Early identification of learning difficulties is a critical component of the Response to Intervention (RtI) model. In kindergarten, the screening of foundational reading skills can provide a data-based guideline for identifying students requiring a more intensive response-based intervention before starting elementary school. This study examines the classification accuracy and best predictors of a set of Spanish curriculum-based measures administered during kindergarten. The study’s sample included 189 students tested in the fall, winter, and spring. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted. The composite score of the curriculum-based measurement (CBM) revealed area under the ROC curve (AUC) values of 0.83, 0.97, and 0.94 in the fall, winter, and spring, respectively. Phonemic awareness and letter-sound knowledge were the only isolated measures that demonstrated excellent AUC values throughout kindergarten. Logistic regression models showed that, when entered simultaneously, all measures were significant predictors of reading risk at some moment of the school year.
AdlofS. M.CattsH. W.LeeJ. (2010). Kindergarten predictors of second versus eighth grade reading comprehension impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410369067
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(1), 11–27.
3.
ArdilaA.CuetosF. (2016). Applicability of dual-route reading models to Spanish. Psicothema, 28(1), 71–75.
4.
BakerD.ParkY.BakerS. K. (2010). Effect of initial status and growth in pseudoword reading on Spanish reading comprehension at the end of first grade. Psicothema, 22(4), 955–962.
BallC. R.ChristT. J. (2012). Supporting valid decision making: Uses and misuses of assessment data within the context of RtI. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 231–244.
7.
BeachK. D.O’ConnorR. E. (2015). Early response-to-intervention measures and criteria as predictors of reading disability in the beginning of third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(2), 196–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413495451
8.
BegenyJ.YeagerA.MartínezR. (2012). Effects of small-group and one-on-one reading fluency interventions with second grade, low-performing Spanish readers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21(1), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9141-x
9.
BiemillerA. (2005). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In DickinsonD.NeumanS. B. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 41–51). Guilford Press.
10.
BigozziL.TarchiC.VagnoliL.ValenteE.PintoG. (2017). Reading fluency as a predictor of school outcomes across grades 4-9. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00200
11.
Boletín Oficial de Canarias. (2008). Decreto 183/2008, de 29 de julio, por el que se establece la ordenación y el currículo del 2º ciclo de la Educación Infantil en la Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias [Decree 193/2008, of July 29, which establishes the organization and curriculum of the second cycle of pre-school education in the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands]. http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/boc/2008/163/002.html
12.
Boletín Oficial de Canarias. (2010). Orden de 13 de diciembre de 2010, por la que se regula la atención al alumnado con necesidades específicas de apoyo educativo en la Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias [Order of December 13, 2010, which regulates the attention to students with specific educational needs in the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands]. http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/boc/2010/250/001.html
13.
Boletín Oficial del Estado. (2014). Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de febrero, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Primaria [Decree 126/2014, of February 28, which establishes the core curriculum in primary education]. https://doi.org/BOE-A-2012-5403
14.
Bravo-ValdiviesoL.EscobarJ. (2014). ¿Cuán transparente es nuestra ortografía castellana? [How transparent is Spanish orthography?] Estudios de Psicología, 35, 442–449.
15.
Bravo-ValdiviesoL.VillalónM.OrellanaE. (2006). Predictibilidad del rendimiento en la lectura: Una investigación de seguimiento entre primer y tercer año [Predictability of the yield in reading: An investigation between the entry to first and third grade]. Psykhe, 15, 3–11.
16.
BrazeD.KatzL.MagnusonJ. S.MenclW. E.TaborW.Van DykeJ. A.. . . ShankweilerD. P. (2016). Vocabulary does not complicate the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 29(3), 435–451.
17.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407863
18.
CaravolasM.LervågA.DefiorS.SeidlováG.HulmeC. (2013). Different patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent orthographies. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1398–1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612473122
19.
CattsH. W. (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 317–323.
20.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498115
21.
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.
22.
