Drawing on the cognitive and ecological domains within the componential model of reading, this longitudinal study explores heterogeneity in the sources of reading difficulties for language minority learners and native English speakers in urban schools. Students (N = 150) were followed from first through third grade and assessed annually on standardized English language and reading measures. Structural equation modeling was used to investigate the relative contributions of code-related and linguistic comprehension skills in first and second grade to third grade reading comprehension. Linguistic comprehension and the interaction between linguistic comprehension and code-related skills each explained substantial variation in reading comprehension. Among students with low reading comprehension, more than 80% demonstrated weaknesses in linguistic comprehension alone, whereas approximately 15% demonstrated weaknesses in both linguistic comprehension and code-related skills. Results were remarkably similar for the language minority learners and native English speakers, suggesting the importance of their shared socioeconomic backgrounds and schooling contexts.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.GoodenR.BentumK. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the componential model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
2.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.WilliamsK. A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.
3.
Abu-RabiaS.SiegelL. S. (2002). Reading, syntactic, orthographic, and working memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Canadian children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 661–678.
4.
AugustD. L.ShanahanT. (2006). Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BerningerV. W.DunnA.LinS. C.ShimadaS. (2004). School evolution: Scientist-practitioner educators creating optimal learning environments for all students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 500–508.
6.
BollenK. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley.
7.
ByrneB.Fielding-BarnsleyR. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488–503.
8.
CattsH. W.AdlofS. M.WeismerS. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 49, 278–293.
9.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.AdlofS. M. (2005). Developing changes in reading and reading disabilities. In CattsH. W.KahmiA. G. (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 50–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.FeyM. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.
11.
ChenR.VellutinoF. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1–24.
12.
ChiappeP.SiegelL. S. (1999). Phonological awareness and reading acquisition in English and Punjabi-speaking Canadian children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 20–28.
13.
ChiappeP.SiegelL. S.Wade-WoolleyL. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400.
14.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329-337.
15.
CuttingL. E.ScarboroughH. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.
16.
Da FontouraH. A.SiegelL. S. (1995). Reading, syntactic, and working memory skills of bilingual Portuguese-English Canadian children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 139–153.
17.
Dudley-MarlingC. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482–489.
18.
EhriL. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
19.
EndersC. K.BandalosD. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457.
20.
FletcherJ. M.DentonC.FrancisD. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.
21.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.LyonG. R.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98-108.
22.
FrithU.SnowlingM. (1983). Reading for meaning and reading for sound in autistic and dyslexic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 320–342.
23.
FryR.GonzalesF. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic public school students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
24.
GamseB. C.BloomH. S.KempleJ. J.JacobR. T. (2008). Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report (NCEE 2008–4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
25.
GándaraP.RumbergerR.Maxwell-JollyJ.CallahanR. (2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/
26.
GeneseeF.GevaE.DresslerC.KamilM. (2006). Synthesis: Cross-linguistic relationships. In AugustD. L.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 75–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
28.
HartB.RisleyT. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
29.
HernandezD. J.DentonN. A.MacartneyS. E. (2008). Children in immigrant families: Looking into America’s future. Social Policy Report, 22, 3–22.
30.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
31.
JohnstonT. C.KirbyJ. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 339–361.
32.
JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.
33.
JoshiM. R.BinksE.HougenM.DahlgrenM. E.Ocker-DeanE.SmithD. L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 392–402.
34.
KiefferM. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 851–868.
35.
KiefferM. J. (2010). English proficiency, socioeconomic status, and late-emerging reading difficulties. Educational Researcher, 39, 484–486.
LesauxN. K. (with KodaK.SiegelL. S.ShanahanT.). (2006). Development of literacy of language minority learners. In AugustD. L.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 75–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
LesauxN. K.CrossonA.KiefferM. J.PierceM. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 475–483.
39.
LesauxN. K.KiefferM. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632.
40.
LesauxN. K.SiegelL. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–1019.
41.
LipkaO.LesauxN.SiegelL. (2006). Retrospective analyses of the reading development of Grade 4 students with reading disabilities: Risk status and profiles over 5 years. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 364–378.
42.
LyonG. R.FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.TorgesenJ. K.WoodF. B.. . . OlsonR. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC. E.Jr.RotherhamA. J.HokansonC. R.Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
MacGinitieW.MacGinitieR.MariaK.DreyerL. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (4th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
45.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.KiefferM. J.BiancarosaG.ChristodoulouJ.SnowC. E. (2009). Investigating English reading comprehension growth in adolescent language minority learners: Some insights from the simple view. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 339–354. doi:10.1007/s11145–009–9215–510.1007/s11145–009–9215–5
46.
ManisF. R.LindseyK. A.BaileyC. E. (2004). Development of reading in grades K–2 in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 214–224.
47.
MoatsL. (2009). Still wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 387–391.
48.
NakamotoJ.LindseyK. A.ManisF. R. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners’ word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 691–719.
49.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The condition of education 2007 (NCES 2007-064). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
50.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Nation’s report card reading—2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
51.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
52.
PáezM. M.TaborsP. O.LópezL. M. (2007). Dual language and literacy development of Spanish-speaking preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 85–102.
53.
ProctorC. P.CarloM.AugustD.SnowC. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.
54.
ReardonS. F.GalindoC. (2009). The Hispanic–White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Education Research Journal, 46, 853–891.
55.
SavageR. (2006). Reading comprehension is not always the product of nonsense word decoding and linguistic comprehension: Evidence from teenagers who are extremely poor readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 143–164.
56.
SavageR.WolforthJ. (2007). An additive simple view of reading describes the performance of good and poor readers in higher education. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17, 243–268.
57.
ShonkoffJ. P.PhillipsD. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
58.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453.
59.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
60.
StanovichK.SiegelL. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53. doi:10.1037/0022–0663.86.1.2410.1037/0022–0663.86.1.24
61.
StorchS. A.WhitehurstG. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947.
62.
StothardS. (1994). The nature and treatment of reading comprehension difficulties. In HulmeC.SnowlingM. (Eds.), Reading development and dyslexia (pp. 85−102). London, UK: Whurr.
63.
SwansonH. L.HowardC. B.SaezL. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 252–269.
64.
SwansonH. L.SaezL.GerberM. (2006). Growth in literacy and cognition in bilingual children at risk or not at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 247–264.
65.
TunmerW. E.HooverW. A. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In GoughP. B.EhriL. C.TreimanR. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66.
VelicerW. F.FavaJ. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231–251.
67.
VellutinoF. R.TunmerW. E.JaccardJ. J.ChenR. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 3–32.
68.
Wade-WoolleyL.SiegelL. S. (1997). The spelling performance of ESL and native speakers of English as a function of reading skill. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 387–406.
69.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
70.
WhiteK. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461–481.
71.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (1999). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement: Research Editions. Itasca, IL: Authors.
72.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.SchrankF. A.MatherN. (2007). Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement (3rd ed., Normative Update). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
73.
YuillN.OakhillJ. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
74.
ZillN.CollinsM.WestJ.HauskenE. G. (1995). Approaching kindergarten: A look at preschoolers in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey.
