The current study investigated the stability of children’s risk status across the preschool year. A total of 1,102 preschool children attending Title 1 schools (n = 631) and non-Title 1 schools (n = 471) participated in this study. Using averaged standard scores for two measures of language, print knowledge, and phonological awareness administered at the beginning of preschool (Time 1) and midyear (Time 2), children were classified as at-risk or not at each time point. Prevalence rates were determined for four categories of risk status: (1) always at risk, (2) only at risk at Time 1, (3) never at risk, and (4) only at risk at Time 2. Univariate and multivariate analyses indicated that the best predictor of children’s risk status was their level of skill in the respective literacy domain at the beginning of preschool. These results suggest that children with stable risk can be identified early and may benefit from the early provision of extra instructional support within a response-to-instruction framework.
AllanN. P.LoniganC. J. (2011). Examining the dimensionality of effortful control in preschool children and its relation to academic and socioemotional indicators. Developmental Psychology, 47, 905–915.
2.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC. M.FolsomJ. S.WanzekJ.GreulichL.SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K. (2014). To wait in Tier 1 or intervene immediately: A randomized experiment examining first-grade response to intervention in reading. Exceptional Children, 81, 11–27.
3.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316.
4.
Al OtaibaS.FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431.
5.
ArnoldD. H.DoctoroffG. L. (2003). The early education of socioeconomically disadvantaged children. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 517–545.
6.
CattsH. W.NielsenD.BridgesM.LiuY.BontempoD. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 281–297.
7.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. 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.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, Spring/Summer, 8–15.
9.
FuchsD.DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
10.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.
11.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.McMasterK. N.Al OtaibaS. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and dual-discrepancy approach. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 431–449). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
12.
FuchsL. S.VaughnS. (2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
13.
GreenwoodC. R.CartaJ. J.AtwaterJ.GoldsteinH.KaminskiR.McConnellS. (2013). Is a response-to-intervention (RTI) approach to preschool language and early literacy instruction needed?Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 33, 48–64.
14.
HamreB. K.PiantaR. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?Child Development, 76, 949–967.
15.
KruseL. G.SpencerT. D.OlszewskiA.GoldsteinH. (2015). Small groups, big gains: Efficacy of a tier 2 phonological awareness intervention with preschoolers with early literacy deficits. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24, 189–205.
16.
LoniganC. J.PhillipsB. M. (2012). Understanding the contributions of early academic skills to children’s success in school. In SuggateS. P.ReeseE. (Eds.), Contemporary debates in childhood education and development (pp. 145–158). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
LoniganC. J.PhillipsB. M. (2016). Response to instruction in preschool: Results of two randomized studies with children at significant risk of reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 114–129.
18.
LoniganC. J.SchatschneiderC.WestbergL. (2008). Identification of children’s skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling. In Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel (pp. 55–106). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
19.
LoniganC. J.WagnerR. K.TorgesonJ. K.RashotteC. A. (2002). Preschool comprehensive test of phonological & print processing (Pre-CTOPPP). Tallahassee: Department of Psychology, Florida State University.
20.
LoniganC. J.WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (2007). Test of preschool early literacy. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
21.
McClellandM. M.CameronC. E.ConnorC. M.FarrisC. L.JewkesA. M.MorrisonF. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947–959.
22.
MilburnT. F.GirolamettoL.WeitzmanE.GreenbergJ. (2014). Enhancing preschool educators’ ability to facilitate shared book reading conversations. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14, 105–140.
23.
MilburnT. F.LoniganC. J.AllanD.PhillipsB. M. (2017). Agreement among possible methods of indexing risk status for reading-related learning disability with preschool children. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 120–129.
24.
MilburnT. F.LoniganC. J.PhillipsB. M. (2017). Determining responsiveness to Tier II intervention in RTI: Level of performance, growth, or both. The Elementary School Journal, 118, 310–334.
25.
O’ConnorR. E.BocianK.Beebe-FrankenbergerM.LinklaterD. L. (2010). Responsiveness of students with language difficulties to early intervention in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 220–235.
26.
O’ConnorR. E.HartyK. R.FulmerD. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538.
27.
PonitzC. C.McClellandM. M.MatthewsJ. M.MorrisonF. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 605–619.
28.
ReidD. K.HreskoW. P.HammillD. D. (2001). Test of early reading ability. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
29.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
30.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Individuals with disabilities improvement act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–466. Federal Register, 70, 35802–35803.
31.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137–146.
32.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.ZhangH.SchatschneiderC. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 21, 437–480.
33.
WechslerD. (2002). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
34.
WiigE. H.SecordW. A.SemelE. M. (1992). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Preschool. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt/Psych Corp.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
