to the Educator Session Logs. Thus, coaches and the research team observe for the 

same aspects of program fidelity during their coaching visits as adult educators track on the session 

logs. 

▪ Coaching Session Feedback Reports (3 per adult educator). Coaching Feedback reports utilize a 

standardized structure and provide documentation of the specific activities occurring during 

coaching sessions, as well as support recommendations offered by MFC.
11

OUTCOME MEASURES

Implementation research questions are addressed through information obtained on Participant Intake 

and Follow-up Forms, Educator Session Logs, and Observation Inventories. Impact research questions 

are addressed through three key measures, described below.

Child-Level Outcomes: Teacher Reports on Child (Teaching Strategies Gold)

Teaching Strategies (TS) Gold is a comprehensive observational measure that is designed to assess child 

development and learning from birth to kindergarten (Kim & Smith, 2010) and has been validated to 

predict later school success (Heroman, Burts, Berke, & Bickart, 2010). When the study was initiated, TS 

Gold was the only approved assessment of school readiness for the State of Colorado. 6 Teachers rate 

children on a 10-point scale across nine dimensions. For our purposes, the two relevant dimensions are 

language and literacy. Two other dimensions on English-language acquisition are relevant to Englishlanguage learners. The other five dimensions of socio-emotional development, physical development, 

cognitive development, science and technology, and mathematics knowledge are less relevant. Research 

has shown that the scale has adequate internal consistency reliability and construct validity7, 8 and 

defines national norms to standardize the scales.

9 Of special value, teachers completing the TS Gold 

assessment are required to complete the assessment on all preschool children and upload data into the 

TS Gold tracking system as a part of school requirements. The teachers of children in the impact study 

will not be fully blinded, as they may learn informally from parents who is attending the program 

sessions. Yet they will have little stake in the program outcome or motivation to favor program children 

in their assessments. 

In alignment with confirmatory impact questions #1 and #3, children in the program are predicted to 

increase their scores on the literacy and language domains to a greater degree than children in the 

control group. Our tests of the confirmatory questions thus rely on the TS Gold subscales that directly 

assess language and literacy gains.

Based on the TS Gold Technical Manual, both subscales of the TS Gold demonstrate strong reliability 

results.

10

 Specifically:

• Language Domain: “Based on the Rasch reliability indexes, the scale appears to be highly 

reliable, as evidenced by person separation indexes of 7.09, person reliabilities of .98, item 

 

6http://www.boarddocs.com/co/cde/Board.nsf/files/922PT7661E68/$file/SR%20presentation%20Nov%202012%20as%20of%2

011-12-12%20final%20corrected.pdf

7 Kim, D. & Smith, J. (2010). Evaluation of Two Observational Assessment Systems for Children’s Development and Learning, 

NHSA Dialog, 13, 253 – 267.

8 Lambert, R.G, Kim, D.H., Taylor, H., & McGee, J. (2010). Technical Manual for the Teaching Strategies GOLDTM Assessment 

System. Charlotte, NC: Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation.

9 Lambert, R.G. (2012). Growth Norms for the Teaching Strategies GOLD Assessment System. Charlotte, NC: Center for 

Educational Measurement and Evaluation.

10 Lambert R., Do-Hong Kim, and Diane C. Burts. (2013). Technical Manual (2nd Edition) for the Teaching Strategies GOLD 

Assessment System. Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation (CEME). Accessed here: http://ceme.uncc.edu/cemetechnical-reports.
12

separation indexes of 80.86, and item reliabilities of 1.00. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability 

coefficient for this scale was .98, indicating high internal consistency reliability.” (pg. 14)

• Literacy Domain: “Based on the Rasch reliability indexes, the scale appears to be highly reliable, 

as evidenced by person separation indexes of 4.90, person reliabilities of .96, item separation 

indexes of 69.73, and item reliabilities of 1.00. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for 

this scale was .98, indicating high internal consistency reliability.” (pg. 14-15)

The scores for the language and literacy domains can also be collapsed into two categories: below the 

range of values considered appropriate for that age and at or above the values considered appropriate.

Child-Level Outcomes: Parent Reports on Child

To form a robust assessment of child literacy, parent-report measures of child-literacy skills are also 

included. These measures are used along with TS Gold to test confirmatory questions #1 and #3 (“To 

what extent do children exposed to Motheread through their parents’ participation demonstrate greater 

gains in literacy and language outcomes than similar children whose parents did not participate in the 

program?” and, “To what extent do changes in reading behaviors of parents participating in Motheread 

mediate changes in literacy outcomes of children exposed to Motheread?”).

Five subscales from the Early Literacy Parent Questionnaire11 are included on the intake and follow-up 

forms. The subscales, which are based on items offering five response categories ranging from not 

currently or never (1) to daily or several times per day (5), represent the following dimensions: 

• Reading Scale: Five items on interaction around books that ask about the child’s active 

involvement in reading (e.g., asking questions about stories, pointing to or asking about 

pictures, filling in words and lines). (Cronbach’s alpha = .71)

• Language Awareness Scale: Four items on phonological awareness and rhyming skills that ask 

about the child playing rhyming games, telling nursery rhymes, and noticing rhymes. 

(Cronbach’s alpha = .82)

• Interest in Letters Scale: Three items on knowledge of letters and sounds that ask about the 

child naming letters, attempting to make sounds from letters, and identifying some letters of 

the alphabet. (Cronbach’s alpha = .80)

• Writing Scale: Five items on writing that ask about the child drawing, writing letters, writing 

words, and asking for help in writing. (Cronbach’s alpha = .78)

• Response to Print Scale: Two items on response to print that ask about identifying words on 

signs and packaging and reading words on sight. (Cronbach’s alpha = .64)

 

11 Boudreau, D. (2005). Use of a parent questionnaire in emergent and early literacy assessment of preschool children. 

Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 1-33.
13

The Early Literacy Parent Questionnaire measure developer reports strong relationships between formal 

assessments of early literacy skills (e.g., letter names, letter sounds, productive rhyme) and the parentreported phonological awareness, response to print in the environment, alphabet knowledge, and 

orientation to literacy scales for a sample of children with language impairments. Despite limited validity 

testing of the tool, we determined that the Early Literacy Parent Questionnaire would be the best 

supplemental parent-report measure of child literacy for this study after an extensive review of available 

parent-report measures. The scales demonstrate good reliability, have strong relevance to the study 

population, tight alignment with the outcomes of interest and the Teaching Strategies Gold scales, and 

administration brevity in the context of other parent-report study measures.

Parent Behaviors

To measure parent behavior, eight questions from the Parent Survey of Home Literacy12 were used to 

gauge the use of interactive book reading techniques by parents. The eight items reflect parent 

behaviors supportive of reading such as frequently pointing out objects, illustrations, and letters; 

discussion of what will happen next in the story; and encouragement of co-reading when there are 

repeated or rhyming phrases. Participants select which behaviors they engage in with their child. 

Parental behaviors reflect the key outcome to be tested in confirmatory question # 2 (impact on 

parents’ behaviors) and to serve as the mediating variables in confirmatory question #3 (parents’ 

behaviors leading to children’s gains in literacy outcomes). 

PROCEDURES

Data Collection

Participants were recruited to be in the study through newsletters to parents, home visits, conversations 

with preschool teachers, conversations with parents previously enrolled in the study, billboard 

advertising, radio advertising, print advertising, and through “demo” sessions that gave a brief 

introduction to the MFC program and the study. Parents who wished to enroll signed an informed 

consent and completed the Participant Intake Form. Parents were then randomly assigned to the 

intervention or control group by the research team (procedure discussed below).

Parents who were assigned to the intervention group participated in the 12-week long MFC class and

completed a brief Parent Reading Log between MFC sessions. These forms were returned to the MFC

educator at each session. Adult educators delivering MFC also completed an Attendance Log and the 

Educator Session Log documenting the activities completed during each MFC session. Each participating 

parent (intervention and control) completed a brief follow-up form approximately 12 weeks after study 

 

12 Smith, S., & Dixon, R. G. (1995). Literacy concept of low- and middle-class four-year-olds entering preschool. The 

Journal of Educational Research, 88, 243-253.
14

enrollment. MFC participants completed the follow-up form on the last day of class. Parents in the 

control group were contacted by the preschool teacher and the MFC coordinator to complete the 

follow-up form.

TS Gold data were requested for the most recent checkpoint prior to the beginning of the class and for 

the checkpoint most closely following the end of the class. During the last cohort of the study, an 

additional request for TS Gold data was made for all children in the study that was available up to the 

time they were in Kindergarten. Preschool staff downloaded relevant TS Gold data from the online TS 

Gold system and uploaded the data for the research team via a secure FTP server, following a protocol 

developed by the research team. 

Throughout the course of the 12-week MFC session the MFC Coach visited the class three times and 

documented observations using the Observation Inventory. The MFC Coach also debriefed with the 

adult educators following each coaching visit. During the debriefing session, the coach documented

information gathered from adult educators, including identified reasons for any deviations from the 

MFC curriculum and/or need for additional support from MFC. Following each coaching visit, the MFC 

coach developed a written feedback report that was shared with both the implementing adult educators 

and the program director. Coaching Session Feedback Reports and Site Visit Summaries were

documented in electronic, written format and analyzed by the research team to address program 

implementation research questions. 

Research team members also conducted site visits that included observations of the MFC sessions and 

semi-structured debriefing with MFC adult educators. The research team used the Observation 

Inventory to ensure the collection of consistent observation data. Site visits by the research team also 

included technical assistance when needed, typically surrounding TS Gold data collection. Each year of 

the study, the research team facilitated a more formal “debriefing” session with adult educators, the

MFC Coach and Colorado Humanities to discuss the successes and challenges associated with the study. 

A total of three debriefing sessions were held. 

All participant and session-level implementation data collection instruments were built into a 

customized, secure, web-enabled database configured in the Efforts-to-OutcomesTM (ETO) software 

platform. To support complete and accurate data collection and entry, the research team provided

hardcopy versions of all data collection instruments for use by site staff. Site staff then provided all data 

collected on hard copies to the MFC coordinator for data entry into ETO.

TM

Randomization

Parent-child dyads served as the unit of assignment. After being informed of the study, consenting to 

participate in the program, and completing an intake form that assessed current reading behavior, 

parents awaited results of the randomization process that determined whether they started

participation in the next month or at the next class cycle (i.e., in the subsequent spring or fall school 

semester). For example, for Cohort 1, parents assigned to the intervention condition participated in MFC

in spring 2014 and parents assigned to the waitlist control participated in fall 2014. The OMNI research 
15

team used a blocked randomization procedure to make assignments to intervention or control 

conditions. Within each preschool site, parent-child dyads were blocked on four key characteristics: 

child age, child gender, child race/ethnicity, and public or private payment for the preschool. Applying a 

ratio of 1:1 assignment within blocks, a random number generator assigned parents to the intervention

or control group. OMNI informed parents via letter of their start date; preschool staff or adult educators 

conducted follow-up via phone or in-person at the preschool to remind parents before the first session. 

By performing the randomization outside the school, the assignment maintained independence from 

teachers and parents. Further, by gaining consent to begin immediately or wait several months before 

the randomization occurs, the assignment limited dropouts among subjects not liking their assignment 

group. Statistical tests for baseline equivalence, discussed below, provide evidence of the success of the 

randomization procedure. 

Data Preparation

All parent report surveys (intake, follow-up and reading logs) and MFC educator forms (attendance and 

Educator Session Logs) were examined by the research site coordinator for missingness and out-ofbounds values prior to data entry of the forms into OMNI’s data collection (ETO System). The research 

site coordinator also scanned copies of all forms for the research team to review hard copies should 

there be an issue with data quality. For each measure on the parent report surveys, scales were created 

according to measure-developer guidelines (e.g., calculating means, sums, etc.,). 

Preschool staff provided raw data from each TS Gold domain to the research team. Data were then 

restructured and merged with participant-level information from ETO. TS Gold scale scores were 

calculated from the raw data based on TS Gold standard guidelines.

Imputation of missing data is described below. 

Implementation Findings

The purpose of the MFC implementation study was to 1) identify characteristics of program participants 

and children exposed to the program to ensure services were reaching the target population; 2) track 

the frequency and quality of services provided to participants to ensure the program was implemented 

with fidelity; and 3) provide data on program components to be used in the impact study to test 

associations between specific program components and children’s outcomes. 
16

IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION 1: HOW MANY PARENTS AND CHILDREN WERE 

REACHED BY THE STUDY AND WHAT WERE THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS? 

