Abstract
Background:
Reach Out and Read (ROR) is a multi-component pediatric literacy promotion intervention. However, few studies link ROR components to outcomes. We examine associations between receipt of (1) multiple ROR components and (2) clinician modeling, a potential best practice, with enhanced home literacy environments (EHLEs) among Latino families.
Methods:
We conducted secondary analyses of cross-sectional enrollment data from a randomized clinical trial at three urban community health centers between November 2020 and June 2023. Latino parents with infants 6-<9 months old were surveyed about ROR component receipt (children’s book, anticipatory guidance, modeling) and EHLE (StimQ2- Infant Read Scale). We used mixed models with clinician as a random effect, adjusting for covariates.
Results:
440 Latino parent-infant dyads were included. With no components as the reference category, receipt of 1 component was not associated with EHLE. Receipt of 2 components (standardized beta=0.27; 95%CI: 0.12-0.42) and 3 components (standardized beta=0.33; 95% CI: 0.19-0.47) were associated with EHLE. In separate analyses, modeling was associated with EHLE (standardized beta=0.16; 95%CI: 0.06-0.26).
Conclusion:
Findings support modeling as a core ROR component. Programs seeking to enhance equity by promoting EHLE should utilize such strategies as anticipatory guidance and clinician modeling in addition to book distribution.
Introduction
Primary care is an ideal platform to address poverty-related inequities in early language experiences.1 Primary care professionals have near-universal access to children, frequent visits with families, and an opportunity to build trusted relationships with parents to promote optimal child development.1,2 Reach Out and Read (ROR) is an evidence-based early childhood intervention that has capitalized on this opportunity to promote equity in children’s early language experiences at scale by encouraging parent-child shared reading.3 Several efficacy studies demonstrate that ROR increases shared reading and enhances child language outcomes.4-6
The ROR model, according to the national center training, includes providing families with anticipatory guidance, clinician modeling, a new children’s book, and a literacy-rich clinical environment; ROR is delivered to children ages 6 months to 5 years.7 Currently, there is a paucity of research that examines these individual ROR components and empirical evidence linking components to outcomes in general. Differentiating these elements can aid in understanding which components need to be implemented with high fidelity and which components can be tailored based on context.8 Furthermore, building this evidence base could help identify which ROR components are core to the model, facilitate measurement of ROR implementation, and inform healthcare improvement efforts that can amplify ROR’s impact without stifling innovation.8 Such work could also inform the planning and implementation of literacy promotion programs in other settings.
To date, the existing literature suggests that there is variation in ROR component implementation.9,10 Previous work suggests that while anticipatory guidance and children’s books are delivered consistently, modeling is a specific area of variation.11-14, 15 Our team’s scoping review found that only 30% of research articles included modeling when describing ROR implementation.12 This is notable since clinician modeling is considered to be a ROR best practice and an efficient way to teach parents how to read with their children.16 Past work offers insight into how clinician modeling could potentially help encourage shared reading particularly among Latino families and thus be considered a core ROR component. First, Latino parents are more likely to have heard advice to read with their children, but are less likely to engage in this activity compared to other groups, suggesting anticipatory guidance alone may be insufficient.17 Second, qualitative work with Latino families suggests that some may perceive reading as drills rather than a joyful, interactive experience, as promoted by ROR; thus clinician modeling could be a useful strategy to bring these perspectives into alignment.18 Third, prior studies have found that literacy promotion that includes observation of parent-child reading and feedback enhances parents’ recall of anticipatory guidance on shared reading and increases overall reading activities, further suggesting the need for other activities to reinforce anticipatory guidance.15,19 Combined, these findings suggest an important role for clinician modeling in ROR implementation, but the extent to which modeling affects parenting and child outcomes remains understudied.
To address these gaps, we examined the extent to which (1) receipt of multiple ROR components and (2) clinician modeling, a potential ROR best practice, are associated with enhanced home literacy environments among Latino families. As part of a planned process evaluation, we used enrollment data from an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type I randomized clinical trial among Latino families from under-resourced communities to test the hypotheses that (1) more components and (2) the presence of clinician modeling would enhance the home literacy environment. Findings could help define ROR’s core components and in turn have the potential to inform clinician training and health care improvement efforts that seek to promote equity in children’s early language experiences at scale in primary care through ROR.
