This research analyzed the combined results of three meta-analyses which examined the extent to which a variety of measures of specific abilities related to reading. More than 450 studies were reviewed and almost 11,000 different coefficients were analyzed. The best predictors of reading proved to be other written language abilities (i.e., abilities involving print). The implications were: (1) professionals interested in improving literacy skills should focus on teaching written language abilities such as print awareness and book handling, letters, phoneme-letter correspondences, word recognition, alphabet knowledge, and comprehension and (2) the current interest in the role of nonprint abilities in reading such as phonological awareness, rapid naming, intelligence, and memory might be overemphasized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum. How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
AyersA. J. (1987). Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
3.
BeckerB. J. (1994). Combining significance levels. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 215–230). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
4.
BernsteinJ. H.WeilerM. D. (2000). “Pediatric neuropsychological assessment” examined. In GoldsteinG.HersenM. (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed., pp. 263–300). Kidlington, UK: Pergamon.
5.
BerryK. (1997). Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (3rd ed.). Minnetonka, MN: NCS Pearson.
6.
BrownV.HammillD. D.WiederholtJ. L. (1995). Test of Reading Comprehension (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
7.
BruininksR. H. (1978). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. California Achievement Test (5th ed.). (1992). CAT/5 technical report. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
8.
Carrow-WoolfolkE. (1995). Oral and Written Language Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
CrystalD. (2001). A dictionary of language (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
11.
DencklaM. B.RudelR. G. (1974). Rapid “automatized” naming of pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers by normal children. Cortex, 10, 186–202.
12.
DunkinM. J. (1996). Types of errors in synthesizing research in education. Review of Educational Research, 66, 87–97.
13.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (1998). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
14.
EhriL.C.NunesS.R.WillowsD.M.SchusterB.V.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.ShanahanT. (2001). Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
15.
GardnerM. (1996). Test of Visual Perception Skills. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
16.
GardnerM. (1997). Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
17.
GoodmanL.HammillD. D. (1973). The effectiveness of the Kephart-Getman activities in perceptual and motor and cognitive skills. Focus on Exceptional Children, 4, 1–10.
18.
GredlerG. (2000). Early childhood screening for developmental educational problems. In BrackenB. A. (Ed.), The psychological assessment of preschool children (pp. 399–411). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
GuilfordJ. P.FruchterB. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
HammillD. D. (1972). Training visual perceptual processes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5, 552–559.
21.
HammillD.D. (1998). Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
22.
HammillD. D.GoodmanL.WiederholtJ. L. (1974). Visual-motor processes: What success have we had in training them?The Reading Teacher, 27, 469–478.
23.
HammillD. D.LarsenS. C. (1996). Test of Written Language (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PROED.
24.
HammillD. D.LarsenS. C.MoatsL. (1999). Test of Written Spelling (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
25.
HammillD. D.MatherN.RobertsR. (2000). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
26.
HammillD. D.McNuttG. (1981). The correlates of reading: The consensus of thirty years of correlational research. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
27.
HammillD. D.PearsonN.VoressJ. (1993). Developmental Test of Visual Perception (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
28.
HammillD.D.WiederholtJ.L.PearsonN. (1997). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
HuisinghR.BarrettM.BowersL.LoGiudiceC.OrmanJ. (1990). The Word Test Elementary-Revised. East Moline, IL: Lingui Systems.
31.
HurfordD. P.SchaufJ. D.BunceL.BlaichR.MooreK. (1994). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 371–382.
32.
IvesB. (2003). Effect size use in studies of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 490–504.
33.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
34.
KavaleK. A. (1982). Meta-analysis of the relationship between visual perceptual skills and reading achievement. Journal of Special Education, 19, 61–72.
35.
KavaleK.MattsonP. D. (1983). “One jumped off the balance beam”: Meta-analysis of perceptual-motor-training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 165–173.
36.
LarsenS. C.HammillD. D. (1975). The relationship of selected visual-perceptual abilities to school learning. Journal of Special Education, 9, 281–291.
LundbergI.OlofssonA.WallS. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 159–173.
39.
MannL. (1979). On the trail of process. New York: Grune & Stratton.
40.
McCartneyK.RosenthalR. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71, 173–180.
41.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Health.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
RosenthalR. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In CooperH.HedgesL.V. (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
48.
RosnerJ.SimonD. (1971). The auditory analysis test. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4, 384–392.
49.
SattlerJ. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
50.
ScarboroughH. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. In ShapiroB. K.AccardoP. J.CaputeA. J. (Eds.), Specific reading disability (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
51.
SemelE.WiigE.SecondW. (1995). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
52.
SlossonR. L.NicholsonC. L. (1990). Slosson Oral Reading Test-Revised. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications.
53.
SnowG.E.BurnsM.S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
54.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM.LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities. New York: Guilford.
55.
SwansonH. L.TraininG.NecoecheaD. M.HammillD. D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading. A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73(4) 407–444.
56.
TorgesenJ.WagnerR.RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
57.
WagnerR.TorgesenJ.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
58.
WebsterR. E. (1992). The Learning Efficiency Test (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
59.
WechslerD. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
60.
WepmanJ.ReynoldsW. N. (1987). Wepman's Auditory Discrimination Test (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
61.
WiederholtJ. L.BryantB. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Test (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PROED.
62.
WilkinsonG. S. (1994). Wide Range Achievement Test (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range/Jastalc.
63.
WolfF. M. (1986). Meta analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64.
WolfeM.BowersP. G.BiddleK. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407.
65.
WolfeM.DencklaM. B. (2004). Rapid Automatized Naming Test. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
66.
WoodcockR. W. (1991). Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
67.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
68.
WoodcockR.McGrewK.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