A total of 148 families enrolled in the MFC Impact Study. Families were randomly assigned to participate 

in the MFC class intervention condition or the waitlist control condition, with 75 families assigned to 

intervention group and 73 to the waitlist group.

13

In brief, 74% of the parents self-identified as White/Caucasian and 70% of the children were identified 

as White/Caucasian. Nearly half of participants (42% of parents, 52% of children) identified as 

Hispanic/Latino. Seventy-five percent of the families reported speaking English as a first language at 

home and 22% reported speaking Spanish. Out of the parents who reported an annual income (n=125), 

the average annual household income for families enrolled in the study was $43,810 (median = $36,000)

and the average number of dependents was four. Sixty-six percent of families qualified for free or 

reduced-price lunch. Of the parents who reported how much higher education they hoped for their child 

to obtain (n=143), the majority (92%) of parents indicated that they wanted their child to finish college 

and 80% of parents expected that their child would complete college. See Appendices A1 – A11 for 

responses to each item and additional participant demographics, including the number of missing 

responses to each item. 

IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION 2: HOW MUCH PROGRAMMING DID PARENTS 

RECEIVE (NUMBER OF SESSIONS)? 

The MFC class is designed to be delivered in 12 sessions and Colorado Humanities has a target of 

participants completing eight or more classes. This target was set based on previous evaluations of 

Motheread that indicated that parents who received eight or more weeks of the program (at least 16 

hours) improved their reading skills by one to four grade levels. 14

Forty four out of 75 parents (59%) who participated in the intervention attended 8 or more session of 

the class. There were six parents who attended zero classes (the study employed an intent-to-treat 

design and these families remained in the intervention group). Classes ranged in length from 60 – 150 

minutes. On average, classes lasted 102 minutes. Thus, with parents attending an average of eight

classes, participation for each participant was about 816 minutes (13.6 hours) of MFC programming.

Programming data were drawn from attendance logs and Educator Session Logs completed by MFC 

educators. MFC educators completed 89% of Educator Session logs and 100% of logs as planned; there 

were no missing logs. 

 

13 Randomization of condition assignment was conducted within each preschool, accounting for the slightly unequal 

distribution of waitlist and control participants.

14 Measuring Success—Review of Research and Evaluation: http://0347dbd.netsolhost.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/MeasuringSuccess.pdf
17

IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION 3: HOW FREQUENTLY WERE PARENTS READING 

WITH CHILDREN BETWEEN MOTHEREAD SESSIONS?

Research indicates that parents should aim to read with their children every day for at least 30 

minutes.15 Colorado Humanities has set 30 minutes of reading daily as a target for parents in the MFC

program. On average parents in the intervention group read to their children 6 days each week during 

the weeks of the intervention. Parents read the MFC book on average between 4 and 5 days a week and 

other books with their children between 4 and 5 days a week. Parents also reported reading on their 

own between 2 and 3 days a week. 

For days that parents reported reading with their children, they reported reading over 25 minutes each 

day, on average. For days that parents reported reading on their own, they reported reading over 43

minutes each day, on average. Reading between Motheread sessions was measured by Reading Logs 

completed by parents. A completed Reading Log was required for each session of the program. The 

response rate for parent reading logs was 67%.

IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION 4: WITHIN EACH MOTHEREAD SESSION, TO WHAT 

DEGREE WERE ALL PROGRAM COMPONENTS COVERED (I.E., LITERACY AS ART, 

LITERACY AS EXPERIENCE, LITERACY AS PROCESS, AND STORY EXTENDERS)? 

MFC aims to have the three main components of the program – Literacy as Art, Literacy as Experience, 

and Literacy as Process – covered in every Mothered session. The researchers and MFC Coaches

reported that Literacy as Experience and Literacy as Process were covered in-depth in 100% of MFC

observational sessions (n=42). Literacy as Art was covered in all but one observational session.

Story Extenders are an optional supplement to the program that allows parents the opportunity to 

practice reading skills with their children with the support of adult educators. Researchers reported that 

the Story Extenders portion of the curriculum was covered in 66% of MFC observational sessions. 

Finding time to complete the Story Extenders portion of the curriculum was a challenge that was noted 

early in the study and continued to be a challenge throughout the course of the study. However, 

because Story Extenders are optional, implementation findings indicate that the program was delivered 

with fidelity to the core components of the curriculum and that Story Extenders were used to 

supplement the curriculum about two-thirds of the time. 

 

15 Parents as Teachers (1999). Start Early, Finish Strong: How to Help Every Child Become a Reader. Accessed here: 

http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/startearly/ch_1.html.
18

IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION 5: HOW MANY COACHING SESSIONS WERE 

DELIVERED TO MOTHEREAD ADULT EDUCATORS AND WHAT WAS THEIR TIMING 

WITH RESPECT TO PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION (E.G., SESSION # DURING WHICH 

COACHING OCCURRED)?

The fifth implementation question is specific to the delivery of MFC Coaching, which helps MFC

implementers solidify the techniques learned during MFC Institutes and to deliver MFC with high 

fidelity. The coaching model is designed with a target of three coaching sessions for each new adult 

educator implementing the program and aims to follow best-practices from other early childhood 

program delivery coaching models, such as the Head Start CARES program.16 A total of 18 coaching 

sessions were delivered across the first four cohorts. There were no coaching sessions conducted during 

cohort five since there were no new adult educators. Each new educator received a total of three 

coaching sessions, strategically planned throughout the MFC program such that one coaching session 

was offered at the beginning, middle and end of the 12-week course. The MFC Coaches used the 

coaching and observation tool during each session to provide data on the session and offer feedback to 

adult educators. The coach also spent time debriefing with educators and offered suggestions to 

educators following each observation session.

IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION 6: WHAT WERE THE SUCCESSES, BARRIERS AND 

CHALLENGES IN DELIVERING MOTHEREAD WITH FIDELITY?

To identify successes and challenges with implementation, OMNI conducted an analysis of data 

gathered during the class observations. A total of seven individuals from OMNI and MFC conducted 42 

observations between March 2014 and April 2016. There were 16 observations conducted at Wiggins 

Preschool, 13 at Thomson Primary School, 11 at Sherman Early Childhood Center, and two at Trinity 

Lutheran Preschool. Of the total of 287 parents participating in the MFC program, 229 class participants 

were identified as female and 58 class participants were identified as male. 

Successes

Overall, adult educators, the MFC coach, and the research team determined that MFC was delivered 

with high fidelity. The observations and educator session logs revealed that facilitators were successful 

at covering all three key components of the MFC curriculum. Indicators of successful program 

implementation for each key program component, as well as outcomes on these indicators are provided 

below:

 

16 Lloyd, C.M & Modlin, E.L. (2012). Coaching as a Key Component in Teachers’ Professional Development: Improving Classroom 

Practices in Head Start Settings. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed here: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_60.pdf
19

Literacy as Experience builds literacy skills and helps adults connect their life experiences to stories. This 

component includes saying the title of the book and the author and reading the book with the group. 

These activities were covered in all observed sessions. 17

Literacy as Art includes dramatic reading, acting out the story, or using props or material to enhance 

story sharing between adults and children. These activities were covered in nearly all (41 out of 42) of 

the observed sessions.

Literacy as Process is designed to connect the theme of the MFC book to other literature and to build 

literacy skills. Literacy as process can include reading, interpreting poetry or building specific reading or 

writing skills through writing and drawing activities. These activities were noted in almost all the 

observed sessions (41 out of 42). Parents were often encouraged to write in their journals and share 

their entries. 

Program Strengths

Session observers noted numerous strengths of the MFC program. The most commonly observed 

strengths included the following: the sense of a safe environment and community within the session 

classes, strong parent engagement, the development of self-improvement and personal growth, and 

overall program satisfaction reported by parents. Each of these factors are discussed in greater detail, 

with quotes illustrating these factors below. 

Safe Environment/Sense of Community

Observers commonly referenced that a safe environment and sense of community were established in 

the Motheread/Fatheread classes. Observers attributed various factors to the development of this 

comfortable environment, including the facilitators, the tactful use of humor to build relationships 

between participants, the activities within the sessions designed to elicit participant engagement, and 

the specific topic content, which encouraged participants to engage in vulnerable, trust-building 

conversations. 

The facilitators employed various skills critical for establishing a comfortable environment for program 

participants. Facilitators were described as skilled, well-prepared, and able to work well with other 

facilitators and participants. Observers noted that lesson plans were thought-out and clearly delivered, 

that facilitators effectively managed session discussions through measured opportunities to share 

experiences and encourage active listening, and that facilitators appropriately balanced participant 

contributions to ensure all participants were engaged. Furthermore, the facilitators were sensitive to 

language preferences and abilities within the sessions.

 

17 The 2015 report indicated that, in one session, Literacy as Experience was not covered. This was a reporting 

error and the information provided in this final report is accurate.
20

Observers noted that many parents shared openly and respectfully listened to others regarding issues 

that helped them connect their everyday lives with the stories they were sharing with their children. 

Topics parents discussed included family values/traditions, memories, fears, relationships, cultural 

norms, dreams/goals, and personal choices. More specifically, some discussions were about bullying and 

prejudice, gender identity, learning disabilities, and commonly shared parental issues such as 

divorce/separation. Combined, these factors all contributed to fostering a safe environment and sense 

of community among program participants, as indicated in the quotes below. 

“It is very clear that a safe environment has been created by the facilitators and 

participants as some very personal concerns and stories were shared. Participants 

discussed their concerns about keeping their children safe but yet prepared for what 

the world might throw at them. Stories were shared about personal experiences with 

bullying.”

“There was a great deal of laughter throughout the night as well as several very 

serious, meaningful discussions. A safe and confidential environment has been 

created that provides a space for all these things to happen...[The parents] expressed 

how meaningful these Motheread sessions have become and their desire to be able 

to share that with other potential participants.”

“[The facilitators] took turns asking questions and responding to answers that were 

shared. They listened well, and were able to connect with the participants. A great 

deal of humor was used throughout the conversation. Various levels of questions 

were posed, creating a rich discussion.”

“All the facilitators employed active listening skills with great eye contact, nodding 

heads, reflecting on participant’s comments, building on participant’s comments and 

sharing laughter.”

“This team has shown great growth throughout the series of Motheread sessions. 

They are well-prepared, demonstrating the thought that has gone into preparing for 

the lesson.”

“This team work[s] well together. The responsibilities were evenly divided and I

appreciate the efforts that go [into] providing materials in both English and Spanish. 

The lesson was well-planned and that showed in the delivery throughout the evening. 

All facilitators did a nice job of making eye contact with all participants and 

employing active listening strategies.”
21

“It was great to observe their comradery and newly found friendships, they all 

seemed to bond immensely in the sessions – perhaps because of the icebreaker and 

sharing traumatic experiences, it opened everyone up and set an environment of 

trust.”

“[I think] everyone open[ed] up right away during the icebreaker sharing many 

personal trials and tribulations. It was clear that all participants knew one another 

and furthermore were very comfortable with one another. The icebreaker questions 

were very silly for the most part - but this gave participants a chance to laugh.”

Parent Engagement

Parent engagement was a strong theme throughout the observations. Most parents consistently 

participated in all discussions and activities. Observers documented strong engagement when parents 

had a willingness to share personal stories, actively listened to others’ stories, asked insightful 

questions, and were actively involved in session activities. Observers attributed strong parent 

engagement to a variety of factors, including strong facilitation and the content of topics covered. 

“Parents were asking each other questions about their experiences with the book--

great engagement!”

“Facilitators did a great job in calling on the quieter people to ensure everyone 

contributed. They asked thought-provoking questions and everyone contributed 

responses.”

“Though some of the topics of conversation were sad – participants shared a lot of 

laughs and were very engaged with one another. You could feel the positive energy in 

the room.”

“[The parents] then acted out Flossie and the Fox, and recorded it on an iPad after 

rehearsing one time with the plan to show the video to their kids. The parents LOVED 

it. They volunteered for all of the parts, joked, and laughed. Everyone was a great 

sport about it.”