Methods
Study Design and Setting
We analyzed enrollment survey data from an ongoing effectiveness-implementation hybrid type I randomized clinical trial (Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT04609553) in three urban community health centers (CHCs) in central New Jersey that serve Latino families from under-resourced communities. Reach Out and Read is a standard of care for pediatric well visits from 6 months to 5 years. Data were collected between November 2020 and June 2023. This study was approved by the Rutgers Institutional Review Board and all participants provided informed consent. We followed STROBE Reporting Guidelines.
Participants and Data Collection
Trained bilingual research assistants administered a 60-minute survey to parents during the enrollment visit. Parents/caregivers were eligible if they were over 18 years old, identified as Latino, spoke English or Spanish as their primary language, had a child between the ages of 6 and 12 months old, and received regular pediatric care at one of the CHCs. They were ineligible if their child had been diagnosed with multiple congenital anomalies or genetic disorders or had any previously identified developmental disabilities or if they planned to discontinue care at the CHC. For this study, we limited the sample to parent-child dyads in which children were 6-<9 months old, as this age group would be experiencing their first ROR encounter at the 6-month well visit. On average, parent surveys occurred approximately one week after the ROR visit.
Dependent variable
StimQ220
is a validated, parent-report measure of the cognitive home environment. We used the Infant Read subscale to represent the home literacy environment, including three components on the quantity, diversity, and quality of book reading between parent and infants. Scores on the infant Read subscale range from 0 to 15. The StimQ is available in English and Spanish and has high internal consistency (α=0.86–0.93), high test-retest reliability, and is significantly associated with cognition, language, and social-emotional outcomes at 36 months. The StimQ was recently updated (StimQ2) to enhance ease of use and allow for utilization of individual components within each scale, which we used here.
Independent variables
ROR components:
We asked parents if they received the following ROR components at their last visit: (1) a children’s book, (2) anticipatory guidance about reading, (3) clinician modeling of reading, and (4) exposure to a literacy-rich clinic environment. Due to COVID-19 precautions, all CHCs placed restrictions on literacy rich activities, like having readers and books in waiting rooms, during the study period, and as a result we omitted this component.
Covariates
We selected the following covariates a priori:
US nativity:
We created a binary variable based on responses to a question on parent country of birth and categorized responses as born in the U.S. or not.
English proficiency:
Modeled on the census question, we asked parents to self-rate how well they speak English (very well, well, not well, not at all) and categorized responses of less than “very well” as limited English proficiency.21
Parental education:
We categorized education as a binary variable (high school degree/equivalent or higher versus less than high school degree).
Number of Other Children in the Home:
We asked parents how many other children resided in their home and created a binary variable of 0-2 children versus 3 or more.
CHC:
We included the CHC where parent-infant dyads received care as a categorical variable.
Analysis
We summarized sample characteristics using descriptive statistics. We tested the extent to which the number of ROR components received had differing effects on the home literacy environment. We used mixed models by receipt of one, two, and three ROR components with no components as the reference category with clinician as a random effect. We ran unadjusted and adjusted analyses, for which we included the covariates described above. We also used mixed models to examine associations between the presence of modeling and StimQ2 Infant Read total scores. We used standardized parameter estimates to allow comparison across models and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. We divided the regression coefficient by the estimated residual variance of the outcome to calculate the standardized parameter estimate. Lastly, we tested the extent to which (1) the number of components received and (2) the presence of modeling had differing effects on the subdomains of the StimQ2, quantity, diversity, and quality of book reading at home between parent and child. We performed all statistical analyses, using a significance level of 0.05, and SAS desktop version 9.4 (©SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Results
Of the enrolled sample of 630 dyads, the analytic sample included 440 Latino parent-infant dyads with children aged 6-<9 months. The mean child age was 7 months. On average, parents were 31 years old, 87.0% reported limited English proficiency, and 72.3% ≤ high school diploma (Table 1).
Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics of Respondent (Caregiver) and Child (N=440)a
| Caregiver’s mean age, years | 31 |
| Caregiver’s sex | |
| Male | 9 (2.0%) |
| Female | 431 (98.0%) |
| Caregiver born in US | |
| Yes | 45 (10.2%) |
| No | 395 (89.7%) |
| Caregiver’s country of origin | |
| Mexico | 148 (33.6%) |
| Dominican Republic | 96 (21.8%) |
| Honduras | 68 (15.5%) |
| Otherb | 128 (29.1%) |
| Caregiver’s English language proficiency | |
| Speaks very well | 57 (13.0%) |
| Speaks well | 71 (16.1%) |
| Speaks not well | 152 (34.6%) |
| Speaks not at all | 158 (35.9%) |
| Missing | 2 (0.5%) |
| Caregiver’s highest level of education | |
| Less than high school | 67 (15.2%) |
| Some high school | 72 (16.4%) |
| High school graduate | 179 (40.7%) |
| Some college | 51 (11.6%) |
| College graduate | 62 (14.1%) |
| Post-college degree | 8 (1.8%) |
| Refused | 1 (0.2%) |
| Child’s mean age, months | 7 |
| Child’s sex | |
| Male | 223 (50.7%) |
| Female | 217 (49.3%) |
Data rounded to one decimal place
Puerto Rico, Argentina, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, United States, Uruguay, Spain, Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil
ROR components received
23.6 percent of parents reported receiving no ROR components at their last visit, 25.1% reported receiving 1 component, 35% reported receiving 2 components, and 15.9% reported receiving 3 components. The different combinations of ROR components received are summarized in Table 2. Among the 110 participants who received only one component, 79 received only a book and 31 received only anticipatory guidance. Among the 74 cases in which modeling occurred, it occurred with anticipatory guidance in 4 cases and with anticipatory guidance and the children’s book in 70 cases. There were no cases where modeling occurred alone.
Table 2.
Caregiver Report of Reach Out and Read Components Received at Last Clinic Visit (N = 440)
| Number of components |
Component(s) | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | None | 104 (23.6%) |
| 1 | Book | 79 (18.0%) |
| Anticipatory guidance | 31 (7.1%) | |
| 2 | Book & Anticipatory guidance | 150 (34.1%) |
| Anticipatory guidance & Modeling | 4 (0.9%) | |
| 3 | Book, Anticipatory guidance, & Modeling | 70 (15.9%) |
Number of components and home literacy environment
When examining associations between the number of reported ROR components and StimQ2 scores, in the unadjusted model, the association followed a dose response pattern (Table 3). That is, for each additional component, the magnitude and the strength of the association increased. Receipt of three components had the largest estimate (standardized coefficient= 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.38), which represented the addition of modeling since modeling overwhelmingly occurred with the two other components. We did not find a significant association for one component, which was most commonly receiving a children’s book. Adjusting for potential confounders minimally affected these estimates. We found a similar pattern for the StimQ2 quantity, quality, and diversity subdomains, except that one ROR component was associated with Reading Quality (standardized coefficient= 0.17, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.30) in the adjusted model (eTable 1 in the Supplement).
Table 3.
Estimated Coefficients from Unadjusted and Adjusted Mixed Models of StimQ Reading Score by Parent-Report of Number of Reach Out and Read Components Received (N=440)
| Unadjusted | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value |
| Reach Out and Read component | |||
| (None) | |||
| One | 0.06 | −0.07 to 0.18 | 0.36 |
| Two | 0.20 | 0.07 to 0.33 | 0.003 |
| Three | 0.26 | 0.14 to 0.38 | <0.0001 |
| Adjusteda | |||
| Variable | Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value |
| Reach Out and Read component | |||
| (None) | |||
| One | 0.12 | −0.02 to 0.26 | 0.09 |
| Two | 0.27 | 0.12 to 0.42 | 0.0005 |
| Three | 0.33 | 0.19 to 0.47 | <0.0001 |
Adjusted for: clinic, education, English language proficiency, number of children at home, parent born in US. Clinician is treated as a random effect in the mixed model.