ClarkeB.NeseJ. F. T.AlonzoJ.SmithJ. L. M.TindalG.Kame’EnuiE. J.BakerS. K. (2011). Classification accuracy of easyCBM first-grade mathematics measures: Findings and implications for the field. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(4), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508411414153
23.
ClayM. M. (2000). Concepts about print: What have children learned about printed language?NH: Heinemann.
24.
ClemensN. H.Hagan-BurkeS.LuoW.CerdaC.BlakelyA.FroschJ.. . .JonesM. (2015). The predictive validity of a computer-adaptive assessment of kindergarten and first-grade reading skills. School Psychology Review, 44(1), 76–97.
25.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.. . .CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448
26.
CrespoP.JiménezJ. E.RodríguezC.BakerD. L.ParkY. (2018). Differences in growth reading patterns for at-risk Spanish-monolingual children as a function of a tier 2 intervention. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21, 1–16.
27.
CuetosF.Suárez-CoallaP. (2009). From grapheme to word in reading acquisition in Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 583–601.
28.
DefiorS.SerranoF. (2011). La conciencia fonémica, aliada de la adquisición del lenguaje escrito [Phonemic awareness and literacy acquistion]. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatria y Audiologia, 31(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0214-4603(11)70165-6
29.
DefiorS.SerranoF. (2014). Aspectos diacrónicos y sincrónicos del español: relación con la adquisición del lenguaje escrito [Diachronic and synchronic aspects of Spanish: the relationship with literacy acquisition]. Estudios de Psicologia, 35(3), 450–475.
30.
DubeckM. M.GoveA. (2015). The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA): It’s theoretical foundation, purpose, and limitations. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 315–322.
31.
DuffF. J.HulmeC.GraingerK.HardwickS. J.MilesJ. N.SnowlingM. J. (2014). Reading and language intervention for children at risk of dyslexia: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(11), 1234–1243.
32.
FerroniM.DiukB. (2010). El nombre y el sonido de las letras: ¿conocimientos diferenciables? [Letter-name and letter-sound knowledge: different types of knowledge?] SUMMA Psicológica UST, 7(2), 15–24.
33.
FloritE.CainK. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553–576.
34.
FoormanB. R.BreierJ. I.FletcherJ. M. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success—An evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24(2–3), 613–639. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326942DN242&3_06
35.
GellertA. S.ElbroC. (2017). Does a dynamic test of phonological awareness predict early reading difficulties?: A longitudinal study from kindergarten through grade 1. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415609185
36.
GilbertJ. K.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508412451491
37.
GoughP. B.HooverW. A.PetersonC. L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
GuzmánR.JiménezJ. E. (2001). Estudio normativo sobre parámetros psicolingüísticos en niños de 6 a 8 años: la familiaridad subjetiva [A normative study on psycholinguistic parameters in children from 6 to 8 years: subjective familiarity]. Cognitiva, 2, 153–191.
39.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (20104). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
40.
HintzeJ. M.SilberglittB. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high-stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 372–386.
HuangF. L.TortorelliL. S.InvernizziM. A. (2014). An investigation of factors associated with letter-sound knowledge at kindergarten entry. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.02.001
JenkinsJ. R.HudsonR. F.JohnsonE. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00049
45.
JenkinsJ. R.SchillerE.BlackorbyJ.ThayerS. K.TillyW. D. (2013). Responsiveness to intervention in reading: Architecture and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712464963
46.
JiménezJ. E.GarcíaE.OrtizR.Hernández-ValleI.GuzmánR.RodrigoM.. . .HernándezS. (2005). Is the deficit in phonological awareness better explained in terms of task differences or effects of syllable structure?Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0142716405050174
47.
JiménezJ. E.GarcíaE.O’ShanahanI.RojasE. (2010). Do Spanish children use the syllable in visual word recognition in learning to read?The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 63–74.
48.
JiménezJ. E.GoveA.CrouchL.RodríguezC. (2014). Internal structure and standardized scores of the Spanish adaptation of the EGRA (Early Grade Reading Assessment) for early reading assessment. Psicothema, 26(4), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.93
49.