“The participants let their imaginations run wild and creative writing skills shine; 

many participants wrote stories of the day their child was born...and the love they 

have for their children. It was an extremely heartwarming experience, shared by all.”
22

Self-Improvement

Self-improvement and personal growth and development by both the facilitators and program 

participants was another theme from the observations. Observers noted personal growth and skill 

development in three core aspects of the program. First, researchers observed how the facilitators 

positively responded to feedback generated throughout the course of the program and implemented 

recommendations to improve the facilitation process in subsequent sessions. Second, observers 

discerned that quieter, more reserved participants increasingly contributed as they attended more 

sessions. Finally, during sessions, parents reflected on how the skills and experiences they acquired 

through the program impacted their own personal development and their relationships with their 

children. 

The facilitators implemented several of the suggestions that were provided after the 

last observation. There was a noticeable difference on the level of participation by all

of the participants because of creating two smaller groups. This allowed for full 

participation. The amount of questions asked was adjusted, but the questions that 

connected the story with the participant’s lives were maintained. In the postobservation discussion, the facilitators reported that they too can see that all 

participants are more engaged. Nice job on continuing to grow and develop as 

Motheread facilitators!

There has been growth in all participants, even for the more reserved ones, in their 

level of participation. 

“One very quiet woman spoke a few times, for the first time, and they were quite 

thrilled that she is finally opening up.”

“One participant commented that he ‘doesn't do that’ referring to dramatic reading. 

Other participants and the facilitators encouraged him by mentioning how he has 

grown in his skills. He was hesitant to read aloud at the beginning of the Motheread 

session and now reads with expression. 

“[One] participant self-identified growth he has experienced in reading with his child 

because of participation in the Motheread sessions.

“One participant shared that learning about themes has helped her relationship with 

her kids, she ‘not only reads to them, but she continues the discussion after the book 

is read.’ 
23

Program Satisfaction

The creation of a safe, comfortable environment, the high level of parent engagement, and the degree 

of personal development all contributed to overall program satisfaction. Observers noted that parents 

were satisfied with the following aspects of the program: using books with both English and Spanish 

translations; applying skills learned in the sessions to engage their children in reading; and sequencing 

their children’s exposure to the stories in a way that maximizes their attention, involvement, and 

learning. 

“One family reported that they loved the books that were English and Spanish, 

because their Grandma could participate by reading the Spanish to her 

grandchildren.”

“Parents expressed the use of props was helpful, and children acting out noises was 

fun.”

“Participants have reported how valuable the Motheread sessions have been to their 

family. One mom reported that her two young girls wanted to go to Motheread 

instead of going to school. Another father reported that he is reading to his two 

daughters for the first time.”

“One parent commented that these activities help parents "practice their 

imagination" and "it helps us to relate to our kids since they get to be creative at 

school so it gives us chance to get creative." Parents talked about how hard it is to do 

activities like this with their kids at home.”

“The participants expressed that the children enjoyed hearing the story while they 

were with their teachers and that being exposed to the story allowed them to have 

meaningful discussions in the car on the way home. They viewed this as being more

effective than in taking the time to read together at the end of the night when the 

children were tired and distracted.”

Barriers & Challenges

Although observers most commonly encountered program successes, three challenges were observed

throughout the MFC sessions. These include the format and structure of session closings; the degree to 

which story extenders are incorporated into reading time with children; and the consistent attendance 

to the MFC program sessions. This section illustrates the dimensions of each challenge.
24

Session Close/Class Wrap-up

Observers routinely identified that session endings could be improved by taking time to reiterate 

learned skills and experiences. Observers commonly reported that sessions ended abruptly and that 

there often was no intentional class ending. Many observers posited that the lack of structured session 

closing resulted in lost opportunities for parents to reflect on the skills learned. Most observers 

attributed the weak session endings as a consequence of the time the sessions ended or to facilitators 

sensing the need to end quickly due to time constraints and other content covered earlier in the session. 

“Closing was clear and brief, but did not give participants a chance to reflect.”

“There wasn't much of a closing, more like a transition for the families to go read 

with their children.”

“The closing was brief, but with that it also felt unfinished. The theme was never 

readdressed or discussed, there was no full circle established with the discussion, it all 

just kind of ended.”

“The closing was basically transitioning to the activity with their kids but once 

everyone got their kid, it was past 8 and everyone decided to go home.”

“At the end of class [the facilitators] reminded students about the importance of 

reading daily, handed out the two younger books and materials. They didn’t really do 

formal closing. This reinforcement of the story and the Child and Family Development 

theme is really important, so they will work on a stronger but simple closing for next 

time.”

Story Extenders

While the use of story extenders was identified as a useful aspect of the MFC program, observers found 

that some parents commented that it is difficult to integrate them into reading time with their children. 

One challenge with story extenders was the inattentiveness of the children, which parents related to the 

time of day that the program took place (in the evenings) as well as to the length of the program and 

when story extenders were covered within the sessions. The other challenge observers found was time 

constraints within the sessions to allow for the inclusion of story extenders in the curriculum. Although 

not a required component of the program, the omission of story extenders within sessions may have 

decreased the level of comfort and skill development parents acquired to implement this program 

aspect at home during story time with their children. 
25

“Another participant mentioned that their child was beginning to read the story on 

his own using the pictures and many of the Story Extenders were mentioned. When 

the Story Extenders were distributed [the facilitator] shared with the parents that the 

children had already discussed one of the questions with their child care providers.”

“Parents mentioned that they try doing the [story extenders], but it is usually difficult 

to get their children to pay attention.”

“Parents reported using the story extenders at home - those that mentioned this also 

shared similar frustrations. They shared that their children often feel tired by that 

time of night (after sessions) so it is hard to keep them alert and involved when 

reading with them.”

“The class has decided to stop doing the Story Extenders in class, since it is usually 

hard to get the kids to focus (It's late, and the kids just went over it in the room next 

door).”

“The story extender was given to the participants but the discussion on this section 

went no further than that.”

“The facilitators reminded the parents about the story extender but that was it.”

Attendance

A final challenge noted by observers was consistent attendance to the MFC sessions. School conflicts 

were observed to be the primary reason why parents missed MFC classes.

“Attendance was low because of a couple of conflicts associated with the school.”

“There were only 3 parents in the class because it was parent teacher night and many 

of the other parents were at parent/teacher conferences.”

“Attendance tonight [was] impacted by the Parent Advisory Council which involved 

two families in the group. One participant joined the group after her meeting for the 

last twenty minutes of the session.”
26

Feedback from Motheread Coaches

MFC program coaches offered four main areas of constructive feedback for facilitators. First, coaches 

recommended focusing more on questions that connect the story to the parent’s lives rather than the 

comprehension questions. Second, similarly to the observers, MFC Coaches also suggested that

facilitators find an opportunity, especially during the Literacy as Art portion, to discuss the Story 

Extenders and Early Childhood Supplement books. Third, coaches recommended that facilitators 

address, clearly delineate, and allow specific time to practice reading and writing skills taught within 

each lesson. Finally, coaches proposed allotting more time to involve the children in the lesson and to 

provide parents with supervised opportunities to practice reading with their child. 

Impact Findings

The Impact Study uses a randomized controlled trial to test whether participation in MFC leads to 

changes in parents’ reading behaviors and child literacy outcomes. The experimental design is 

constructed to obtain a ‘moderate’ level of evidence.

PRETEST EQUIVALENCE ANALYSIS 

We first test for baseline or pretest differences across conditions to determine whether the 

randomization succeeded in making the control and intervention groups equivalent (within the bounds 

of random chance). Evidence of equivalence would indicate that the random assignment worked as 

intended and that group differences at the start of the study are unlikely to account for group 

differences after the program trial. Such evidence is crucial for establishing the internal validity of a 

randomized controlled trial.

Table 2 lists the following for each pretest measure: the number of cases, minimum and maximum 

values, the means for the intervention and control groups, the probabilities from difference-of-means ttests, and the size of group differences in standard deviation units.18 The measures at pretest include 

family demographic characteristics, child language and literacy outcomes, and parent behavior 

outcomes. The difference-of-means t-tests, used for both continuous and dichotomous measures, 

identify statistically significant deviations from equivalence. The standardized differences (Cohen’s d) 

indicate effect sizes. A common rule of thumb treats a d value of .2 as small, .5 as medium, and .8 as 

large.

The results in Table 2 suggest that the subjects were randomized successfully. The intervention and 

control groups do not differ significantly (p < .05) or even marginally (p < .10) on any of the pretest 

measures. Only a few d (standardized mean difference) values exceed .20, the common cutoff for a 

 

18 As some of the measures are not distributed normally, we also checked for differences using non-parametric techniques –

chi-square tests for categorical measures and Mann-Whitney tests for continuous measures. These tests give much the same 

results but generally have less power to identify differences than the parametric tests. To provide more stringent tests for 

baseline group differences and the success of the randomization, we focus on the t-tests.
27

small difference, and these differences do not define a consistent pattern. For example, the intervention 

group is disadvantaged relative to the control group on income per dependent (d = .25) and TS Gold 

Language (d = .27) but advantaged on parent education (d = -.23).19 Given the lack of statistical 

significance and the lack of a pattern consistently favoring one group over the other, we conclude that 

the pretest group differences result from random error rather than systematic bias. 20

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Tests for Equivalence of Pretest Variables

Pretest Measures N Min Max Mean a

Mean 

Difference

Value Value I C p d

Family Demographic 

Characteristics

Child Age 143 3 5 4.00 4.03 .806 .04

Child Female 145 0 1 .54 .51 .677 -.07

Free Lunch

(0 = do not qualify, 1 = 

reduced price lunch, 2 = free 

lunch)

124 0 2 1.2 1.2 .935 .01

Child Race21

(0 = white, 1 = non-White)

148 0 1 .35 .30 .559 -.10

Child Hispanic

(0 = non-Hispanic, 1 = 

Hispanic)

148 0 1 .49 .40 .243 -.19

Language 

(0 = Spanish or Other, 1 = 

English)

148 0 1 .72 .78 .396 .14

# Children 146 1 7 2.47 2.28 .319 -.17

 

19 The d value is based on the control group mean minus the intervention group mean. A positive d means a higher control 

group mean and a negative d means a higher intervention group mean.

20 Although condition differences in Hispanic ethnicity of the child are not statistically significant, they are relatively large (d = -

.19) and potentially important for the outcomes. Also, since this variable proved important in previous reports, we continue to 

use it as a control in the models to follow.

21 Child Race and Child Hispanic were coded as white and non-white and Hispanic and Non-Hispanic to reduce 

missing data. 
28

Pretest Measures N Min Max Mean a

Mean 

Difference

Family Income 125 750 100,000 42,083 45,096 .539 .11

# Dependents 139 1 9 4.24 4.12 .609 -.09

Income / Dependents 125 250 33,333 9,787 11,480 .167 .25

Parents Education

(1 = no school, 2 = some 

school, 3 = high school, 4 = 

some college or technical 

school, 

5 = college degree, 6 = post 

college degree)

136 1 6 4.06 3.81 .174 -.23

Child Educational Goals

(0 = finish some schooling 

before college, 

1 = finish college)

143 0 1 .91 .94 .441 .14

Child Education Expectation

(0 = finish some schooling 

before college, 

1 = finish college)

142 0 1 .78 .82 .554 .10

Child-Level Outcomes: 

Teacher Reports on Child 

(TS Gold)

Language Domain

(0=below age-level, 1 = at age 

level, 2 = above age level) 

83 0 2 .56 .71 .228 .27

Literacy Domain

(0=below age-level, 1 = at age 

level, 2 = above age level)

82 0 2 .66 .66 1.000 .00

Language Score 83 15 63 38.9 39.8 .689 .09

Literacy Score 82 9 78 32.9 33.0 .958 .01

Child-Level Outcomes: ParentReports on Child 

Reading Scale 147 1.00 5.00 3.61 3.64 .864 .03
29

Pretest Measures N Min Max Mean a

Mean 

Difference

Language Scale 147 1.00 5.00 2.53 2.50 .878 -.03

Letters Scale 147 1.00 5.00 3.33 3.42 .637 .08

Writing Scale 147 1.00 5.00 2.72 2.54 .223 -.20

Print Scale 147 1.00 5.00 2.44 2.49 .816 .04

Parent Behaviors

How Often Read Aloud 142 1 5 3.35 3.35 .993 .00

Minutes Read Aloud 126 1 500 178 195 .513 .12

Designated Time for Reading 131 0 1 .58 .49 .330 -.17

Books Read at One Setting 129 1 6 2.16 2.12 .839 -.04

Active Reading Scale – Sum 148 0 7 3.17 2.90 .379 -.14

I = Intervention Group, C = Control Group

MISSING DATA AND ATTRITION 

Introduction 

Even with evidence of successful randomization of subjects to intervention and control groups, loss of 

subjects can bias tests for group differences in the posttest outcomes. If the dropouts vary 

systematically across conditions, attrition can lead to misleading conclusions about program 

effectiveness. Through five cohorts of data gathering, our study has a maximum sample size of 148 

subjects and, as is appropriate for an intent-to-treat analysis, we seek to include all subjects in their 

originally assigned group. However, the actual number of cases with valid data is reduced by 1) missing 

pretest scores on the teacher-rated TS Gold measures; 2) attrition from refusal or inability to complete 

the posttest survey or 3) missing data from not answering specific survey questions or inaccessible data. 

