We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomized control trial to explore this question: Does “response/no response” best characterize students’ reactions to a generally efficacious first-grade reading program, or is a more nuanced characterization necessary? Data were collected on 265 at-risk readers’ word reading prior to and immediately following program implementation in first grade and in spring of second grade. Pretreatment data were also obtained on domain-specific skills (letter knowledge, decoding, passage comprehension, language) and domain-general skills (working memory, non-verbal reasoning). Latent profile analysis of word reading across the three time points with controls as a local norm revealed a strongly responsive group (n = 45) with mean word-reading z scores of 0.25, 1.64, and 1.26 at the three time points, respectively; a mildly responsive group (n = 109), z scores = 0.30, 0.47, and 0.55; a mildly non-responsive group (n = 90), z scores = −0.11, −0.15, and −0.55; and a strongly non-responsive group (n = 21), z scores = −1.24, −1.26, and −1.57. The two responsive groups had stronger pretreatment letter knowledge and passage comprehension than the two non-responsive groups. The mildly non-responsive group demonstrated better pretreatment passage comprehension than the strongly non-responsive group. No domain-general skill distinguished the four groups. Findings suggest response to early reading intervention was more complicated than response/no response, and pretreatment reading comprehension was an important predictor of response even with pretreatment word reading controlled.
BaileyD.DuncanG. J.OdgersC. L.YuW. (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(1), 7–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459
2.
BaileyD. H.NguyenT.JenkinsJ. M.DominaT.ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. S. (2016). Fadeout in an early mathematics intervention: Constraining content or preexisting differences?Developmental Psychology, 52(9), 1457–1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000188
3.
BarnerD.AlvarezG.SullivanJ.BrooksN.SrinivasanM.FrankM. C. (2016). Learning mathematics in a visuospatial format: A randomized, controlled trial of mental abacus instruction. Child Development, 87(4), 1146–1158.
CarrettiB.BorellaE.CornoldiC.De BeniR. (2009). Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 246–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.002
8.
ChallJ. S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate. McGraw-Hill.
9.
ClemensN. H.OslundE.KwokO. M.FogartyM.SimmonsD.DavisJ. L. (2019). Skill moderators of the effects of a reading comprehension intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918787339
10.
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
11.
CoyneM. D.McCoachD. B.WareS.AustinC. R.Loftus-RattanS. M.BakerD. L. (2019). Racing against the vocabulary gap: Matthew effects in early vocabulary instruction and intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918789162
12.
CronbachL. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12(11), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043943
13.
CronbachL. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076829
14.
CrosnoeR.CooperC. E. (2010). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions into elementary school: Linking family processes, school contexts, and educational policy. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 258–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209351564
15.
DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual (ERIC-ED 144270). University of Minnesota.
16.
EhrhardtJ.HuntingtonN.MolinoJ.BarbaresiW. (2013). Special education and later academic achievement. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 34(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e31827df53f
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.WillowsD. M.SchusterB. V.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.ShanahanT. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
19.
EtmanskieJ. M.PartanenM.SiegelL. S. (2016). A longitudinal examination of the persistence of late emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414522706
20.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
21.
FletcherJ. M.MiciakJ. (2019). The identification of specific learning disabilities: A summary of research on best practices. Texas Center for Learning Disabilities.
22.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1997). The case for early reading intervention. In BlachmanB. A. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243–264). Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
24.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. C.BryantJ.DavisG. N. (2008). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9083-9
25.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593674
26.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ThompsonA.OtaibaS. A.YenL.YangN. J.. . . O’ConnorR. E. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.251
27.
FuchsD.KearnsD. M.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K.PattonS.. . . ComptonD. L. (2019). Using moderator analysis to identify the first-grade children who benefit more and less from a reading comprehension program: A step toward aptitude-by-treatment interaction. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918802801
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290407100101
30.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC.SteckerP. M. (2020). Bringing data-based individualization to scale: A call for the next-generation technology of teacher supports. Manuscript submitted for publication.