JiménezJ. E.GutiérrezN. (2019). Indicadores de Progreso de Aprendizaje en Lectura (IPAL) - Educación Infantil (5 años) [Indicators of Basic Early Reading Skills - Kindergarten]. In JimenezJ. E. (Ed.), Modelo de Respuesta a la Intervención. Un enfoque preventivo para el abordaje de las dificultades específicas de aprendizaje [Response to Intervention Model: A preventive approach for learning disabilities]. Pirámide.
50.
JiménezJ. E.O’ShanahanI. (2008). Enseñanza de la lectura: de la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa [Teaching reading: from theory and research to educational practice]. Revista Iberoamericana De Educación, 45(5), 1–22.
51.
JiménezJ. E.RodríguezC.CrespoP.GonzálezD.ArtilesC.AlfonsoM. (2010). Implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI) Model in Spain: An example of a collaboration between Canarian universities and the department of education of the Canary Islands. Psicothema, 22(4), 935–942.
52.
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.x
53.
JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97.
54.
Keller-MargulisM. A.PayanA.BoothC. (2012). Reading curriculum-based measures in Spanish: An examination of validity and diagnostic accuracy. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(4), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508411435721
55.
Keller-MargulisM. A.ShapiroE. S.HintzeJ. M. (2008). Long-term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 374–390.
56.
Ketterlin-GellerL. R.PerryL.PlatasL. M.SitbakhanY. (2018). Aligning test scoring procedures with test uses of the early grade mathematics assessment: A balancing act. Global Education Review, 5(3), 143–164.
57.
KilgusS. P.MetheS. A.MagginD. M.TomasulaJ. L. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (R-CBM): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52(4), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.06.002
58.
KimY. S.PallanteD. (2012). Predictors of reading skills for kindergartners and first grade students in Spanish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 25(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9244-0
59.
KirbyJ. R.SavageR. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?Literacy, 42(2), 75–82.
60.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
61.
LevyB. A.GongZ.HesselsS.EvansM. A.JaredD. (2006). Understanding print: Early reading developments and the contributions of home literacy experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 63–93.
62.
LovettM. W.FrijtersJ. C.WolfM.SteinbachK. A.SevcikR. A.MorrisR. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 889–914.
63.
NationK.SnowlingM. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 342–356.
O’ConnorR. E.BocianK. M.SanchezV.BeachK. D. (2014). Access to a responsiveness to intervention model: Does beginning intervention in kindergarten matter?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 307–328.
68.
OrtizM. R.JiménezJ. E. (1993). Prueba de conocimientos sobre el lenguaje escrito (CLE) [Print awareness test]. TEA.
69.
OrtizM. R.JiménezJ. E. (2001). Concepciones tempranas acerca del lenguaje escrito en prelectores [Prereaders’ early conceptions about written language]. Infancia y Aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 24(2), 215–231.
70.
PallanteD. H.KimY. (2013). The effect of a multicomponent literacy instruction model on literacy growth for kindergartners and first-grade students in Chile. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.719628
71.
PerfettiC. A.HarrisL. N. (2013). Universal reading processes are modulated by language and writing system. Language Learning and Development, 9(4), 296–316.
72.
PetersenD. B.AllenM. M.SpencerT. D. (2016). Predicting reading difficulty in first grade using dynamic assessment of decoding in early kindergarten: A large-scale longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 200–215.
73.
PetscherY.KimY. S. (2011). The utility and accuracy of oral reading fluency score types in predicting reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 49(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2010.09.004
74.
PetscherY.KimY. S.FoormanB. R. (2011). The importance of predictive power in early screening assessments: Implications for placement in the Response to Intervention framework. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(3), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508410396698
75.
RickettsJ.NationK.BishopD. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 235–257.
76.
RipollJ. C.Zevallos PoloD. S.ArcosN. P. (2017). La concepción simple de la lectura en alumnos de 4º de primaria de Quito [The simple view of reading in 4th grade grade students from a public school in Quito]. Alteridad, 12(1), 115–122.