We therefore need to test for patterns in the loss of cases due to attrition and missing data. 
30

Our attrition analysis consists of three steps. First, we use Little’s global test to check whether data are 

missing completely at random or reflect a systematic pattern in observed subject characteristics.22 Since 

Little’s test has low power and is susceptible to Type II errors,23 additional tests are helpful. Second, to 

check for non-random missing data in individual variables, we construct indicators of missingness (1 = 

missing, 0 = not missing) and then correlate the missingness indicators with each of the pretest 

measures. High correlations indicate that subjects with certain characteristics are more likely to be 

missing data or drop out. While suggestive of a problem, the test does not necessarily identify bias in 

comparisons across conditions. Third, for each pretest measure that is significantly correlated with 

missingness, the indicators of missingness are regressed on the pretest measure, an indicator of 

condition, and the interaction of the pretest measure-by- condition. A significant interaction term 

indicates that the pattern of attrition differs by condition, may compromise the randomization, and 

possibly biases tests for intervention effects. For example, if those prone to do poorly on the posttest 

outcomes drop out of the intervention group more than the control group, it would exaggerate the 

program effect. If, however, those prone to do poorly on the posttest dropout at the same rate for the 

intervention and control groups, it would not bias the program effect. A significant interaction term 

indicates the former, while an insignificant interaction term indicates the latter.

Pretest Missing Data 

Most pretest variables have missing data but seldom more than 10% of all cases. Those measures with 

more substantial missing data include eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch (N = 124 or 84%), 

family income and family income per dependent (N = 125 or 84%), TS Gold language and literacy24 (N = 

82-83 or 55-56%), and several parent reading behaviors (N = 126-131 or 85-89%). 

Little’s global test indicates that the pretest data are missing completely at random. Using all the 

variables listed in Table 2, the chi-square value of 826.5 (df = 825, p = .479) cannot reject the null 

hypothesis that the data are missing completely at random. This means that the pretest missing data do 

not reflect any systematic pattern.

Given their importance to the study, the pretest TS Gold measures of language and literacy deserve 

special analysis, however. We correlated each of the other pretest measures with a missingness 

indicator for the TS Gold pretest measures (missing = 1, not missing = 0). The correlations are listed in 

the first column of Table 3. To be liberal in identifying possible bias, we use a significant level of .10 for 

these tests. Older children, children in large families, and children scoring higher on parent-reported 

letters and writing skills are significantly less likely to be missing data. However, if the missing data on 

these pretest measures are patterned by condition, they should differ across the intervention and 

control group. Since age, number of children, letters score, and writing score are distributed equally 

 

22 Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing 

values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198-1202.

23 Enders, C. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford.

24 These children were not assessed the prior spring because they were new to the preschool (either three year olds entering 

preschool for the first time or new to the school district). Due to the study design, it was anticipated that TS Gold pretest data 

would be unavailable for a subset of participants in Cohorts 2 and 4, which both begin in the fall.
31

across conditions in Table 2, the correlations with missing data should not bias the tests for program 

impact. The more precise test of this inference uses the interaction of condition by each of the four 

measures. These results are listed in the fourth column of Table 3. None of the interaction coefficients 

are statistically significant. Thus, the more detailed analysis of missing data confirms the Little test in 

failing to identify a pattern of potential bias in missing pretest data on the TS Gold measures. 

Based on these findings, we can impute pretest TS Gold data using the expectation maximization 

algorithm, a method appropriate for data missing completely at random.25 The impact analysis to follow 

will examine outcomes for the subset of cases with missing data dropped and for all cases with missing 

data imputed.

Posttest Attrition and Missing Data

The posttest data face two problems with attrition and missing data: 1) 22 of 148 parents (14.9%) did 

not complete the posttest survey, and 2) up to 18 additional parents (12.1%) completed the survey but 

did not answer all the questions, mostly notably the question about parent reading behaviors. 

Using the same strategy as for the pretest missing data, our attrition analysis consists of three steps. 

First, when testing all posttest outcomes plus condition together, the chi-square value of 916.7 (df = 

862, p = .096) allows rejection of the null hypothesis at a marginal probability level (p < .10) that the 

data are missing completely at random. However, when limiting the sample to those who completed at 

least part of the survey and were not subject to attrition (N = 126), the chi-square value of 764.4 (df = 

741, p = .268) is clearly not significant and indicates that item missing data are missing at random. 

Second, columns 2 and 3 of Table 3 list the bivariate correlations from the differential attrition 

analysis.26 The results indicate that several pretest characteristics are associated with missing data. In 

regard to attrition (N = 22), parents not completing the posttest survey have Hispanic children eligible 

for free lunch, are less likely to designate a time to read, and score lower on the active reading scale. In 

regard to missing items (N = 18), parents not answering all questions are more likely to have Hispanic 

children, have children with better writing skills, read less often to their child, and lack a designated time 

for reading. 

Third, the last columns of Table 3 test for the interaction of condition and pretest characteristics 

associated with posttest attrition. The table lists coefficients for the interaction terms and associated 

significance. Only one of the tests reaches statistical significance. For designated reading time, the 

significant negative coefficient indicates that parents with a designated reading time and in the 

intervention group are less likely to be missing data. The evidence of differential attrition is modest and 

 

25 Schafer, J. L. & Olsen, M. K. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: A data analyst's perspective. 

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 545-571.

26 We use a .10 criterion in Table 3 to help identify any possible evidence of differential attrition but otherwise use the usual 

levels of significance (.05, .01, .001) when testing for program effects.
32

the pattern of missingness would likely inflate the control group outcomes and hide condition 

differences. Still, care must be taken in analyzing the results for this measure of parent behavior.27

In summary, the attrition analysis is generally reassuring about the potential for missing data to distort 

the original randomization. Attrition is more likely among subjects with certain characteristics but 

generally similar across conditions and the data overall appear to be missing completely at random. To 

further check the results, we also present figures for all cases with imputed data from the expectation 

maximization estimation.

 

27 To be cautious, we will check the results for parent behavior measures with controls for baseline designated reading time –

the measure associated with significant differential attrition.
33

Table 3. Attrition Analysis of Missing Values on Three Sets of Measures

Correlation (r) with

Missing Values a

Regression (b) with

Missing Values b

Pretest

TS Gold

Missing

N = 66

Posttest

Survey

Missing

N = 22

Posttest

Reading

Missing

N = 18

Pretest

TS Gold

Missing 

N = 66

Posttest

Survey

Missing N 

= 22

Posttest

Reading

Missing

N = 18 Pretest

Measures

Condition 0.02 -0.04 0.08

Age -0.27 # -0.04 0.13 -.08

Female 0.08 -0.02 0.11

Free Lunch -0.13 0.17 # 0.12 .00

Hispanic 0.10 0.20 # 0.17 # -.18 .12

# Children -0.14 # 0.04 0.09 -.06

Family Income 0.01 -0.14 -0.13

# Dependents -0.11 -0.04 0.01

Income / Dependents 0.05 -0.13 -0.13

Teacher Reports on Child

Language Domain Categ. 0.08 -0.15

Literacy Domain Categ. 0.01 0.06

Language Score .09 .06

Language Score .06 .10

Parent Reports on Child 

Reading Scale -0.07 -0.13 0.03

Language Scale -0.03 0.03 0.03

Letters Scale -0.19 # -0.03 -0.06 .04

Writing Scale -0.24 # 0.02 0.23 # -.01 .02

Print Scale -0.13 0.09 -0.08

Parent Behaviors

How Often Read Aloud -0.02 -0.01 -0.17 # -.06

Minutes Read Aloud -0.13 -0.01 -0.07

Designated Time to Read -0.00 -0.17 # -0.24 # -.10 -.14 #

Books Read at One Setting 0.10 -0.14 0.01

Active Reading Scale 1 -0.05 -0.23 # -0.11 .03

a Bivariate correlation of missing =1 (non-missing = 0) with pretest measures

b Unstandardized regression coefficient of missing =1 (non-missing = 0) with pretest measures-by-condition

# p < .10 
34

POWER ANALYSIS FINDINGS 

With an analysis sample size ranging from 108 to 126 and a maximum sample size with imputation of 

148, we can do a power analysis to quantify the ability to find significant program effects with the 

available data. Table 4 lists the power of the tests for the three sample sizes when the effect size is small 

(Cohen’s d = .2), medium (d = .5), and large (d =.8). The sample sizes of 108, 126, and 148 are all 

powered for a medium effect size. The minimal detectible effect size for power = .8 ranges from .47 to 

.54.

Table 4. Power Analysis

Power of Test by Bivariate Test

Effect Size N = 108 N =126 N = 148

0.2 (small) 0.18 0.20 0.23

0.5 (medium) 0.73 0.80 0.86

0.8 (large) 0.98 0.99 0.99

MDES at power = .8 0.54 0.50 0.47

TYPE OF ANALYSIS 

The confirmatory research questions in summary form ask about the effect of the program on 1) 

children’s language and literacy, 2) parents’ behavior supportive of reading, and 3) the mediation of 

program impact on children by changes in behavior of parents. Exploratory questions ask about 

differential program benefits by child risk level at pretest and whether more involvement in the program 

leads to better outcomes. Corresponding to the random assignment of parents and children to the 

intervention and control groups, the unit of analysis is the parent-child dyad.

With data at two time points, regression models use the posttest score as the outcome and use 

intervention status, the pretest outcome score, and one selected covariate, Hispanic ethnicity. 

Additional time points would allow for use of repeated measures models, but two time points can be 

handled efficiently with least-squares regression for the outcome measures. With the pretest outcome 

control, the treatment coefficients reflect differences across conditions in the change from pretest to 

posttest.

The basic model can be represented as follows:

Yik2 = 0k + 1k*Ii +  2k*Yik1 +  3k*Xik1 + ik, (1)

where Yik2 and Yik1 refer to outcome k for individual i at posttest (time 2) and pretest (time 1), Ii refers to 

a dummy variable for the intervention, Xik1 refers to the additional covariate of Hispanic ethnicity, and 

ik to a zero mean disturbance term that is normally and independently distributed. As noted earlier, 
35

only one control variable, Hispanic ethnicity, is included in the model.28 Tests of confirmatory questions 

#1 and #2 concerning the impact of the intervention come from the direction, size, and significance of 

the 1k coefficients for the intervention measure. Support for the intervention will show in consistently 

significant and positive coefficients. 

Tests of confirmatory question #3 involve mediation and a set of models estimated with multiple 

regression. Mediation models typically encompass four tests: 1) the intervention should meaningfully 

affect the child outcomes; 2) the intervention should meaningfully affect the mediating parent 

outcomes; 3) the parent outcomes should meaningfully affect the child outcomes; and 4) the overall 

effect of the intervention on the child outcomes should drop sharply when controlling for the mediating 

parent outcomes. The combined criteria for mediation imply a significant indirect effect of the 

intervention on child outcomes via parent outcomes.

Exploratory question #4 involves moderation. We expect that the program will most help those children 

with language and literacy problems at baseline. Children with already-developed skills and less room to 

improve may gain less from the program. We check for moderation effects by adding product 

interaction terms to the model. If the program effect varies with a pretest characteristic, the coefficients 

for the intervention times the characteristics will be large and consistent in direction. 

Exploratory question #5 involves a test among intervention group subjects for the influence on the 

outcomes of session attendance and program participation. An effective program will show a 

meaningful difference between parents with low and high participation. We treat this test as 

exploratory because session attendance and participation were not randomly assigned. The test likely 

will be confounded by unmeasured characteristics such as motivation, conscientiousness, and 

commitment to the preschool. Benefits of program attendance and participation will suggest program 

effectiveness but without the internal validity of a comparison between randomized intervention and 

control groups.

