A few studies have indicated that dynamic measures of phonological awareness may contribute uniquely to the prediction of early reading development. However, standard control measures have been few and limited by floor effects, thus limiting their predictive value. The purpose of the present study was to examine the predictive value of a dynamic test of phonological awareness while controlling for both letter knowledge and standard phonological awareness using measures with no floor effect. We administered a dynamic test of phonological awareness along with traditional tests of phonological awareness and letter knowledge to 160 children in the fall of kindergarten. Reading outcomes were studied at three test points: at the end of kindergarten, in the first half of Grade 1, and at the end of Grade 1. The results indicated that the dynamic test of phonological awareness contributed significantly to the prediction of children’s reading development in kindergarten and the first half of Grade 1 after control for static phonological awareness and letter knowledge. However, the unique prediction value of the dynamic test of phonological awareness did not extend to the end of Grade 1.
BorstrømI.PetersenD. K. (2006). Læseevaluering på begyndertrinnet [Evaluation of beginning reading] (2nd ed.). Copenhagen, Denmark: Alinea.
2.
BridgesM. S.CattsH. W. (2011). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 330–338. doi: 10.1177/0022219411407863
3.
CaffreyE.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: A review. Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254–270. doi: 10.1177/0022466907310366
4.
CattsH. W.NielsenD. C.BridgesM. S.LiuY. S.BontempoD. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 281–297. doi: 10.1177/0022219413498115
5.
CattsH. W.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.BridgesM. S.MendozaK. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 163–176. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326219
6.
CoventryW. L.ByrneB.OlsonR. K.CorleyR.SamuelssonS. (2011). Dynamic and static assessment of phonological awareness in preschool: A behavior-genetic study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 322–329. doi: 10.1177/0022219411407862
7.
CunninghamA.CarrollJ. (2011). Age and schooling effects on early literacy and phoneme awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(2), 248–255. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.12.005
8.
DixonM.StuartM.MastersonJ. (2002). The relationship between phonological awareness and the development of orthographic representations. Reading and Writing, 15(3/4), 295–316. doi: 10.1023/a:1015200617447
9.
ElbroC. (1990). Differences in dyslexia: A study of reading strategies and deficits in a linguistic perspective. Copenhagen, Denmark: Munksgaard.
10.
ElbroC. (2005). Literacy acquisition in Danish: A deep orthography in cross-linguistic light. In JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 31–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
ElbroC.BorstrømI.PetersenD. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: The importance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 36–60.
12.
ElbroC.DaugaardH. T.GellertA. S. (2012). Dyslexia in a second language? A dynamic test of reading acquisitionmayprovide a fair answer. Annals of Dyslexia, 62(3), 172–185. doi: 10.1007/s11881-012-0071-7
13.
ElbroC.NielsenI.PetersenD. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults—Evidence for deficits in non-word reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205–226.
14.
ElbroC.PetersenD. K. (2004). Long-term effects of phoneme awareness and letter sound training: An intervention study with children at risk for dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 660–670.
15.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2010). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills next (7th ed.). Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.
16.
GrigorenkoE. L. (2008). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 111–132. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326207
17.
GrigorenkoE. L.SternbergR. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75–111.
18.
JohnsonE. S.JenkinsJ. R.PetscherY.CattsH. W. (2009). How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 174–185. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00291.x
19.
JuulH.PoulsenM.ElbroC. (2014). Separating speed from accuracy in beginning reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1096–1106. doi: 10.1037/a0037100
20.
LundbergI.FrostJ.PetersenO.-P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
21.
Melby-LervagM. (2012). The relative predictive contribution and causal role of phoneme awareness, rhyme awareness and verbal short-term memory in reading skills: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(4), 363–380. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.594611
22.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
23.
PartanenM.SiegelL. S. (2014). Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 27(4), 665–684. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9472-1
24.
PoskipartaE.NiemiP.LepolaJ.AhtolaA.LaineP. (2003). Motivational-emotional vulnerability and difficulties in learning to read and spell. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 187–206. doi: 10.1348/00070990360626930
25.
PoulsenM.NielsenA.-M. V.JuulH.ElbroC. (n.d.). Identi-fication of future reading disability before and after the onset of formal instruction. (Manuscript submitted for publication)
26.
ScarboroughH. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In ShapiroB. K.AccardoP. J.CaputeA. J. (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
27.
SeymourP. H. K.AroM.ErskineJ. M.WimmerH.LeybaertJ.ElbroC.OlofssonA. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
28.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.KwokO.-M.McDonaghS.HarnB. A.Kame’enuiE. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 158–173.
29.
SpectorJ. E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading—Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 353–363.
30.
YoppH. K. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 159–177.
