The presence of Matthew effects was tested in students of varying reading, spelling, and vocabulary skills. A cross-sequential design was implemented, following 587 Grade 2 through 4 students across five measurement points (waves) over 2 years. Students were administered standardized assessments of reading, spelling, and vocabulary. Results indicated that the hypothesized fan-spread pattern for Matthew effects was not evident. Low and high ability groups were formed based on 25th and 75th percentile cutoffs on initial measures of spelling, reading accuracy and fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Multilevel modeling suggested that low and high ability groups had significantly different starting points (intercepts) and their pattern of growth on passage comprehension did not indicate that the gap would increase over time. Instead, some analyses, especially of the youngest cohorts, showed significant convergence. However, there was no evidence of eventually closing the gap. Thus, although the poor students may not be getting poorer, they do not get sufficiently richer either.
AarnoutseC. A. J.MommersM. J. C.SmitsB. W. G. M.Van LeeuweJ. F. J. (1986). De ontwikkeling en samenhang van technisch lezen, begrijpend lezen en spellen [Development and relation between decoding, reading comprehension and spelling]. Pedagogische Studiën, 63, 97–110.
2.
AarnoutseC.Van LeeuweJ. (2000). Development of poor and better readers during the elementary school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 6, 251–278.
3.
AndersonJ. R. (2000). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: John Wiley.
4.
Bakermans-KranenburgM.BradleyR.IJzendoornM. (2005). Those who have, receive: The Matthew effect in early childhood intervention in the home environment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 1–26.
5.
BastJ.ReitsmaP. (1997). Matthew effects in reading: A comparison of latent growth curve models and simplex models with structured means. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 135–167.
6.
BastJ.ReitsmaP. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373–1399.
7.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
ChernickM. (2007). Bootstrap methods: A guide for practitioners and researchers. New York, NY: John Wiley.
9.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
10.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.
11.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22, 8–15.
12.
De LeeuwE. D.HoxJ. J. (2003). The use of meta-analysis in cross-national studies. In HarknessJ. A.van de VijverF. J. R.MohlerP. Ph. (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 329–345). New York, NY: John Wiley.
13.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
14.
EfronB. (1979). Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.
15.
EfronB. (1982). The jackknife, bootstrap, and other resampling plans. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
16.
EfronB.TibshiraniR. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
17.
EhriL.WilceL. (1979). The mnemonic value of orthography among beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 26–40.
18.
FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.
19.
GoughP.TunmerW. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
20.
HarlaarN.DaleP. S.PlominR. (2007). Reading exposure: A (largely) environmental risk factor with environmentally-mediated effects on reading performance in the primary school years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1192–1199.
21.
HatzigeorgiuN.GavrilidouM.PiperidisS.CarayannisG.PapakostopoulouA.SpiliotopoulouA.VacalopoulouA.LabropoulouP.MantzariE.PapageorgiouH.DemirosI. (2000, May–June). Design and implementation of the online ILSP corpus. In GavrilidouM.CarayannisG.MarkantonatuS.PiperidisS.StainhaouerG. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (Vol. 3, pp. 1737–1740). Athens, Greece.
22.
HatzigeorgiuN.MikrosG.CarayannisG. (2001). Word length, word frequencies and Zipf’s law in the Greek language. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8, 175–185.
23.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
24.
JoshiR. M. (2005). Vocabulary: A critical component of comprehension. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 209–219.
25.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
26.
JuelC.GriffithP. L.GoughP. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255.
MacCallumR.KimC.MalarkeyW.GlaserJ. (1997). Studying multivariate change using multilevel models and latent curve models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 215–253.
29.
McCoachD. B.O’ConnellA. A.ReisS. M.LevittH. A. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14–28.
30.
MolS. E.BusA. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296.
31.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HibelJ. (2008). Matthew effects for whom?Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 187–198.
32.