Exploratory question #6 involves the long-term follow-up of the treatment group using the TS Gold 

measures of child literacy and language. Because subjects in the waitlist control group have the 

opportunity to enter treatment after the posttest, the statistical analysis of sustained, long-term effects 

differs from the analysis of the posttest effects. One key difference is that the intervention variable now 

has three categories: the treatment group subjects, the control group subjects who joined the treatment 

after the posttest, and the control group subjects who did not join the treatment after the posttest. 

Another key difference is that the analysis focuses on the changes from posttest to the long-term followup assessments rather than from pretest to posttest. The follow-up period thus measures the time since 

 

28 We originally proposed to include fixed effects for the pre-randomization blocking variables of cohort and school (4 dummy 

variables for school and 4 for cohort). However, checks show that neither schools nor cohorts had consistent significant effects 

on TS Gold or parent ratings. These results indicate that clustering within schools and cohorts is small. Including all the 

insignificant predictors would do little to improve the quality of the models, but it would reduce the power to identify 

treatment effects. We therefore have not used the fixed effects in the final models. Also, none of the parental characteristics 

differed significantly across conditions. Adding these controls similarly would not affect condition differences but may reduce 

the power of the models.
36

posttest and can range from 3 months to 15 months, depending on which year the subjects joined the 

study. 

The longitudinal models adjust for these two issues. First, they contrast the treatment group with each 

of the two control groups. Second, they estimate the change in TS Gold language and literacy scores 

from the posttest through the follow-up period. The test of long-term program benefits thus comes 

from comparing the change over the follow-up period for the treatment group with the change for the 

two control groups (controlling for baseline scores, covariates, and fixed effects). If the change in scores 

is significantly lower for the two control groups, it will suggest long-term program benefits. More detail 

on the models and estimation follow in the section on Impact Question 6.

We treat this test as exploratory because the two control groups – one joining the intervention and one 

not joining the intervention – are no longer randomized. The lack of an exact comparison with subjects 

matched by randomization limits the internal validity of the over-time comparisons and means the 

results can be considered only exploratory.

IMPACT QUESTION 1 (CONFIRMATORY): TO WHAT EXTENT DO CHILDREN

EXPOSED TO MOTHEREAD THROUGH THEIR PARENTS’ PARTICIPATION 

DEMONSTRATE GREATER GAINS IN LITERACY AND LANGUAGE OUTCOMES THAN 

SIMILAR CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM? 

Table 5 presents the key coefficients needed to test confirmatory question 1 concerning the program 

impact on child language and literacy. The child measures tap two teacher-reported skills and five 

parent-reported skills. 

For each outcome, Table 5 presents the posttest means for the control and intervention groups, along 

with the probability that the mean difference could result from random error. These bivariate figures 

provide helpful descriptive information but do not control for pretest values and covariates. The next 

columns come from regression equation 1 (listed above). The columns list the regression coefficients for 

the intervention group adjusted for the controls and the Cohen’s d coefficients (or standardized mean 

difference in the outcome) based on the regression.

29 The associated probability for a test of the 

 

29 The standardized mean difference can be obtained by standardizing the outcome in the regression model. The Cohen’s d 

values differ from standardized regression coefficients or betas, which standardize both the predictors and outcomes. 
37

coefficient significance is listed as well.30 The last columns replicate the regression results but with 

missing data imputed using expectation maximization.31

 

30 We originally proposed to use the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment for multiple comparisons. However, the value of reducing 

the risk of a type I error with adjustments for multiple comparisons of must be balanced with the limitation of increasing the 

risk of a Type II error. Given the recruitment problems in the study and the much smaller sample than originally projected, our 

analysis is already underpowered; the Type I risk of rejecting a false null hypothesis is low but the Type II risk of failing to reject 

a false null hypothesis is high. As the Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment would further raise the risk of a Type II error and weaken 

the results, we decided it would be best to not use the adjustment.

31 Given the finding that our data are missing completely at random, expectation maximization has some advantages over 

multiple imputation. Even for the TS Gold pretest outcome, the item with the most missing data, the missing values are due 

only to the age of program entrance, which was equalized in the randomization. The simpler expectation maximum estimates 

are well suited for the analysis of such data. Multiple imputation depends on adequate specification of an imputation model, 

which ideally includes auxiliary predictors of missingness. Misspecification of the imputation model can lead to biased results 

(see Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR. Multiple imputation for 

missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. British Medical Journal, 2009, 338). We lack a strong 

imputation model and are uncertain if the assumptions needed for multiple imputation are met. 
38

Table 5. Results from Analysis of Intervention on Posttest Child-Level Outcomes 

Child-Level Outcomes

Posttest 

Means a

Mean 

Diff. 

Sig.b

Regression c

No Imputed 

Data

Regression c

Imputed Data d

I C p d p d p

Teacher Reports on Child (TS Gold) 

Post-test only: N=143-145

Language Domain Categories 1.12 1.18 .518 -.07 .666

Literacy Domain Categories 1.15 1.15 .983 .02 .882

Language Scores 46.8 49.7 .062 -.27 .100

Literacy Scores 46.2 48.9 .346 -.12 .463

Teacher Reports on Child (TS Gold) 

Controls for Pre-test: N=81-83

Language Domain Categories 1.27 1.21 .659 .27 .186 .05 .734

Literacy Domain Categories 1.18 1.24 .626 -.07 .730 .02 .926

Language Scores 51.0 51.1 .961 .16 .326 -.13 .368

Literacy Scores 52.4 52.0 .935 .06 .757 -.14 .322

Parent Reports on Child N=117-126 

Reading Scale 3.97 3.69 .053 .35 .011 .38 .005

Language Scale 3.13 2.89 .206 .29 .030 .26 .055

Letters Scale 3.75 3.72 .863 .16 .238 .14 .310

Writing Scale 3.18 3.16 .904 -.10 .500 -.08 .582

Print Scale 3.11 2.62 .044 .38 .011 .40 .004

a I = Intervention Group, C = Control Group

b Mean Diff. Sig. = p value for mean difference

c Regression controls for pretest outcome and Hispanic ethnicity

d N = 148 for models with imputed data

Given that pretest data are missing for many subjects, two sets of results are presented for the TS Gold, 

one for the posttest only (N = 143-145) and one for a reduced sample of 82-82 that includes the pretest. 

None of the tests indicate statistically significant benefits of the intervention. Comparison of the 
39

posttest means without and with controls for pretest scores show small condition differences. The 

regressions with pretest scores indicate a positive effect of the program with standardized differences 

ranging from .02 to .27. However, given the sample size, these effects do not reach statistical 

significance. The model in the last columns that imputes missing TS Gold pretest data shows small and 

insignificant effects. 

The results for parent reports in Table 5, in contrast, reveal several beneficial program effects. 

Controlling for pretest outcomes and Hispanic ethnicity, the program significantly improves the posttest 

scales for reading, language and print. The effect sizes are medium-small (d ranges from .29 to .38). The 

results are similar when imputing missing posttest data for these measures. 

In sum, gains in literacy and language as a result of parent program participation are not significant on 

the teacher reported TS Gold measures, but are significant on 3 of 5 parent reported measures. 

IMPACT QUESTION 2 (CONFIRMATORY): TO WHAT EXTENT DO PARENTS 

PARTICIPATING IN MOTHEREAD DEMONSTRATE BEHAVIORS MORE SUPPORTIVE 

OF READING THAN SIMILAR PARENTS NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM? 

Using the same structure as Table 5, Table 6 presents the key coefficients needed to test confirmatory 

question 2 concerning the program impact on parent behavior. The parent behavior measures tap selfreported quantity and quality of reading to the child. Note that along with four key individual items on 

parent behavior, the table lists results for the scale summing seven other parent-behavior items in the 

survey (i.e., the Active Reading Scale).

The bivariate posttest results demonstrate significant intervention benefits on two outcomes: reading 

often to their children, and having a designated time for reading. A third, scoring high on the active 

reading scale, has a marginally significant effect (p = .055). For reading aloud and the active reading 

scale, the effects are significant in the regression models, both without and with imputation of missing 

data. For having a designated reading time, the effect drops below significance in the regression without 

imputed data but remains significant in the model with imputed data. Moreover, there was some 

evidence of a problem with differential attrition for this outcome.

32

 

32 Recall that this baseline measure was differentially related to missing data by condition. The insignificant effect 

without imputation may stem from the differential attrition, while the significant effect for the imputed data is

more reliable because all subjects are included. Still, to be cautious, we view the results for this outcome as mixed.
40

Table 6. Results from Analysis of Intervention on Posttest Parent Behaviors 

Parent Behaviors

Posttest 

Means a

Mean

Diff. 

Sig.b

Regression c

No Imputed 

Data

Regression c

Imputed Data 

d

I C p d p d p

How Often Read Aloud 

(N = 121)

3.98 3.56 .008 .56 .000 .53 .000

Minutes Read Aloud

(N = 100)

235 228 .817 .12 .524 .20 .192

Designated Time for Reading

(N = 102)

.81 .61 .019 .27 .137 .46 .002

Books Read at One Setting

(N = 100)

2.39 2.31 .640 .09 .624 .08 .598

Active Reading Scale – Sum

(N = 126)

4.45 3.82 .055 .33 .046 .33 .032

a I = Intervention Group, C = Control Group

b Mean Diff. Sig. = p value for mean difference

c Regression controls for pretest outcome and child Hispanic ethnicity

d N = 148 for models with imputed data

IMPACT QUESTION 3 (CONFIRMATORY): TO WHAT EXTENT DO CHANGES IN 

READING BEHAVIORS OF PARENTS PARTICIPATING IN MOTHEREAD MEDIATE 

CHANGES IN LITERACY OUTCOMES OF CHILDREN EXPOSED TO MOTHEREAD?

Confirmatory question 3 posits that changes in the behavior of parents mediate the intervention effect 

on children. However, the small effects found for the teacher-rated TS Gold child reading outcomes limit 

the value of a mediation analysis. Without a strong relationship between the intervention and the 

ultimate outcome, there is little to mediate and the evidence of mediation is necessarily weak. We 

therefore do not report tests for the TS Gold outcomes. However, the results for several of the parentreported measures of child reading skills do show a significant association with the intervention and are 

good candidates for analysis of the mediation effects of parent behavior on child outcomes. 

To simplify tests for the mediation analysis, we create a summary scale for the child outcomes. The scale 

takes the mean from the five parent-rated measures listed in Table 5 (language, reading, letters, writing 

print); it has an alpha reliability of .81. This combined child literacy scale will serve as the ultimate 

outcome. For the mediators, Table 6 shows significant program effects on two parent behaviors – how 
41

often they read aloud to the child and the active reading scale. We designate each of these measures as 

a separate mediator, as they do not form a reliable scale.33

Table 7 presents the results from each of the four steps in a mediation analysis (described in the “Type 

of Analysis” section). The sample uses the 126 cases with available posttest data. As is common in 

mediation analyses, we present standardized regression coefficients (betas) rather than d coefficients.

Step 1 in the mediation analysis regresses the newly created child literacy scale on the intervention 

(with controls for the pretest outcome and child Hispanic ethnicity). As shown in Table 7, the 

intervention significantly improves the outcome (as it did for most of the separate items in Table 5). 

Step 2 summarizes previous results in showing that the intervention significantly increases the read 

aloud measure and active reading scale; the standardized coefficients equal .280 and .164, both 

medium-sized effects. Step 3 examines the effects of the posttest read aloud and active reading 

measures on the posttest child outcome scale. The read aloud measure significantly increases child 

literacy but active reading does not. Step 4 estimates the effects of the intervention on the child 

outcome scale with controls for the mediator. The intervention effects should drop significantly from 

Step 1 (the intervention effect without the control). In Table 7, the intervention coefficient drops to 

insignificance when controlling for parent reading aloud, but it changes little when controlling for active 

reading.

A final step computes the indirect effect of the intervention on the child literacy outcome scale via the 

two mediators. Both indirect effects are small and not statistically significant. For the read aloud 

measure, there is some evidence of mediation. It meets all four criteria for mediation but has a small 

mediation effect that is only marginally significant (p = .077). For the active reading scale, it fails to 

significantly improve the child outcome scale and to have a significant mediation effect. 