Presence of modeling and the home literacy environment
Standardized coefficient estimates for mixed models examining the association between presence of modeling and StimQ2 Infant Read total scores are presented in Table 4. In the unadjusted analysis, the presence of modeling during ROR implementation was associated with higher total scores on the StimQ2 Infant Read scale (standardized coefficient= 0.16; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.26). Adjusting for potential confounders did not substantively change this estimate. Presence of modeling was associated with higher scores on the StimQ2 quantity (standardized coefficient=0.14; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.24), diversity (standardized coefficient=0.13; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.23), and quality (standardized coefficient=0.16; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.27) components (eTable 2 in the Supplement). As before, adjusting for potential confounders minimally affected the estimates.
Table 4.
Estimated Coefficients from Unadjusted and Adjusted Mixed Models of StimQ Reading Score by Parent-Reported Receipt of Modeling During Reach Out and Read Delivery (N = 440)
| Unadjusted | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value |
| Modeling | |||
| (None) | |||
| Occurred | 0.16 | 0.06 to 0.26 | 0.002 |
| Adjusteda | |||
| Variable | Coefficient | 95% Confidence Interval | p-value |
| Modeling | |||
| (None) | |||
| Occurred | 0.16 | 0.06 to 0.26 | 0.003 |
Adjusted for: clinic, education, English language proficiency, number of children at home, parent born in US. Clinician is treated as a random effect in the mixed model.
Discussion
In this study, a higher number of ROR components and clinician modeling of shared reading specifically were associated with enhanced home literacy environments including quantity, diversity, and quality of parent-infant shared reading. These findings point to the added value of multiple ROR components in enriching Latino children’s early language experiences and suggest that clinician modeling makes an important contribution. Given ROR’s impact and scale, policymakers and clinicians can use these findings to inform training and healthcare improvement efforts that seek to promote equity in children’s early language experiences in primary care, particularly for Latino families from under-resourced communities.
While several studies document ROR’s impact on parenting and child development, far fewer studies have examined ROR implementation and how ROR implementation affects outcomes.9-12 The findings from this study help to begin to address these important knowledge gaps. To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify an association between a higher number of ROR components received and enhanced home literacy environments, including the quantity, diversity, and quality of the experiences, and to document the specific contribution of clinician modeling. In the adjusted models, the coefficients for total StimQ score were 0.27 and 0.33 for two components and three components respectively, and 0.16 for the presence of modeling specifically. In interpreting the effect sizes, which are comparable to other early childhood interventions including some that are more intensive, it is important to consider developmental stage and intervention reach. Given the neuroplasticity during infancy and the national scale of ROR, effects of this magnitude have the potential for high impact. These findings have implications for ROR and other literacy promotion programs more generally. For example, previous work found that Latino families appreciated the gift of the ROR book during preventive visits and highlighted the potential for the gift of a children’s book to help strengthen the parent-clinician relationship.22,23 This study points to an added value of other ROR components (i.e., anticipatory guidance, clinician modeling) that can enhance early home language experiences above and beyond giving a book alone. Other literacy promotion programs that rely solely on book-giving may consider adding anticipatory guidance on shared reading and modeling to maximize impact. Consideration should also be given to partnerships between programs focusing on distributing books with ROR to offer these additional components. Future research should also examine to what extent anticipatory guidance and modeling of shared reading can strengthen parent-clinician relationships beyond giving a children’s book alone.
The current study provides needed evidence that supports clinician modeling as a core component of literacy promotion. A key tenet of implementation science is to distinguish between the core elements of interventions that are critical for effects on outcomes and those components that lend themselves to the adaptable periphery and are not absolutely necessary.24 Balance is needed since omission of core elements could dilute intervention effects, but overspecification of the model could diminish the flexibility needed for scale, cultural adaptations, and innovation,8 which have been distinguishing features of the ROR program. Findings in this study suggest that as clinicians and policymakers continue efforts to encourage high quality implementation of literacy promotion, clinician modeling of shared reading should be emphasized in measurement, trainings, and healthcare improvement initiatives. Future work using observation exemplified in work by Needlman and colleagues 15 is also needed to clarify how clinician modeling and other components are implemented (e.g., brief versus comprehensive) and to what degree different approaches to implementation might also affect outcomes. Our findings also underscore the need for work at the systems level that include innovations in visit structure and organization, as well as reimbursement to overcome barriers (e.g., limited visit time) and support full implementation of literacy promotion.
