This study examined the usefulness and predictive validity of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness in two samples of kindergarten children. In one sample (n = 90), the predictive validity of the dynamic assessment was compared to a static version of the same screening measure. In the second sample (n = 96), the dynamic screening measure was compared to a commonly used screening tool, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Initial Sound Fluency. Results showed that the dynamic screening measure uniquely predicted end-of-year reading achievement and outcomes in both samples. These results provide preliminary support for the usefulness of a dynamic screening measure of phonological awareness for kindergarten students.
Bridges, M.S. ( 2009). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict reading outcomes in kindergarten children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Caffrey, E. ( 2006). A comparison of dynamic assessment and progress monitoring in the prediction of reading achievement for students in kindergarten and first grade (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
4.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. ( 2004). Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91, 77-111.
5.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. ( 2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38-50.
6.
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.
7.
Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bryant, J.D. ( 2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.
8.
Denton, C.A., & Mathes, P.G. ( 2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 229-251). Timonium, MD: York.
Ehri, L.C. ( 1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in literacy (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
Foy, J.G., & Mann, V. ( 2003). Home literacy environment and phonological awareness in preschool children: Differential effects for rhyme and phoneme awareness . Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 59-88.
12.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. ( 2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K.N., Craddock, C.F., & Hamlett, C.L. ( 2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders’ development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 829-850.
14.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (2003). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
15.
Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Shinn, M.R., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, D., . . . Flindt, N. ( 2004). Technical adequacy of DIBELS: Results of the Early Childhood Research Institute on measuring growth and development (Tech. Rep. No. 7) . Eugene: University of Oregon.
16.
Grigorenko, E.L. ( 2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111-132.
17.
Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. ( 2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention . Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
18.
Jenkins, J. ( 2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students . Paper presented at the NRCLD Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
19.
Lidz, C.S. ( 1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment. New York, NY: Guilford.
20.
O’Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. ( 1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197.
21.
Rathvon, N. ( 2004). Early reading assessment: A handbook for practitioners . New York, NY: Guilford.
22.
Simmons, D., Coyne, M., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B., & Kame’enui, E. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 143-158.
23.
Spector, J.E. ( 1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 353-363.
24.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (1998). Dynamic assessment: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge , England: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Swets, J. ( 1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285-1293.
26.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D.P. ( 2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 157-169.
27.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.
28.
Woodcock, R.W. ( 1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests- Revised Normative Update . Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