 

33 Using the other parent behavior measures in Table 6 also does not form a strong scale, and these other measures have the 

limitation of substantial missing data.
42

Table 7. Results of Mediation Analysis for Indirect Influence of Program on Child Literacy 

Scale through Parent Reading Aloud and Active Reading 

Outcome Child Literacy Scale

Mediator Reading Aloud Active Reading

1. Intervention: Outcome .141 * .141 *

2. Intervention: Mediator .280 ** .164 *

3. Mediator: Outcome .128 * .044

4. Intervention: Outcome (Net) .114 .137 *

Indirect Effect .036 .007

Note: Standardized coefficients listed, * p < .05, ** p < .01

IMPACT QUESTION 4 (EXPLORATORY): TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE EXPOSURE TO 

MOTHEREAD BENEFIT CHILDREN WHO BEGIN WITH LOW LITERACY AND A POOR 

LITERACY HOME ENVIRONMENT MORE THAN OTHER CHILDREN? 

The first exploratory research question asks about differential program benefits by child risk level at 

pretest. It requires tests for moderation that specify different program effects across levels of the 

pretest characteristics. The tests involve adding product terms of the intervention indicator times the 

pretest measure of risk. To be thorough, we examined 10 pretest risk measures: 1) TS Gold language 

categories, 2) TS Gold literacy categories, 3) a combined scale for the five parent ratings of child reading 

skills, 4) the active reading scale, 5) eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch, 6) Hispanic ethnicity, 7) 

English language, 8) family income, 9) parent education, and 10) parent expectation for child education 

attainment. We then added the 10 interaction terms one at a time to models for the three outcomes of 

posttest TS Gold language and literacy categories,34 and the parent-rated child literacy scale combining 

the five separate parent-rated child measures. 

The results show that one of the 30 interaction terms reaches statistical significance. The effect of the 

program on the parent-rated child literacy scale was significantly stronger (p = .038) for Hispanic 

children than others. Further, significant or marginally significant interaction terms for Hispanic ethnicity 

and TS Gold language (p = .098) and literacy (p = .045) suggest that the program has weaker effects for 

Hispanic children. Given the numerous tests, however, these findings could occur by chance. Overall, 

then, the program appears to work similarly across groups defined by pretest risk.

 

34 To maximize cases, we used the imputed TS Gold pretest scores as a control but use the unimputed TS Gold scores as 

outcomes.
43

IMPACT QUESTION 5 (EXPLORATORY) TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE AMOUNT OF 

PARENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN MOTHEREAD (I.E., NUMBER OF SESSIONS) 

CORRELATE WITH GAINS IN CHILDREN’S LITERACY? 

The next exploratory question asks whether more of the program leads to better outcomes among 

intervention participants. As noted above, this analysis has some methodological limitations relating to 

the inability to assign participants randomly to low and high participation. Worsening the problem, the 

analysis can use only the intervention subjects with data on program participation and posttest TS Gold 

measures – a number ranging from only 60-67.

Our tests focus on four measures of program participation and the three outcome measures of the TS 

Gold language categories, the TS Gold literacy categories, and the child literacy scale combining the five 

separate parent-rated child measures. Table 8 presents the standardized coefficients for the three 

outcomes regressed on each of the participation measures with a control for the pretest outcome.35

Table 8. Influence of Participation on TS Gold Language and Literacy Categories 

(N = 60-67)

Participation Measure TS Gold Language 

Categories

TS Gold Literacy 

Categories

Parent-Rated 

Child Literacy

beta p beta p beta p

Attendance Rate .02 .856 .05 .680 -.02 .811

 Average minutes each week reading the MR 

book

.05 .701 -.13 .296 .09 .345

 Average minutes each week reading another 

book 

.06 .602 .16 .214 -.08 .458

 Average minutes each week reading books 

without child

.08 .474 -.03 .827 -.12 .231

Note: beta = standardized regression coefficient controlling for pretest outcome

The results show weak relationships. All the coefficients are small and nonsignificant. Examining 

difference among the intervention group only, parent involvement in the program appears to do little to 

improve teacher ratings of child language and literacy skills. 

 

35 To maximize cases, we again used the imputed TS Gold pretest scores as a control but use the unimputed TS Gold scores as 

outcomes.
44

IMPACT QUESTION 6 (EXPLORATORY): TO WHAT EXTENT ARE POSTTEST

IMPROVEMENTS IN MOTHEREAD CHILDREN MAINTAINED OVER THE NEXT 

MONTHS AND YEAR? 

The final exploratory research question addresses the extent to which improvements gained by children 

whose parents receive MFC program are sustained in the months and year following participation in the 

program. 

The longitudinal data set for the MFC program includes all TS Gold assessments and in that way differs 

from the pretest-posttest data set used in the previous section. In addition to the pretest and posttest 

assessments, the longitudinal data for some cohorts include an interim assessment between the pretest 

and posttest (while the program is ongoing). It also contains up to four additional assessments after the 

posttest. The first follow-up assessment occurred as soon as three months after the posttest, while the 

last follow-up assessment occurred as late as 15 months after the posttest. Given the additional followup assessments, the longitudinal data differ in another way. The subjects comprise three groups: the 

original treatment subjects, the original control subjects who accepted the opportunity after the 

posttest to join the program, and the original control subjects who declined the invitation after the 

posttest to join the program. While the pretest and posttest assessments can compare the randomized 

treatment and control groups, the follow-up assessments can compare the three groups.

Statistical Issues

The goal of the longitudinal data analysis is to see if the program has sustained or newly emergent 

effects in the period following the program. However, this analysis faces two special statistical problems 

corresponding to the unique features of the longitudinal data.

First, after the posttest, the division of the originally randomized control group subjects into those who 

joined and did not join the program was non-random. That makes it hard to separate follow-up changes 

due to the program from changes due to self-selection of some control subjects into the program. For 

example, those who accepted the opportunity to join the program may be more motivated to help their 

children than those who did not. Tests of program efficacy therefore need to examine and possibly 

control for background differences between control group subjects who join and do not join the 

program after the posttest.

The original randomization assigned 73 to the treatment group and 72 to the control group. As shown 

earlier, these groups are quite similar on the background variables. The three posttest groups consist of 

73 in the treatment group (as before), 30 in the control-treatment group, and 42 in the continuedcontrol group. Because the three groups are no longer randomized, it is necessary to identify how they 

may differ from one another – significant differences could bias comparisons of the three groups. 

One-way analyses of variance examine if the means for each of the baseline measures differ across the 

three groups. Only one baseline measure, parent education, is significant. However, a more thorough 

examination of group differences is found in Table 9, which lists the means for the three groups and the 

standardized mean differences (Cohen’s d) between each of the control groups and the treatment 
45

group. Six baseline measures have relatively large standardized differences (d > .25): 1) parent 

education, 2) the active reading scale, 3) female child, 4) education goals for child, 5) parent-rated 

language awareness, and 6) parent-rated writing. The continued-control group has lower scores than 

the treatment group on parent education and active reading, while the control-treatment group has 

fewer girls, lower language awareness, and poorer writing scores than the treatment group. More 

surprising, the control-treatment parents have higher education goals than the treatment group. It 

appears, then, that one control group is not consistently more disadvantaged than the other: The 

continued-control group does worse on parent education and active reading, while the controltreatment group does worse on child language awareness and writing. Still, the longitudinal tests for 

group differences will need to control for these baseline measures.
46

Table 9. Group Means and Standardized Differences (d) for Three Study Groups

Baseline Continued-Control Control-Treatment Treatment

Measure Mean d a Mean d b Mean

Child Age 4.10 0.17 3.93 -0.08 3.99

Child Female 0.57 0.06 0.40 -0.29 0.54

Free Lunch 1.23 0.00 1.25 0.03 1.23

Race 0.33 -0.05 0.27 -0.19 0.36

Hispanic 0.40 -0.18 0.40 -0.19 0.49

Language 0.76 0.12 0.80 0.20 0.71

# Children 2.35 -0.12 2.23 -0.23 2.48

Family Income $45,594 0.12 $43,343 0.04 $42,354

# Dependents 4.16 -0.07 4.07 -0.15 4.26

Income / Dependents $11,409 0.23 $11,288 0.21 $9,844

Parent Education # 3.58 -0.44 4.07 0.02 4.05

Child Education Goals 0.89 -0.03 1.00 0.38 0.90

Child Education Expectation 0.81 0.08 0.83 0.14 0.78

Reading Scale 3.75 0.17 3.47 -0.15 3.61

Language Scale 2.70 0.15 2.21 -0.28 2.52

Letters Scale 3.46 0.14 3.30 -0.02 3.32

Writing Scale 2.65 -0.06 2.32 -0.44 2.70

Print Scale 2.48 0.04 2.45 0.02 2.43

Active Reading Scale 2.60 -0.33 3.30 0.07 3.18

a Continued-Control minus Treatment

b Control-Treatment minus Treatment

# Means differ significantly (P < .10)
47

Second, a potential statistical problem comes from some subjects having more follow-up assessments 

than others. The number differs because children started earlier and stayed longer in the preschool. 

Attrition that differs across the treatment and two control groups may bias the comparisons. Tests 

therefore need to examine group differences in the number of assessments. 

Another one-way analysis of variance shows significant differences across groups in the number of 

assessments. The control-treatment group has the higher mean number of assessments (2.1), followed 

by the treatment group (2.0) and the continued-control group (1.4). Post-hoc differences-of-means tests 

with a Bonferroni adjustment show significant differences of the continued-control group with the other 

two groups but no difference between the treatment and control-treatment groups. A control for 

number of assessments will be needed in the longitudinal tests for group differences.

Models and Hypotheses

For the longitudinal analysis, we can use two approaches. First, we can use all assessments, including 

the pretest and interim assessment that precede the posttest and follow-up. However, the previous 

analyses focusing on pretest to posttest change showed no treatment effect. As an illustration of the 

value of a follow-up analysis, Table 10 shows the means for the four TS Gold measures across the three 

groups and four periods (at pretest, interim assessment, posttest, and the follow-up period), and Figure 

3 graphs the means for the TS Gold language score. At posttest, the means differ little, if anything 

showing higher scores for the control group. These results simply confirm the previous findings. More 

intriguing are the changes after the posttest. The means for the TS Gold language score and category 

indicate a larger increase in the treatment group than either of the control groups. The change after 

posttest rather than from pretest to posttest needs to be investigated in more depth. Given these 

figures and previous findings of no program posttest effects, we devote most attention to another 

approach and present results for the full period as a supplement. 
48

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics for TS Gold Measures by Treatment Group and Assessment 

Period

 TS Gold Language TS Gold Literacy

Assessment Treatment Group N Mean Mean N Mean Mean

Score Category Score Category

Pretest Continued Control 25 39.5 0.68 24 32.5 0.58

Control-Treatment 17 40.1 0.76 17 33.8 0.76

Treatment 41 38.9 0.56 41 32.9 0.66

Interim Continued Control 24 42.9 0.79 24 35.5 0.71

Control-Treatment 17 43.5 0.76 17 42.8 0.88

Treatment 45 42.9 0.87 45 37.6 0.87

Posttest Continued Control 42 50.1 1.17 42 48.3 1.12

Control-Treatment 30 49.2 1.20 30 49.8 1.20

Treatment 73 46.8 1.12 71 46.2 1.15

Follow-up Continued Control 35 53.0 1.09 29 53.0 1.21

Control-Treatment 37 54.5 1.27 33 63.2 1.39

Treatment 88 54.9 1.35 85 61.2 1.27

Figure 3. Trend by Group in Mean TS Gold Language Score

Second, a more focused strategy for the longitudinal analysis is to examine the change from posttest to 

follow-up only. We can compare changes in TS Gold from posttest to the follow-ups for the randomly 
49

assigned treatment group and the control-treatment and continued-control groups. This strategy has 

the advantage of avoiding two different contrasts, one between the original treatment and control 

groups for pretest to posttest and the other between the three groups for posttest to follow-up. The 

focus on the posttest to follow-up change for the three groups thus both simplifies the analysis as well 

as focuses on the period in which program effects may be observed. 

A repeated-measures, mixed model is well suited for studying group differences in TS Gold change from 

posttest to follow-up. The fixed effects component of the mixed model in which time is nested within 

individual children takes the following form:

Yti = 0 + 1*Ati + 2*CCi + 3*CTi + 4*Ati*CCi + 5*Ati*CTi +  kXkti ,

where Yti refers to the TS Gold score at assessment t for child i, Ati refers to the assessment date, CCi to 

the continued-control group, and CTi to the control-treatment group, and Xk to k control variables. The 

models include a random intercept, and a random slope for the assessment date, which reflects 

variation across children in the growth rate of the outcome. With this specification, the models include 

error terms both within and between individuals, adjust the standard errors for the clustering of 

assessments within individuals, and allow for uneven numbers of assessments across individuals. The 

specific model terms include:

1. Two dummy variables for the control groups (CCi and CTi) and an omitted category for the 

treatment group; the effects 2 and 2 show the differences between the treatment and each of 

the control groups at posttest.

