This study examines the initial word reading performance of fourth-grade struggling readers and the extent to which differing levels of word reading performance at pretest influenced their response to reading interventions. A large group of students with significant reading comprehension difficulties (N = 481) were classified into three clusters of word reading proficiency based on their pretest performance: (a) very low, (b) low, and (c) near adequate. We examined their performance on several academic, language, and executive functioning measures at the beginning of the year and their reading comprehension performance at the beginning of year and after 1 year of reading intervention to examine how each cluster responded to instruction. Results from a discriminant function analysis indicated that performance on five pretest variables were meaningful predictors of word reading proficiency cluster membership: phonological processing, writing fluency, math calculation, math fluency, and reading efficiency and comprehension. Results also demonstrated that word reading proficiency at pretest was related to response to intervention on reading comprehension measures. Students in the very low word reading proficiency cluster showed minimal response to intervention whereas the near-adequate word reading cluster demonstrated greatest response to intervention. These results suggest word reading is a critical predictor of response to intervention for students with significant comprehension problems in the upper elementary grades and that students with the most substantial word reading problems may require more intensive and specialized treatments than students with greater word reading performance to show meaningful progress in reading.
AbbottR. D.BerningerV. W.FayolM. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318
2.
Al OtaibaS.PetscherY.WanzekJ.LanP.RivasB. (2018). I’m not throwing away my shot: What Alexander Hamilton can tell us about standard reading interventions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 156–167.
3.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC.
4.
BairdM. D.PaneJ. F. (2019). Translating standardized effects of education programs into more interpretable metrics. Educational Researcher, 48, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19848729
5.
BerningerV. W. (1999). Coordinating transcription and text generation in working memory during composing: Automatized and constructive processes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511269
6.
BlachmanB. A.SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M.MurrayM. S.MungerK. A.VaughnM. G. (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later?Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033663
7.
BurnsM. K.CoddingR. S.BoiceC. H.LukitoG. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69–83.
8.
BurnsM. K.Petersen-BrownS.HaegeleK.RodriguezM.SchmittB.CooperM.ClaytonK.HutchesonS.ConnerC.HospJ.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2016). Meta-analysis of academic interventions derived from neuropsychological data. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000117
9.
CattsH. W.AdlofS. M.Ellis WeismerS. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
10.
ChallJ. S.JacobsV. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15.
11.
CheungA.SlavinR. E.LakeC.KimE. (2016, March). Effective secondary science programs: A best-evidence synthesis [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC, United States.
12.
ChildA. E.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.WillcuttE. G.FuchsL. S. (2019). A cognitive dimensional approach to understanding shared and unique contributions to reading, math, and attention skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775115
13.
CirinoP. T. (2012). Student contextual learning scales.
14.
CirinoP. T.ChildA. E.MacdonaldK. T. (2018). Longitudinal predictors of the overlap between reading and math skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.06.002
15.
CirinoP. T.RomainM. A.BarthA. E.TolarT. D.FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9406-3
16.
ClearyT. J. (2006). The development and validation of the Self-Regulation Strategy Inventory–Self-report. Journal of School Psychology, 44(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.05.002
17.
DeshlerD. D.HockM. F. (2007). Adolescent literacy: Where we are, where we need to go. In PressleyM.BillmanA.PerryK.ReffittK.ReynoldsJ. (Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 98–128). Guilford Press.
18.
ElliottJ. G.GrigorenkoE. L. (2014). The dyslexia debate (No. 14). Cambridge University Press.
19.
EngelmannS. (1988). Corrective reading: Decoding strategies. Science Research Associates.
20.
EngelmannS.BrunerE. (1995). Reading mastery II. Science Research Associates; McGraw-Hill.
21.
FrancisD. J.KuleszP. A.BenoitJ. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The Complete View of Reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904
22.
FuchsL. S.GearyD. C.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.HamlettC. L. (2016). Pathways to third-grade calculation versus word-reading competence: Are they more alike or different?Child Development, 87(2), 558–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12474
23.
GearyD. C.HoardM. K.Byrd-CravenJ.NugentL.NumteeC. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78(4), 1343–1359.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R.ChorzempaB. F. (2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 669–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.669
26.
HechtS. A.TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2001). The relations between phonological processing abilities and emerging individual differences in mathematical computation skills: A longitudinal study from second to fifth grades. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(2), 192–227. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2586
HubertyC. J.OlejnikS. (2006). Applied MANOVA and discriminant analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
29.
Istation. (2011). Powerful intervention and instruction: Blended learning for reading, math, and Spanish. www.istation.com
30.
