This exploratory study builds upon extant reading development studies by identifying discrete groups based on reading comprehension trajectories across first grade. The main goal of this study was to enhance the field’s understanding of early reading comprehension development and its underlying subcomponent skills, with the intent of better understanding the development of comprehension in students who display risk for reading difficulties and disabilities. A sample of first-grade readers (N = 314) were assessed at three timepoints across the first-grade year. These data were utilized to derive empirical latent classes based on reading comprehension performance across the first-grade year. Reading subcomponent skill assessments (phonological awareness, word reading, decoding, linguistic comprehension, and reading fluency), measured in the fall of first grade, were compared across latent classes to examine how they related to growth across the first-grade year. Results suggest that there were four distinct latent classes with differential reading comprehension development, each of which could also be distinguished by the subskill assessments. These findings are presented within the context of the broader reading research base, and implications for practice are discussed.
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.
AdlofS. M.CattsH. W.LittleT. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?Reading and Writing, 19(9), 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9024-z
3.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model. Mplus Web Notes, 21(2), 1–22.
4.
BakkZ.TekleF. B.VermuntJ. K. (2013). Estimating the association between latent class membership and external variables using bias-adjusted three-step approaches. Sociological Methodology, 43(1), 272–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175012470644
5.
BakkZ.VermuntJ. K. (2016). Robustness of stepwise latent class modeling with continuous distal outcomes. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.955104
6.
BolckA.CroonM.HagenaarsJ. (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mph001
7.
BoscardinC. K.MuthénB.FrancisD. J.BakerE. L. (2008). Early identification of reading difficulties using heterogeneous developmental trajectories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.192
8.
CattsH. W.AdlofS. M.WeismerS. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/023)
9.
CattsH. W.ComptonD.TomblinJ. B.BridgesM. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025323
10.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.ZhangX.TomblinJ. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(4), 331–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0304_2
11.
CattsH. W.FeyM. E.ZhangX.TomblinJ. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/004)
12.
CattsH. W.HoganT. P.FeyM. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600208
13.
ChardD. J.VaughnS.TylerB.-J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194020350050101
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.EllemanA. M.GilbertJ. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late-emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.003
16.
CunninghamA. E.StanovichK. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945.
17.
EasonS. H.SabatiniJ.GoldbergL.BruceK.CuttingL. E. (2013). Examining the relationship between word reading efficiency and oral reading rate in predicting comprehension among different types of readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(3), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.652722
18.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x
19.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.LyonG. R.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.
20.
FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3
21.
GarcíaJ. R.CainK. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616
GrimmR. P.SolariE. J.McIntyreN. S.DentonC. A. (2018). Early reading skill profiles in typically developing and at-risk first grade readers to inform targeted early reading instruction. Journal of School Psychology, 69, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.05.009
24.
HoganT. P.AdlofS. M.AlonzoC. N. (2014). On the importance of listening comprehension. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(3), 199–207. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2014.904441
JuelC.LeavellJ. A. (1988). Retention and nonretention of at-risk readers in first grade and their subsequent reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(9), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948802100910
27.
KendeouP.SavageR.van den BroekP. (2009a). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185408X369020
28.
KendeouP.van den BroekP.WhiteM. J.LynchJ. S. (2009b). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015956
29.
KershawS.SchatschneiderC. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 433–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9278-3
30.
KimY.-S.PetscherY.SchatschneiderC.FoormanB. (2010). Does growth rate in oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019643
MasynK. E. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modelling. In LittleT. D. (Ed.), Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods: Statistical analysis (551–611). Oxford University Press.
33.
MatherN.JaffeL. E. (2016). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Reports, recommendations, and strategies. John Wiley.
34.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A. (2002). The prevention and identification of reading disability. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 9(3), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1053/spen.2002.35498
35.
MathesP. G.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M.AnthonyJ. L.FrancisD. J.SchatschneiderC. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.2
36.
McCoachD. B.O’ConnellA. A.ReisS. M.LevittH. A. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.14
37.
McMasterK. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100404
38.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.HibelJ. (2008). Matthew effects for whom?Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(4), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/25474651
NationK.CockseyJ.TaylorJ. S. H.BishopD. V. M. (2010). A longitudinal investigation of early reading and language skills in children with poor reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(9), 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02254.x
41.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). U.S. Government Printing Office.
42.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.
43.
OakhillJ. V.CainK.BryantP. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(4), 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000008
44.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2006). On multilevel model reliability estimation from the perspective of structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1301_7
45.
RothF. P.SpeeceD. L.CooperD. H. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the connection between oral language and early reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(5), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596600
SchwartzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
48.
Semel-MintzE.WiigE.SecordW. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.). Psychological Corporation.
49.
SilvermanR. D.SpeeceD. L.HarringJ. R.RitcheyK. D. (2013). Fluency has a role in the simple view of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(2), 108–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.618153
50.
SkibbeL. E.GrimmK. J.Stanton-ChapmanT. L.JusticeL. M.PenceK. L.BowlesR. P. (2008). Reading trajectories of children with language difficulties from preschool through fifth grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(4), 475–486.
51.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A.DolanL. J.WasikB. A.RossS.SmithL.DiandaM. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(1), 41–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr0101_6
52.
SolariE. J.GrimmR. P.McIntyreN. S.DentonC. A. (2018). Reading comprehension development in at-risk vs. not at-risk first grade readers: The differential roles of listening comprehension, decoding, and fluency. Learning and Individual Differences, 65, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.06.005
53.
StorchS. A.WhitehurstG. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.6.934
54.
TilstraJ.McMasterK.Van den BroekP.KendeouP.RappD. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x
55.
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
56.
TorgesenJ. K.BurgessS. R. (1998). Consistency of reading-related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In MetsalaJ. L.EhriL. C. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 161–188). Routledge.
57.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency-Second Edition (TOWRE-2). Pro-Ed.
58.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432685
59.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.Reid LyonG. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300302
60.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.192
61.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.HechtS. A.BarkerT. A.BurgessS. R.. . . GaronT. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 468–479.
62.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2013). CTOPP-2: Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Pro-ed.
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.