2. A term for the assessment date (Ati), ranging from 0 for the posttest, 1 for 3 months after the 

posttest, 2 for 6 months after the posttest, and so on until 5 for 15 months after the posttest; 

the effect 1 shows the growth in TS Gold scores over time for the omitted treatment group.

3. Two interaction terms for the assessment period times each of the two control-group dummy 

variables (Ati*CCi and Ati*CTi); the effects 4 and 5 show the difference in the growth in the TS 

Gold scores for each control group relative to the treatment group. 

4. Controls include baseline measures that were part of the evaluation design and that were found 

to differ across groups. The first group includes cohort and assessment season in the form of 

dummy variables, and child age at the first assessment. The second group includes the six 

measures identified above as differing across groups.

If the program has effects after posttest, we would predict the following: 1) no differences between the 

groups at posttest (2 =2 = 0), 2) an upward trend in scores for the treatment group after the posttest 

(1 > 0), and 3) weaker upward trends in scores for the two control groups (4 < 0 and 5 <0). 

The model is estimated for four outcomes: 1) the TS Gold interval-level language score, 2) the TS Gold 

interval-level literacy score, 3) the TS Gold ordinal language classification based on grade-based 

expectation (0 = below, 1 = meets, 2= exceeds), and 4) the TS Gold ordinal literacy classification based 

on grade-based expectation (0 = below, 1 = meets, 2= exceeds). The first two scales are not grade 
50

adjusted, but the models control for age at the first assessment and then use the assessment date 

measure to capture improvements in subsequent assessments at older ages and higher grades. 

Assessment date captures the growth in scores as children grow older. The last two ordinal outcomes 

are adjusted directly for grade standards by the teacher ratings, but the control covariates are still used 

for age at first assessment and assessment date. Linear mixed models are used for the interval and 

ordinal outcomes. Tests for the ordinal outcomes using mixed models for ordinal, multinomial, or binary 

logistic regression do not converge.36 Although not ideal, the linear mixed models can provide a useful 

approximation of program effects.

Results

Table 11 presents the basic mixed model coefficients for the TS Gold language and literacy scores. The 

models control for age at first assessment, cohort, and season of assessment (fall, winter, and spring).37 

The sample size of 319 cases for TS Gold language includes 144 subjects and an average of 2.2 

assessments per subject. The additional control variables, which reflect baseline differences across 

groups but have more missing data, will be added subsequently. 

 

36 The below expectations category includes only about 15% of the cases and is perfectly predicted by several of the 

independent variables.

37 Controls for the five preschools in the sample overlap with cohort, have no influence on the TS Gold scores, and are not 

included.
51

Table 11. Repeated-Measures Mixed-Model Estimates for TS Gold Language and Literacy

Scores: Posttest to Follow-up

TS Gold Language Score TS Gold Literacy Score

Predictors b t b t

Intercept 15.08 -17.34

Control Variables

Age at Start 6.9 6.51*** 13.31 6.34***

Cohort 1 (omitted)

Cohort 2 -0.46 -0.2 4.93 1.08

Cohort3 -0.8 -0.38 -2.91 -0.7

Cohort 4 -4.57 -2.26* -10.38 -2.64**

Cohort 5 -2.08 -0.89 0.46 0.1

Fall Assessment (omitted)

Winter Assessment 2.53 3.21** 6.75 4.91***

Spring Assessment 5.68 7.61*** 11.17 8.65***

Program Variables

Treatment (omitted)

Control-Treatment 3.02 1.89 6.18 1.97

Continued Control 2.07 1.44 -0.3 -0.11

Follow-up Assessment 3.19 8.83*** 6.83 10.34***

Follow-up Assessment x

 Control-Treatment -1.32 -2.03* -1.8 -1.45

Follow-up Assessment x

 Continued-Control -1.56 -2.31* -2.52 -1.86

Variance intercept 40.88 6.40*** 168.2 6.89***

Variance Follow-up 1.69 2.62** 6.3 2.70**

 Assessment

N Children 144 142

N Children-Assessments 319 289

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
52

First, the results for the TS Gold language scores confirm the predictions. The coefficients for the 

control-treatment and continued-control groups are not significant (although the control-treatment 

group is marginally significantly higher than the treatment group). This indicates that all three groups 

have similar scores at posttest. The coefficient for the assessment date is positive, indicating that the 

treatment group increases the TS Gold score by 3.19 points every three months. Most importantly, the 

coefficients for both interaction terms are negative and significant, indicating that the increase in the TS 

Gold scores is weaker for each control group relative to the treatment group. The results thus show

similar program impacts for both groups of control participants, those who went on to receive the 

treatment and those who did not. Both groups did significantly worse than the original treatment group.

This can be illustrated by graphing the linear slopes from posttest to the follow-ups for each group. 

Figure 4 depicts the linear change in TS Gold language scores over the full follow-up period. Although 

the groups start from similar points, the treatment group has a greater growth rate than both control 

groups. The faster growth would be expected for the treatment group relative to the continued-control 

group, which may include less motivated parents. More notable is the faster growth for the treatment 

group relative to the control-treatment group. This group of parents shows high motivation in choosing 

to join the program, and thus defines a higher standard of comparison.38 Yet, the treatment group still 

does better in the growth of the TS Gold language scores from posttest to follow-up.

Figure 4. Trend by Group in Predicted TS Gold Language Score

 

38 The control-treatment group parents also enjoy the benefits of participating in the program during the follow-up period. 

Previous findings suggest that these benefits do not emerge immediately, but they may contribute to the high standard of 

comparison.
53

The results for the TS Gold literacy scores reveal less evidence of treatment group benefits. The growth 

rate is higher for the treatment group than both control groups, but neither of the interaction terms 

reaches statistical significance and the differences fall within the range of random error.

Table 12 presents the mixed models with the same set of predictors for the two ordinal outcomes. Given 

the adjustment for grade in the TS Gold measure, the assessment date significantly influences the 

language rating but not the literacy ratings.39 The growth in the language rating for the treatment group 

is significantly greater than that for the continued-control group but not for the control-treatment 

group. The results for the language rating suggest some benefit of late treatment for the original control 

group, and differ somewhat from the previous results for the language scores. For growth in the literacy 

rating, however, neither of the control groups differs significantly from the treatment group.

 

39 The variance of these slopes was not significant, and the models therefore specify random effects only for the intercept.
54

Table 12. Repeated-Measures Mixed-Model Estimates for TS Gold Language and Literacy 

Grade-Based Categories: Posttest to Follow-up

TS Gold Language Category TS Gold Literacy Category

Predictors b t b t

Intercept 0.49 0.63

Control Variables

Age at Start 0.08 1.13 0.06 0.86

Cohort 1 (omitted)

Cohort 2 0.03 0.21 0.23 1.46

Cohort3 -0.25 -1.80 -0.23 -1.58

Cohort 4 -0.22 -1.62 -0.24 -1.74

Cohort 5 -0.25 -1.53 -0.25 -1.46

Fall Assessment (omitted)

Winter Assessment 0.34 4.00*** 0.25 3.13***

Spring Assessment 0.63 7.80*** 0.55 7.44***

Program Variables

Treatment (omitted)

Control-Treatment 0.07 0.63 0.09 0.74

Continued Control -0.01 -0.11 -0.09 -0.89

Follow-up Assessment 0.08 3.25*** 0.01 0.35

Follow-up Assessment x

 Control-Treatment -0.06 -1.39 -0.02 -0.43

Follow-up Assessment x

 Continued-Control -0.11 -2.65** -0.03 -0.59

Variance intercept 0.12 4.23*** 0.16 5.09***

N Children 144 142

N Children-Assessments 319 289

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Influence of Control Variables

The basic results provide some evidence of faster growth in TS Gold language scores after the program 

ends but the evidence is less clear for the TS Gold literacy scores. We checked these results by adding 

controls for baseline measures that differed significantly between groups and adjusting for the varied 
55

number of follow-ups across subjects and groups. We estimated these models for the two interval-scale 

outcome measures of TS Gold language and literacy scores. 

First, the additional control variables substantially reduce the number of cases. The six variables to add 

include parent education, the active reading scale, female child, educational goals for the child, parentrated language awareness, and parent rated writing skills. Reflecting loss of cases for subjects with 

missing pretest data, the sample sizes drop from 319 cases and 144 subjects to 277 cases and 128 

subjects for the TS Gold language score model and from 289 cases and 142 subjects to 259 and 126 for 

the TS Gold literacy score model.

Of the added baseline controls, the parent-rated language awareness scale significantly influences the 

TS Gold literacy scores, but none of the other controls has a significant effect on either outcome. It is 

therefore not surprising that the program effects change little from those presented in Table 11. For the 

TS Gold language score, both control groups grow significantly more slowly than the treatment group, 

while for the TS Gold literacy score, the groups do not differ significantly.

Second, the models also control for the number of assessments and the number of assessments squared 

(to allow for non-linearity), and both significantly influence both outcomes. TS Gold scores increase with 

additional assessments but given the non-linearity, the effects level off at the highest number of 

assessments. Again, however, the different growth rates between groups shown in Table 11 change

little with the controls. The higher growth rate in TS Gold language scores after posttest for the 

treatment group does not disappear.

Models for All Assessments

We checked the results using the full period of assessments, from pretest to the last follow-up. The 

analysis strategy can take two approaches. First, the pretest to posttest period can be treated separately 

from the posttest to follow-up period. This approach assumes that little change in child language and 

literacy can emerge until after the program has been in place for a sufficient amount of time and that 

the pretest to posttest effects will be substantially weaker than the posttest to follow-up effects. The 

models accordingly use separate growth terms for the two periods. The models also include interaction 

terms of the control-treatment and continued-treatment groups times the terms for the early and late 

periods. The results for the TS Gold language scores largely replicate the earlier results. The growth rate 

during the follow-up period is significantly greater for the treatment group than the continued-control 

group (p = .025), and marginally significantly greater for the treatment group than the control-treatment 

group (p = .079). The results for the TS Gold literacy scores also replicate the earlier results, but in this 

case showing no group differences in the follow-up period.

A second approach assumes that the program brings about steady, incremental changes from the very 

start to the end of the follow-up period. This approach uses a single linear growth term covering the full 

assessment period, which reflects continual change from program start to after the program end.

40 The 

 

40 Models with linear and squared terms to capture non-linearity perform significantly worse than the linear models and are not 

presented.
56

results for the TS Gold language scores show that the growth rates do not differ significantly across 

groups. It appears that when averaged across the full period, the program shows little benefits. This 

result contrasts with the previous results, which show no benefits up to the posttest but significant 

benefits afterward. The results for the TS Gold literacy scores likewise differ from the previous results, 

but in a more positive direction. The growth term is significantly greater for the treatment group than 

the continued-control group.

Conclusion

In brief, the Motheread program appears to have a delayed but meaningful effect on one objectively 

and independently rated measure – the TS Gold language score. The child improvements do not show 

up immediately after the program, but it appears that parents continue the Motheread activities and 

that children eventually benefit from the activities. The results for the other TS Gold measures are less 

consistent. The TS Gold language rating relative to grade expectations grew faster for the treatment 

group than the continued-control group but not faster than the control-treatment group. Further, the 

program did not significantly improve growth in the TS Gold literacy scores or ratings. The findings are 

confirmed with additional controls for baseline measures and for number of assessments completed. 

However, models covering the full time period – rather than from posttest through follow-up – produce 

mixed results.

Given mixed findings, we cannot assert with certainty the treatment results are real – they might have 

resulted from selection bias or random error. Yet we can say that some evidence favors the conclusion 

that the treatment leads to real gains in TS Gold language scores. To the extent that the results are 

reliable, it suggests a delayed or cumulative effect of the treatment. Those children in the original 

treatment do not show higher TS Gold language scores right away, but the small initial benefits provide 

a foundation that fosters later gains. The original control group that later received the treatment – and 

was followed for only a short period after treatment – also does not appear to benefit from the program

right away, but they might show gains had they been followed longer.
57

Lessons Learned & Recommendations

Program implementation and evaluation activities during the Social Innovation Fund implementation 

and impact study yielded important lessons for the research team which are outlined below. Along with 

each challenge, we note recommendations for future work.

RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES

Recruitment of families to participate in the study was the most significant challenge faced by the 

research team. Despite calculating conservative recruitment numbers in collaboration with research site 

partners based on the population in Morgan County, CO where the study was conducted, recruitment 

was lower than anticipated for each cohort of the study. Midway through the study a revised power 

analysis was conducted, based on preliminary findings, that determined that a minimum sample size of 

128 would be necessary to detect significant results. The research team worked in close collaboration 

with Mile High United Way, Colorado Humanities and Morgan County Early Childhood Council to 

determine appropriate steps to recruit a sufficient sample size to complete the study. Efforts included: 

▪ Leveraging additional parent forums/events (e.g., back to school night) to talk about the program 

and start recruitment early for the next cohort.

▪ Enlisting parents who had already participated in the program to talk with their friends and peers 

about the benefits of participation in the study. This effort included having parents who had 

participated in the study call a list of parents who had signed up for demonstration sessions, but 

who did not attend, to discuss participation. Parents making the calls were incentivized for their 

time with $15 gas gift cards. 

▪ Offering the opportunity for parents to take the class in a different community or on a different day 

than the session being offered at the child’s preschool site. 

▪ Enrolling an additional preschool site for Cohort 5 of the study to increase enrollment numbers. 

▪ Employing standard marketing techniques, including billboards, radio and print advertising to 

increase participation. 

Ultimately 148 participants were recruited for the study, which exceeded the 128 minimum sample size 

determined by the power analysis. Nonetheless, the sample size was smaller than hoped. In future 

studies, it may be helpful to offer the class during a day time and/or weekend timeslot and to identify 

other creative ways to motivate busy families to attend. 

CONDUCTING RIGOROUS RESEARCH IN AN APPLIED SETTING

The nature of the randomized controlled design of the study necessitated that some participants wait to 

be enrolled in the Motheread/Fatheread program. Although, from a methodological perspective, this 

was the design with the most rigorous test of the impact of the program, it was difficult for the research 
58

site coordinators to have to communicate to individuals in their community that they could not 

participate in the program right away. The research team worked closely with the research site team to 

devise strategies to minimize disappointment. For example, random assignment was conducted by the 

research team and communicated directly from the research team to participants in order to take 

research site partners out of the “middle” in terms of group assignment communication. The research 

team also worked to make communication about random assignment accessible to members of the 

community who did not have a research background, for example, but explaining random assignment as 

analogous to “flipping a coin.” Being intentional about straightforward communication using language 

that non-researchers could understand helped mitigate concerns around random assignment. The 

research team recommends in person meetings as much as possible to allow for direct contact with 

potential participants and explaining research in terms that non-researchers can easily understand. 

CREATE MORE INTENTIONAL “CLOSINGS” OF THE MOTHEREAD CLASS

Observations from MFC coaches and researchers revealed that often the closing section of the MFC 

class was abrupt. MFC coaches noted that program may benefit from adjusting the format of the 

sessions to maximize opportunities to practice and develop skills learned in class and allow time for 

reflection and discussion that connects the stories and the skills practiced to their lives. This could 

include structuring a more formal class closing/session ending, allotting time to work with Story 

Extenders during class, and allowing time to practice skills that parents may feel more vulnerable or 

uncomfortable with, such as reading aloud or acting out sections of a story so they have more 

confidence employing these techniques at home.

LONGITUDINAL TS GOLD COLLECTION EXTENSION 

The results of the study revealed a delayed but potentially meaningful impact of the program on 

children’s TS Gold scores. Unfortunately, the study design, small sample size and missing data limited 

the ability to draw strong conclusions from the findings. Furthermore, TS Gold data were available at 

most 15 months from participants’ entry into the study. A replication study should consider a longer 

period to test program impact and additional resources to increase the sample pool.
59

Considerations and Limitations 

There are several considerations to keep in mind when interpreting the results of this impact study. 

First, the study design included child literacy outcomes as measured by both teacher and parent 

assessments of child literacy and language skills. However, findings were mixed. At posttest, parents in 

the intervention group reported better literacy outcomes for their children than parents in the control 

condition, whereas the teacher report measures were not significantly different between intervention 

and control children until later in the follow-up period. Because a double-blind methodology was not 

possible (i.e., we could not blind parents to participation in the literacy intervention), it is possible that 

parents in the intervention group expected their children to do better than parents in the control group 

and that findings were a result of a reporting bias (an ‘expectancy effect’) rather than true change in 

children’s skills. However, it is also possible that parents in the intervention group had higher standards 

when assessing child literacy skills as a result of their increased education surrounding literacy. That is, 

the more that parents read with their children and their children’s skills improved, the more parents 

developed a high standard for children’s literary competency. With this rationale, it is possible that the 

true difference between the intervention and control groups in literacy skills is even greater than what 

was reported. Unfortunately, we do not have the appropriate data to further assess these possibilities 

and acknowledge that definitive conclusions of program impact as assessed by parent reports of child 

behaviors are limited. 

Second, parent reports of their own reading behavior are also subject to bias. Parents in the 

intervention group may have overstated their reading behaviors or the ‘novelty’ or newness of the 

program, rather than the intervention itself, may have accounted for the change in parents reports of 

how they read to their children. Although parent behaviors were not measured longitudinally after 

participation in the intervention, longitudinal findings from the TS Gold suggests that parent 

participation in the MFC program has long term effects on child literacy outcomes. As such, these data 

also suggest it is likely that parent behavior change is not just short term, but rather sustained beyond 

the course of the program. 

Third, the study was conducted in a single county in rural Colorado. The rigorous design supported 

detection of a moderate, rather than high, level of evidence per CNCS guidelines. As such, results of the 

current study are not generalizable beyond the community in which the study was conducted. We do 

not have reason to expect that findings would differ in other communities, but studies in additional 

settings are necessary to increase confidence that the program is effective across settings and 

populations.

Finally, recruitment challenges led to a smaller sample size than expected for this study and limited the 

statistical power necessary to conduct some of the planned statistical analyses. The limited sample size 

may also have limited our ability to detect statistically significant effects of the program. 
60

Next Steps

To our knowledge, MFC is the only program in Colorado that trains educators to work with parents to 

increase parents’ engagement in their young children’s literary education. Colorado Humanities plans to 

continue to scale up implementation of the MFC program in Colorado to the school district and 

community-wide level. Thus far, Colorado Humanities has had success with program scaling efforts in 

two counties in Colorado. As part of their scaling efforts, Colorado Humanities also plans to build in 

more support for MFC program infrastructure, including fundraising for trainings, providing direct 

support for implementation costs, Motheread Coach trainings, and evaluation. Furthermore, Colorado 

Humanities plans to develop strategies for continuing to collect impact data from partners implementing 

the MFC program.

Should funding be available, future studies of the MFC program will seek to expand on the 

generalizability and longitudinal effects of findings from the current impact study. Generalizability will 

be addressed by expanding the subject population to broader and more diverse participant pools. 

Longevity of the impact of the program will be addressed by lengthening the timeline in which outcomes 

for both parents and children are tracked after parent completion of the MFC program. Specifically, 

assessing children’s academic achievement through third grade would be important for determining 

long term effects of the program on children’s third-grade reading proficiency. Because of the promising 

findings from this study, future reports would likely target a high level of evidence for the MFC program. 
61

Study Administration

HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTECTION

IRB approval for the study was granted in December 2013. Approval for continuing review was granted 

in September 2016. There have been no issues with securing or maintaining IRB approval. Data analysis 

and reporting will be complete by June 2017 and the research team does not plan to apply for annual 

continuing IRB approval in 2017. 

TIMELINE

Data collection was completed on time. The final report of the study is being delivered as scheduled in 

March 2017. 

EVALUATION BUDGET

Proposed and actual budgets for the evaluation are included in the table below. Although actual budgets 

were somewhat reduced due to a reduction in funding, the evaluation team was able to complete all 

core components of the evaluation without compromising study rigor by streamlining evaluation 

processes during the early years of the project. 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Proposed Budget $112,817 $118, 683 $118,683 $95,077

Actual Budget $100,125 $97,000 $89,892 $90, 025

EVALUATOR /SUBGRANTEE ROLE AND INVOLVEMENT

OMNI Institute supported the research for this study. Dr. Melissa Richmond directed the study and Dr. 

Holen Hirsh led the study. Dr. Fred Pampel was the statistical consultant on the project. 
62

Appendix A

Table A.1. Parent Race

All Intervention Control

Parent Race N % N % N %

White/Caucasian 106 74% 54 74% 52 74%

Black/African American 5 3% 2 3% 3 4%

Asian 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

American Indian or Alaska Native 2 1% 2 3% 0 0%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Multiracial 5 3% 1 1% 4 6%

Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other 25 17% 14 19% 11 16%

Sum 143 100% 73 100% 70 100%

Missing 5 2 3

Table A.2. Parent Ethnicity

All Intervention Control

Parent Identifies as Hispanic/Latino N % N % N %

Yes 60 42% 33 45% 27 38%

No 84 58% 40 55% 44 62%

Sum 144 100% 73 100% 71 100%

Missing 4 2 2

Table A.3. Family Language Spoken at Home

All Intervention Control

Language Spoken at Home N % N % N %

English 111 75% 54 72% 57 78%

Spanish 33 22% 20 27% 13 18%

Other 4 3% 1 1% 3 4%

Sum 148 100% 75 100% 73 100%

Missing 0 0 0
63

Table A.4. Parent Education Status

All Intervention Control

Parent Education Status N % N % N %

No schooling completed 4 3% 2 3% 2 3%

Some school (but less than high school) 1 1% 0 0% 1 1%

High school graduate/GED 44 32% 19 28% 25 37%

Some college or technical school 49 36% 26 38% 23 34%

College degree 27 20% 13 19% 14 21%

Post college degree 11 8% 8 12% 3 4%

Sum 136 100% 68 100% 68 100%

Missing 12 7 5

Table A.5. Number of Children in Household

All Intervention Control

# of Children in Household N % N % N %

1 31 21% 10 13% 21 30%

2 58 40% 31 41% 27 38%

3 37 25% 26 35% 11 15%

4 13 9% 5 7% 8 11%

5 or more 7 5% 3 4% 4 6%

Sum 146 100% 75 100% 71 100%

Missing 2 0 2

Table A.6. Annual Household Income

All Intervention Control

Household Income (n=125)

Mean $43,810 $43,474 $44,163

Median $36,000 $36,000 $36,000

Min $750 $750 $6,000

Max $160,000 $160,000 $104,000
64

Table A.7. Family Free and Reduced Lunch Status

All Intervention Control

FRL Status N % N % N %

No, we do not qualify 42 34% 22 34% 20 33%

Reduced-price lunch 14 11% 7 11% 7 12%

Free lunch 68 55% 35 55% 33 55%

Sum 124 100% 64 100% 60 100%

Missing 24 11 13

Table A.8. Child Race

All Intervention Control

Child Race N % N % N %

White/Caucasian 100 70% 49 68% 51 72%

Black/African American 4 3% 1 1% 3 4%

Asian 2 1% 1 1% 1 1%

American Indian or Alaska Native 2 1% 2 3% 0 0%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Multiracial 9 6% 6 8% 3 4%

Unknown 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other 26 18% 13 18% 13 18%

Sum 143 100% 72 100% 71 100%

Missing 5 3 2

Table A.9. Child Ethnicity

All Intervention Control

Child Identifies as Hispanic/Latino N % N % N %

Yes 66 52% 37 55% 29 48%

No 62 48% 30 45% 32 52%

Sum 128 100% 67 100% 61 100%

Missing 20 8 12
65

Table A.10. Hopes for Child Longevity in Formal Schooling

All Intervention Control

N % N % N %

How far do you want your child to 

go in formal schooling?

Finish Elementary School 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Finish Middle School 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Finish High School 2 1% 2 3% 0 0%

Attend Trade School 1 1% 1 1% 0 0%

Attend College or University 8 6% 4 5% 4 6%

Finish College or University 132 92% 67 91% 65 94%

Sum 143 100% 74 100% 69 100%

Missing 5 1 4

Table A.11. Expectations for Child Longevity in Formal Schooling

All Intervention Control

How far do you think your child to go in 

formal schooling?

Finish Elementary School 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Finish Middle School 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Finish High School 6 4% 4 5% 2 3%

Attend Trade School 4 3% 3 4% 1 1%

Attend College or University 18 13% 9 12% 9 13%

Finish College or University 114 80% 58 78% 56 82%

Sum 142 100% 74 100% 68 100%

Missing 6 1 5