FuchsL. S.SchumacherR. F.SterbaS. K.LongJ.NamkungJ.MaloneA.. . . ChangasP. (2014). Does working memory moderate the effects of fraction intervention? An aptitude–treatment interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034341
33.
GilmourA. F.FuchsD.WehbyJ. H. (2019). Are students with disabilities accessing the curriculum? A meta-analysis of the reading achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 85, 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918795830
34.
HartS. A.LoganJ. A.ThompsonL.KovasY.McLoughlinG.PetrillS. A. (2016). A latent profile analysis of math achievement, numerosity, and math anxiety in twins. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000045
35.
HolmesJ.GathercoleS. E.DunningD. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12(4), 9–15.
JungT.WickramaK. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00054.x
38.
KassR. E.RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2291091
39.
LemonsC. J.FuchsD.GilbertJ. K.FuchsL. S. (2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: Reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14539189
40.
LittleR. J.RubinD. B. (2014). Statistical analysis with missing data. John Wiley.
41.
LyonG. R.ChhabraV. (1996). The current state of science and the future of specific reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2(1), 2–9.
42.
McAlenneyA. L.CoyneM. D. (2015). Addressing false positives in early reading assessment using intervention response data. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713514057
MillerB.McCardleP.HernandezR. (2010). Advances and remaining challenges in adult literacy research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409359341
45.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2015). MPlus users guide.
46.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
47.
NelsonR. J.BennerG. J.GonzalezJ. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 255–267.
48.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Exceptional Children Division. (2017, March24). Evaluation and identification of specific learning disabilities.
49.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
50.
PengP.WangC.TaoS.SunC. (2017). The deficit profiles of Chinese children with reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 513–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9366-2
51.
PiantaR. C.BelskyJ.HoutsR.MorrisonF. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315(5820), 1795–1796. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139719
52.
PickeringS.GathercoleS. E. (2001). Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C). Psychological Corporation.
ScarboroughH. S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-998-0006-5
55.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K. (2018). The comprehension problems of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 366–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317749187
56.
StanovichK. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001-204
57.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819.
58.
SteinD. J. (2012). Dimensional or categorical: Different classifications and measures of anxiety and depression. Medicographia, 34(3), 270–275.
59.
StipekD. (2004). Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: Different strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(4), 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.010
60.
StuebingK. K.BarthA. E.MolfeseP. J.WeissB.FletcherJ. M. (2009). IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907600102
61.
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
62.
SwansonH. L. (2015). Cognitive strategy interventions improve word problem solving and working memory in children with math disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01099
TorgesenJ. K.AlexanderA. W.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.VoellerK. K.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
65.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). TOWRE: Test of word reading efficiency. Pro-Ed.
66.
TranL.SanchezT.ArellanoB.Lee SwansonH. (2011). A meta-analysis of the RTI literature for children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410378447
67.
VandellD. L.BelskyJ.BurchinalM.SteinbergL.Vandergrift & NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development, 81(3), 737–756.
68.
VaughnS.RobertsG.CapinP.MiciakJ.ChoE.FletcherJ. M. (2019). How initial word reading and language skills affect reading comprehension outcomes for students with reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918782618
69.
VaughnS.WanzekJ.WexlerJ.BathA.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ.DentonC.RobertsG.FrancisD. (2010). The relative effects of group size on reading progress of older students with reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 23(8), 931–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9183-9
70.
WanzekJ.RobertsG.VaughnS.SwansonE.SargentK. (2019). Examining the role of pre-instruction academic performance within a text-based approach to improving student content knowledge and understanding. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918783187
71.
WanzekJ.StevensE. A.WilliamsK. J.ScammaccaN.VaughnS.SargentK. (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624.
72.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561.
73.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313426
74.
WanzekJ.VaughnS. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 151–163.
75.
WechslerD. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. Psychological Corporation.
76.
WoodcockR. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests–Revised. American Guidance Service.
77.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Riverside.
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.