James-BurdumyS.DekeJ.GerstenR.Lugo-GilJ.Newman-GoncharR.DiminoJ.HaymondK.LiuA. Y. H. (2012). Effectiveness of four supplemental reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(4), 345–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.698374
31.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00291
32.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). Pearson Assessments.
33.
KempleJ. J.CorrinW.NelsonE.SalingerT. (2008). The enhanced reading opportunities study: Early impact and implementation findings (NCEE 2008-4015). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
34.
KiefferM. J.VukovicR. K. (2012). Components and context: Exploring sources of reading difficulties for language minority learners and native English speakers in urban schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432683
35.
KirbyJ. R.ParrilaR. K.PfeifferS. L. (2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.453
36.
LanderlK.MollK. (2010). Comorbidity of learning disorders: Prevalence and familial transmission. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 51(3), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02164.x
37.
LangL.TorgesenJ.VogelW.ChanterC.LefskyE.PetscherY. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345740802641535
38.
LesauxN. K.CrossonA. C.KiefferM. J.PierceM. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.004
39.
LesauxN. K.RuppA. A.SiegelL. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.821
40.
LoniganC. J.BurgessS. R.SchatschneiderC. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518764833
41.
LoniganC. J.MilburnT. F. (2017). Identifying the dimensionality of oral language skills of children with typical development in preschool through fifth grade. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(8), 2185–2198. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-15-0402
Mancilla-MartinezJ.KiefferM. J.BiancarosaG.ChristodoulouJ. A.SnowC. E. (2011). Investigating English reading comprehension growth in adolescent language minority learners: Some insights from the simple view. Reading and Writing, 24(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9215-5
44.
ManolitsisG.GeorgiouG. K.TzirakiN. (2013). Examining the effects of home literacy and numeracy environment on early reading and math acquisition. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.05.004
45.
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(4), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908317789
46.
PetersonR. L.BoadaR.McGrathL. M.WillcuttE. G.OlsonR. K.PenningtonB. F. (2017). Cognitive prediction of reading, math, and attention: Shared and unique influences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415618500
47.
PintrichP. R.De GrootE. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
48.
ProctorC. P.CarloM.AugustD.SnowC. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.246
49.
RomesburgC. (1984). Cluster analysis for researchers. Lifetime Learning Publications.
50.
SantoroL. E.CoyneM. D.SimmonsD. C. (2006). The reading–spelling connection: Developing and evaluating a beginning spelling intervention for children at risk of reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00212.x
51.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG. J.ChoE.WilliamsK. J.RobertsG.VaughnS. R.CarrollM. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 756–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942
52.
ScammaccaN. K.RobertsG. J.VaughnS. R.StuebingK. K. (2015). A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995
53.
Scholastic. (2013). Read 180.
54.
SeidenbergM. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books.
55.
StuebingK. K.BarthA. E.TrahanL. H.ReddyR. R.MiciakJ.FletcherJ. M. (2015). Are child cognitive characteristics strong predictors of responses to intervention? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 395–429. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314555996
56.
SwansonH. L.Beebe-FrankenbergerM. (2004). The relationship between working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.471
57.
SwansonJ. M.SchuckS.PorterM. M.CarlsonC.HartmanC. A.SergeantJ. A.ClevengerW.WasdellM.McClearyR.LakesK.WigalT. (2012). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: History of the SNAP and the SWAN rating scales. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 51–70.
58.
TaylorJ.EnnisC. R.HartS. A.MikolajewskiA. J.SchatschneiderC. (2017). Home environmental and behavioral risk indices for reading achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05
59.
TorgesenJ.WagnerR.RashotteC. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Pro-Ed.
60.
VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 46-53.
61.
VaughnS.SolísM.MiciakJ.TaylorW. P.FletcherJ. M. (2016). Effects from a randomized control trial comparing researcher and school-implemented treatments with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1126386
62.
VickeryK.ReynoldsV.CochranS. (1987). Multisensory teaching approach for reading, spelling, and handwriting, Orton-Gillingham based curriculum, in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648066
63.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73
64.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (1999). CTOPP-2: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (2nd ed.). Pro-Ed.
65.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2010). Test of silent reading efficiency and comprehension. Pro-Ed.
66.
WanzekJ.RobertsG. (2012). Reading interventions with varying instructional emphases for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 90–101.
67.
WanzekJ.SwansonE.VaughnS.RobertsG.FallA. M. (2016). English learner and non-English learner students with disabilities: Content acquisition and comprehension. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915619419
68.
WanzekJ.VaughnS.ScammaccaN.GatlinB.WalkerM. A.CapinP. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7
69.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Riverside.
70.
ZhengX.SwansonH. L.MarcoulidesG. A. (2011). Working memory components as predictors of children’s mathematical word problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110(4), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.001