77.
RitcheyK. D.SilvermanR. D.SchatschneiderC.SpeeceD. L. (2015). Prediction and stability of reading problems in middle childhood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498116
78.
RobinX.TurckN.HainardA.TibertiN.LisacekF.SanchezJ. C.MüllerM. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-77
79.
RTI International. (2009). Early Grade Reading Assessment toolkit. Manual para la evaluación inicial de la lectura en niños de educación primaria [Early grade reading assessment toolkit, Spanish adaptation] Adaptation by J. E. Jimenez (Prepared for USAID under the EdData II project, Task Order 3, Contract No. EHC-E-01-03-00004-00). Research Triangle Park, NC. https://www.rti.org/sites/default/files/resources/bk-0007-1109-wetterberg.pdf
80.
SeymourP.AroM.ErskineJ. (2003). Foundations literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
81.
ShareD. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
82.
ShinJ.DenoS. L.EspinC. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 164–172.
83.
SignoriniA.de ManriqueA. M. B. (2003). Aprendizaje de la lectura y escritura en español. El predominio de las estrategias fonológicas. [Learning to read and spell in Spanish. The prevalence of phonological strategies]. Interdisciplinaria Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 20(1), 5–30.
84.
SimmonsD. C.CoyneM. D.KwokO.-M.McdonaghS.HarnB.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.
85.
SmolkowskiK.CummingsK. D. (2015). Evaluation of diagnostic systems: The selection of students at risk of academic difficulties. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508415590386
86.
Suárez-CoallaP.Álvarez-CañizoM.CuetosF. (2016). Orthographic learning in Spanish children. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(3), 292–311.
87.
Suárez-CoallaP.CuetosF. (2016). Semantic and phonological influences on visual word learning in a transparent language. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1164733
88.
Suárez-CoallaP.García-De-CastroM.CuetosF. (2013). Variables predictoras de la lectura y la escritura en castellano [Predictors of reading and writing in Spanish]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 36(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013804826537
TapiaM. (2016). ¿Es “simple” la concepción simple de lectura? [Is “simple” the simple view of reading?]. Asociación Científica de Psicología y Educación.
91.
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. K. S.ConwayT. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104
92.
TríasD.CuadroA.CostaD. (2008). Desarrollo de la conciencia fonémica: evaluación de un programa de intervención [Development of phonemic awareness: assessment of an intervention program]. Revista Argentina de Neuropsicología, 11(2), 1–8.
93.
TunmerW. E.ChapmanJ. W. (2012). The simple view of reading Redux: Vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 453–466.
94.
VadasyP. F.SandersE. A.PeytonJ. A. (2006). Code-oriented instruction for kindergarten students at risk for reading difficulties: A randomized field trial with paraeducator implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 508–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.508
95.
VanderheydenA. M.WittJ. C.NaquinG.NoellG. (2001). The reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement readiness probes for kindergarten students. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 363–382.
96.
VaughnS.Linan-ThompsonS.MathesP. G.CirinoP. T.CarlsonC. D.Pollard-DurodolaS. D.… FrancisD. J. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English Language Learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219406039001060
97.
VaughnS.HallC. (2017). Theoretically guided interventions for adolescents who are poor readers. In CainK.ComptonD. L.ParrilaR. K. (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 489–506). John Benjamins.
98.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561.
99.
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
100.
WebbN. M.ShavelsonR. J.HaertelE. H. (2006). Reliability coefficients and generalizability theory. Handbook of Statistics, 26, 81–124.
101.
WoodC. L.BustamanteK. N.FittonL. M.BrownD. M.PetscherY. (2017). Rapid automatic naming performance of young Spanish–English Speaking children. Languages, 2, 13.
102.
ZieglerJ. C.BertrandD.TóthD.CsépeV.ReisA.FaíscaL.BlomertL. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21(4), 551–559.
103.
ZieglerJ. C.GoswamiU. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3