This study is subject to certain limitations. First, we relied on parent reports, which can be subject to recall and social desirability bias. We used a validated measure of the home literacy environment (i.e., StimQ220) to help address this potential source of bias. Still, we cannot exclude the possibility that parents who recall having experienced more components may be more likely to report richer reading experiences at home. Thus, parental predisposition to be interested in literacy or reading aloud could be a confounding factor. Along these lines, for these analyses, we focused on associations between the presence of components and home literacy environments. While this is an important step, future work using observation and direct assessments would be useful to confirm what components were received and assess to what extent variations in the content and quality of component implementation affect parenting and child outcomes as noted above. Second, we focused on Latino families so our findings may not generalize to all settings. However, Latino families engage in shared reading less often than other groups,18,25 face pervasive inequities in school readiness and overall wellbeing,26 and are too often underrepresented in research, serving as motivation for our focus on Latino families in the current study. This work highlights the importance of multiple components and clinician modeling during literacy promotion for Latino families and can serve as a foundation for additional research with other groups. Third, this was a cross-sectional analysis, limiting our ability to draw causal inference. Fourth, this study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic when safety precautions restricted literacy-rich clinic environments like the availability of readers in waiting areas. Future work should examine the extent to which modeling by individuals other than clinicians can enhance home literacy environments as well as the relative effects of modeling by clinicians versus others.
Conclusion
The current study provides empirical evidence linking multiple ROR components, and clinician modeling in particular, to enhanced home literacy environments. Clinicians and policymakers can use these findings to enhance implementation of primary care literacy promotion and inform training and healthcare improvement efforts that seek to promote equity in children’s early language experiences through ROR and other literacy promotion interventions. This study also opens the door for additional work that further defines the core components of literacy promotion to amplify impact and foster innovation.
Supplementary Material
Impact Statement:
Reach Out and Read, a multi-component literacy promotion intervention, leverages primary care to promote equity in children’s early language experiences. However, few studies link Reach Out and Read components to outcomes. Among Latino parent-infant dyads, we found that implementation of two and three Reach Out and Read literacy promotion intervention components, compared to none, was associated with enhanced home literacy environments, following a dose response pattern.
We also found that the presence of clinician modeling was associated with enhanced home literacy environments.
Literacy promotion programs seeking to enhance equity by promoting enhanced home literacy environments should utilize strategies in addition to book distribution, including anticipatory guidance and modeling, to maximize impact.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the families and clinicians who participated in the study, and Nikki Shearman, PhD, for her helpful comments on a draft of this manuscript.
Funding:
This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD099125), the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR003017), the US Department of Health and Human Services/Health Resources and Service Administration (U3DMD32755), and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (74260). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of these organizations.
Footnotes
Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Findings were presented in part at the 2023 Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting in Washington, DC.
Consent Statement: Participant consent was required for study participation.
Data Sharing Statement
Deidentified quantitative data and associated documentation may be made available to interested readers conducting non-profit research consistent with National Institutes of Health policy through the establishment of data sharing agreements. The timeline for release of data will be after the study is completed and main study findings from the final data set are published in peer-reviewed journals. De-identified data will be made available to researchers from accredited institutions who provide a methodologically sound proposal for use in achieving the goals of the approved proposal.
References
- 1.Cates CBP, Weisleder AP & Mendelsohn AL Mitigating the Effects of Family Poverty on Early Child Development through Parenting Interventions in Primary Care. Academic pediatrics 16, S112–S120 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Williams PG & Lerner MA School Readiness. Pediatrics (Evanston) 144, e20191766 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Zuckerman B & Augustyn M Books and Reading: Evidence-Based Standard of Care Whose Time Has Come. Academic pediatrics 11, 11–17 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mendelsohn AL et al. The Impact of a Clinic-Based Literacy Intervention on Language Development in Inner-City Preschool Children. Pediatrics (Evanston) 107, 130–134 (2001). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Sharif I, Reiber S & Ozuah PO Exposure to Reach out and Read and Vocabulary Outcomes in Inner City Preschoolers. Journal of the National Medical Association 94, 171–177 (2002). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Golova N, Alario AJ, Vivier PM, Rodriguez M & High PC Literacy Promotion for Hispanic Families in a Primary Care Setting: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Pediatrics (Evanston) 103, 993–997 (1999). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Reach Out and Read. Start a Site, <https://reachoutandread.org/get-involved/start-a-site/> (2022).
