Katlynn Dahl-Leonard

Dr. Katlynn Dahl-Leonard

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
13 September 2022 in Reading Research Quarterly
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CHColby Hall
Colby Hall
KDKatlynn Dahl-Leonard
Katlynn Dahl-Leonard
ECEunsoo Cho
Eunsoo Cho
ESEmily J. Solari
Emily J. Solari
PCPhilip Capin
Philip Capin
KKKaren F. Kehoe
Karen F. Kehoe
This meta‐analysis included experimental or quasi‐experimental intervention studies conducted between 1980 and 2020 that aimed to improve reading outcomes for Grade K‐5 students with or at risk for dyslexia (i.e., students with or at risk for word reading difficulties, defined as scoring at or below norm‐referenced screening or mean baseline performance thresholds articulated in our inclusion criteria). In all, 53 studies reported in 52 publications met inclusion criteria (m = 351; total student N = 6,053). We employed robust variance estimation to address dependent effect sizes arising from multiple outcomes and comparisons within studies. Results indicated a statistically significant main effect of instruction on norm‐referenced reading outcomes (g = 0.33; p < .001). Because there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies (p < .01), we used meta‐regression to identify the degree to which student characteristics (i.e., grade level), intervention characteristics (i.e., dosage, instructional components, multisensory nature, instructional group size), reading outcome domain (i.e., phonological awareness, word reading/spelling, passage reading, or reading comprehension), or research methods (i.e., sample size, study design) influenced intervention effects. Dosage and reading outcome domain were the only variables that significantly moderated intervention effects (p = .040 and p = .024, respectively), with higher dosage studies associated with larger effects (b = 0.002) and reading comprehension outcomes associated with smaller effects than word reading/spelling outcomes (b = −0.080).

18 March 2024 in Educational Technology Research and Development
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KDKatlynn Dahl-Leonard
Katlynn Dahl-Leonard
CHColby Hall
Colby Hall
DPDelanie Peacott
Delanie Peacott
Technology to support student learning has become increasingly prevalent in schools and homes during the last few decades. Several recent reviews have examined aspects of technology-based literacy instruction, but they have not focused on the full array of literacy skills that can be addressed during technology-delivered instruction for elementary students, nor have they utilized meta-analytic methods to rigorously examine effects of such instruction. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to describe and evaluate recent research on technology-delivered literacy instruction for students in Grades K-5. A total of 53 experimental or quasi-experimental studies were analyzed. Results demonstrated a statistically significant main effect of instruction on norm- or criterion-referenced literacy outcomes (g = 0.24, p < .001), indicating that elementary students are likely to benefit from technology-delivered literacy instruction. Although the effects of several moderator variables representing study, participant, instruction, and outcome characteristics were explored, analyses revealed no statistically significant moderators of effects of instruction. Overall, findings indicate that further research on technology-based literacy instruction is needed to determine what works for whom and under what conditions.

25 January 2025 in Educational Psychology Review
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KDKatlynn Dahl-Leonard
Katlynn Dahl-Leonard
CHColby Hall
Colby Hall
ECEunsoo Cho
Eunsoo Cho
PCPhilip Capin
Philip Capin
GRGarrett J. Roberts
Garrett J. Roberts
ADAlisha Demchak
Alisha Demchak
There is considerable research evaluating the effects of family members implementing shared book reading interventions, especially during early childhood. However, less is known about the effects of family members providing instruction to help their school-aged children develop literacy skills, including both code-focused and meaning-focused skills that facilitate reading comprehension. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to describe and evaluate recent research examining the effects of at-home, family-implemented literacy interventions for school-aged children. A total of 25 interventions across 22 studies (12 with group designs and 10 with single-case experimental designs) were analyzed. The average effect on combined literacy outcomes was estimated as g = 0.36 (p < .01; Q = 191.83; I 2 = 36.17) for group design studies and g = 1.50 (p < .01; Q = 114.58; I 2 = 38.58) for single-case experimental design studies. Notably, for group design studies, effects varied by literacy outcome type. The mean effect for code-focused outcomes (i.e., PA, decoding/word reading, spelling, text reading) was g = 0.28 (p < .01) and the mean effect for meaning-focused outcomes (i.e., vocabulary, listening comprehension, reading comprehension) was g = 0.41 (p < .01). Overall, these findings support the implementation of family-delivered literacy interventions to improve literacy outcomes for school-aged children. At the same time, this meta-analysis revealed the paucity of research examining the effects of family-implemented literacy interventions, especially for older children, indicating a need for more research on this topic.

2 June 2023 in Reading and Writing
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CHColby Hall
Colby Hall
ESEmily J. Solari
Emily J. Solari
LHLatisha Hayes
Latisha Hayes
KDKatlynn Dahl-Leonard
Katlynn Dahl-Leonard
JDJamie DeCoster
Jamie DeCoster
IVIsabel Vargas
Isabel Vargas

27 June 2021 in Exceptionality
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
CHColby Hall
Colby Hall
KDKatlynn Dahl-Leonard
Katlynn Dahl-Leonard
GCGrace Cannon
Grace Cannon
This exploratory study examined the nature of instruction provided in two reading intervention programs designed for elementary-grade students with dyslexia (The Multisensory Teaching Approach and Reading RULES!). In addition to documenting the proportion of time dedicated to particular content components (i.e., letter-name knowledge, phonological awareness, phonics/decoding, encoding, sight word recognition, passage reading/fluency, comprehension, vocabulary), the research team also documented the degree to which instruction (a) included teacher explanation/modeling, guided practice, group practice, and individual practice, (b) addressed particular types of decoding/encoding procedures, including multi-sensory (defined as tactile/kinesthetic) procedures and use of orthographic rules, and (c) made use of given instructional materials. The team conducted 12, ~45-minute observations. There were many similarities between the two programs (e.g., both were explicit, systematic, and sequential; both included curriculum-based measures of student learning that informed instruction; both dedicated approximately equal amounts of time to decoding and encoding instruction). However, our observations indicated a statistically significant difference between the programs (p < .002) in proportion of time dedicated to letter-name knowledge, text reading, and comprehension instruction. The programs also differed in their emphasis on articulating/applying orthographic rules and on particular procedures for decoding and encoding words.

23 October 2024 in Scientific Studies of Reading
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PCPhilip Capin
Philip Capin
KDKatlynn Dahl-Leonard
Katlynn Dahl-Leonard
CHColby Hall
Colby Hall
NYNa Young Yoon
Na Young Yoon
ECEunsoo Cho
Eunsoo Cho
SVSharon Vaughn
Sharon Vaughn