MouzakiA.SideridisG.ProtopapasA.SimosP. (2007). Διϵρϵύνηση των ψυχΟμϵτρικών χαρακτηριστικών μιας δΟκιμασίας ΟρθΟγραφικής δϵξιότητας μαθητών της B′, Γ′, Δ′, και E′ τάξης τΟυ δημΟτικΟύ σχΟλϵίΟυ [Investigation of the psychometric characteristics of a spelling skill test for students of elementary school Grades 2, 3, 4, and 5]. Epistimes tis Agogis, 1, 129–146.
33.
NagyW.ScottJ. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In KamilM.MossenthaP.PearsonP.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
OlsonR. K.KeenanJ. M.ByrneB.SamuelssonS.CoventryW. L.CorleyR.. . . HulslanderJ. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on vocabulary and reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 26–46.
35.
PadeliaduS.SideridisG. D. (2000). Discriminant validation of the Test of Reading Performance (TORP) for identification of children with reading difficulties. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 139–146.
36.
PapadopoulosT. C.GeorgiouG. K.KendeouP. (2009). Investigating the double-deficit hypothesis in Greek: Findings from a longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 528–547.
37.
ParrilaR.AunolaK.LeskinenE.NurmiJ.-E.KirbyJ. R. (2005). Development of individual differences in reading: Results from longitudinal studies in English and Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 299–319.
38.
PennoJ. F.WilkinsonI.MooreD. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect?Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 23–33.
39.
PerfettiC. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
PhillipsL. M.NorrisS. P.OsmondW. C.MaynardA. M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3–13.
41.
ProtopapasA.MouzakiA.SideridisG. D.KotsolakouA.SimosP. G. (in press). The role of vocabulary in the context of the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly.
42.
ProtopapasA.SideridisG. D.MouzakiA.SimosP. G. (2007). Development of lexical mediation in the relation between reading comprehension and word reading skills in Greek. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 165–197.
43.
ProtopapasA.SimosP. G.SideridisG. D.MouzakiA. (in press). The components of the simple view of reading: A confirmatory factor analysis. Reading Psychology.
44.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations on the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning: II. Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
46.
RobbinsC.EhriL. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 54–64.
47.
RobertsK. J. (2004). An introductory primer on multilevel and hierarchical linear modeling. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 2, 30–38.
48.
RosenthalJ.EhriL. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 175–191.
49.
ScarboroughH. S.ParkerJ. D. (2003). Matthew effects in children with learning disabilities: Development of reading, IQ, psychosocial problems from Grade 2 to Grade 8. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 47–71.
50.
SénéchalM.OuelletteG.RodneyD. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. In NewmanS.DickinsonD. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 173–182). New York, NY: Guilford.
51.
ShaywitzB. A.HolfordT. R.HolahanJ. M.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.FrancisD. J. (1995). A Matthew effect for IQ but not for reading: Results from a longitudinal study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 894–906.
52.
ShinJ.EspinC. A.DenoS. L.McConnellS. (2004). Use of hierarchical linear modeling and curriculum-based measurement for assessing academic growth and instructional factors for students with learning difficulties. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5, 136–148.
53.
SideridisG. D.PadeliaduS. (2000). An examination of the psychometric properties of the Test of Reading Performance (TORP) with elementary school students. Psychological Reports, 86, 789–802.
54.
SimosP.SideridisG. D.ProtopapasA.MouzakiA. (in press). Psychometric evaluation of a receptive vocabulary test for Greek elementary students. Assessment for Effective Intervention.
55.
StahlS.FairbanksM. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
56.
StainthorpR.HughesD. (2004). What happens to precocious readers’ performance by the age of eleven?Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 357–372.
57.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
58.
StanovichK. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. New York, NY: Guilford.
59.
ThomsonM. (2003). Monitoring dyslexics’ intelligence and attainments: A follow-up study. Dyslexia, 9, 3–17.
60.
TorgesenJ. K.BurgessS. R. (1998). Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In MetsalaJ.EhriL. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61.
WalbergH. J.TsaiS. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 359–373.
62.
WimmerH.MayringerH.LanderlK. (2000). The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 668–680.
63.
WolfM.BowersP. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.
64.
ZipfG. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