- 8.Edmunds SR et al. A Method for Defining the Core of a Psychosocial Intervention to Guide Adaptation in Practice: Reciprocal Imitation Teaching as a Case Example. Autism: the international journal of research and practice 26, 601–614 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.King TM, Muzaffar SM & George MP. The Role of Clinic Culture in Implementation of Primary Care Interventions: The Case of Reach out and Read. Academic pediatrics 9, 40–46 (2009). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Khandekar AA, Augustyn M, Sanders L & Zuckerman B Improving Early Literacy Promotion: A Quality-Improvement Project for Reach out and Read. Pediatrics (Evanston) 127, e1067–e1072 (2011). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Jimenez ME et al. A Mixed-Methods Investigation Examining Site-Level Variation in Reach out and Read Implementation. Acad Pediatr (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Uthirasamy N. et al. Reach out and Read Implementation: A Scoping Review. Acad Pediatr 23, 520–549 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Caldwell A. et al. Literacy Promotion Training and Implementation in Pediatric Continuity Clinics. Academic pediatrics 20, 1013–1019 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Erickson E. et al. Clinician Perceptions on Literacy Promotion in Pediatric Continuity Clinics. Academic pediatrics 22, 1192–1199 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Needlman R, Lone Z, Chae R & Abdullah N Literacy Promotion Strategies within Reach out and Read: An Exploratory Study. Clinical pediatrics 57, 1326–1331 (2018). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zuckerman B & Needlman R 30 Years of Reach out and Read: Need for a Developmental Perspective. Pediatrics (Evanston) 145 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kids and Family Reading Report. (2017). <http://www.scholastic.com/readingreport/downloads.htm>
- 18.Jimenez ME et al. Perspectives on Shared Reading among a Sample of Latino Parents. Child : care, health & development 45, 292–299 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mendelsohn AL et al. Primary Care Strategies for Promoting Parent-Child Interactions and School Readiness in at-Risk Families: The Bellevue Project for Early Language, Literacy, and Education Success. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 165, 33–41 (2011). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cates CB RE, Canfield CF, Raak C, Johnson M, Dreyer B, Mendelsohn AL Parental Report of the Cognitive Home Environment: Validation of the Stimq2. PLOS ONE (2023. (in press)). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Vickstrom E, Shin H, Collazo S & Bauman K How Well—Still Good? Assessing the Validity of the American Community Survey English-Ability Question. (2015). <https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2015/demo/SEHSD-WP2015-18.pdf>. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Byington CL et al. The Good Habit of Reading (El Buen Habito De La Lectura): Parental Reactions to an Enhanced Reach out and Read Program in a Clinic for the Underserved. J Health Care Poor Underserved 19, 363–368 (2008). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jimenez ME et al. Latino Parents' Experiences with Literacy Promotion in Primary Care: Facilitators and Barriers. Academic Pediatrics 20, 1177–1183 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Damschroder LJ et al. Fostering Implementation of Health Services Research Findings into Practice: A Consolidated Framework for Advancing Implementation Science. Implementation science : IS 4, 50–50 (2009). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kuo AA, Franke TM, Regalado M & Halfon N Parent Report of Reading to Young Children. Pediatrics (Evanston) 113, 1944–1951 (2004). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Reardon SF & Portilla XA Recent Trends in Income, Racial, and Ethnic School Readiness Gaps at Kindergarten Entry. AERA open 2, 233285841665734 (2016). [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Deidentified quantitative data and associated documentation may be made available to interested readers conducting non-profit research consistent with National Institutes of Health policy through the establishment of data sharing agreements. The timeline for release of data will be after the study is completed and main study findings from the final data set are published in peer-reviewed journals. De-identified data will be made available to researchers from accredited institutions who provide a methodologically sound proposal for use in achieving the goals of the approved proposal.