Examining Agreement and Longitudinal Stability Among Traditional and RTI-Based Definitions of Reading Disability Using the Affected-Status Agreement Statistic
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2011
Examining Agreement and Longitudinal Stability Among Traditional and RTI-Based Definitions of Reading Disability Using the Affected-Status Agreement Statistic
Rates of agreement among alternative definitions of reading disability and their 1- and 2-year stabilities were examined using a new measure of agreement, the affected-status agreement statistic. Participants were 288,114 first through third grade students. Reading measures were Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Oral Reading Fluency and Nonsense Word Fluency, and six levels of severity of poor reading were examined (25th, 20th, 15th, 10th, 5th, and 3rd percentile ranks). Four definitions were compared, including traditional unexpected low achievement and three response-to-intervention-based definitions: low achievement, low growth, and dual discrepancy. Rates of agreement were variable but only poor to moderate overall, with poorest agreement between unexpected low achievement and the other definitions. Longitudinal stability was poor, with poorest stability for the low growth definition. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Barth, A.E., Stuebing, K.K., Anthony, J.L., Denton, C.A., Mathes, P.G., Fletcher, J.M., & Francis, D.J. ( 2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences , 18, 296-307.
3.
Catts, H.W., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Bridges, M.S., & Mendoza, K. ( 2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 163-176.
4.
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, D.M. ( 1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III) . Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
5.
Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Stuebing, K.K., . . . Shaywitz, B.A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6-23.
6.
Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Stuebing, K.K., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, B.A., & Shaywitz, S.E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98-108.
7.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3-17.
8.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. ( 2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
9.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D. ( 2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly , 27, 216-227.
10.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Lipsey, M.W. ( 2000). Reading differences between low-achieving student with and without learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 81-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
11.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. ( 1997). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
12.
Fuchs, D., & Young, C.L. ( 2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8-30.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. ( 1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204-219.
14.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Smith, S., & Bratten, J. ( 2001). Technical adequacy of second grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency passages (Tech. Rep. No. 8. Eugene: University of Oregon.
15.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Smith, S., Laimon, D., & Dill, S. ( 2001). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills- Fifth Edition. Eugene: University of Oregon.
16.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Kame’enui, E.J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
17.
Mathes, P.G., Torgesen, J.K., & Herron, J. (in press). Continuous monitoring of early reading skills (CMERS) [Computer software]. Austin, TX: ProEd.
18.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Rutter, M., & Yule, W. ( 1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181-197.
20.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. ( 2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
21.
Speece, D.L., Mills, C., Ritchey, K.D., & Hillman, E. ( 2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education , 36, 223-233.
22.
Stuebing, K.K., Barth, A.E., Molfese, P.J., Weiss, B., & Fletcher, J.M. (2009). IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76, 31-51.
23.
Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
24.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. ( 2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.
25.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). The Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
26.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education for handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register , 42, G1082-G1085.
27.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M.B. ( 1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601-638.
