Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-11
Comorbidity in Reading Comprehension and Word-Problem Solving Difficulties: Exploring Shared Risk Factors and Their Impact on Language Minority Learners
The purpose of this study was threefold: to examine unique and shared risk factors of comorbidity for reading comprehension and word-problem solving difficulties, to explore whether language minority (LM) learners are at increased risk of what we refer to as higher order comorbidity (reading comprehension and word-problem solving difficulties), and to examine the profiles of at-risk LM learners compared with at-risk non-LM learners. At-risk (LM n = 70; non-LM n = 89) and not-at-risk (LM n = 44; non-LM n = 114) students were evaluated on foundational academic (word reading, calculation), behavioral (behavioral attention), cognitive (working memory, processing speed, nonverbal reasoning), and language (vocabulary, listening comprehension) measures in English. Results indicated listening comprehension was the only shared risk factor for higher order comorbidity. Furthermore, LM learners were 3 times more likely to be identified as at risk compared with non-LM learners. Finally, among at-risk learners, no differences were found on cognitive dimensions by language status, but LM learners had lower reading and listening comprehension skills than non-LM learners, with a relative advantage in behavioral attention. Results have implications for understanding higher order comorbidity and for developing methods to identify and intervene with higher order comorbidity among the growing population of LM learners.
AbediJ.LordC. (2001). The language factor in mathematics tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(3), 219–234.
2.
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(5), 414–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390050401
3.
AugustD.ShanahanT. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Lawrence Erlbaum.
BadianN. A. (1999). Persistent arithmetic, reading, or arithmetic and reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 43–70.
6.
BarreraM. (2006). Roles of definitional and assessment models in the identification of new or second language learners of English for special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 142156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020301
7.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
8.
BialystokE. (2011). Reshaping the mind: The benefits of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(4), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025406
9.
BruderM. B. (2010). Early childhood intervention: A promise to children and families for their future. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 339–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600306
10.
BullR.JohnstonR. S. (1997). Children’s arithmetical difficulties: Contributions from processing speed, item identification, and short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65(1), 1–24.
11.
ButterfussR.KendeouP. (2018). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 801–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9422-6
12.
ChildA. E.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.WillcuttE. G.FuchsL. S. (2019). A cognitive dimensional approach to understanding shared and unique contributions to reading, mathematics, and attention skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775115
13.
ChoE.FuchsL. S.SeethalerP. M.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2020). Dynamic assessment for identifying Spanish-speaking English learners’ risk for mathematics disabilities: Does language of administration matter?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419898887
14.
ChoE.RobertsG. J.CapinP.RobertsG.MiciakJ.VaughnS. (2015). Cognitive attributes, attention, and self-efficacy of adequate and inadequate responders in a fourth grade reading intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(4), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12088
15.
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
16.
CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.Ewing-CobbsL.BarnesM. A.FuchsL. S. (2007). Cognitive arithmetic differences in learning difficulty groups and the role of behavioral inattention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00228.x
17.
CirinoP. T.FuchsL. S.EliasJ. T.PowellS. R.SchumacherR. F. (2015). Cognitive and mathematical profiles for different forms of learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(2), 156–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413494239
18.
ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.FuchsD.LambertW.HamlettC. (2012). The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410393012
19.
ConnollyA. J. (1998). KeyMathematics revised, NU: A diagnostic inventory of essential mathematicsematics. American Guidance Service.
20.
DuncanG. J.DowsettC. J.ClaessensA.MagnusonK.HustonA. C.KlebanovP.PaganiL. S.FeinsteinL.EngelM.Brooks-GunnJ.SextonH.DuckworthK.JapelC. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6). 1428-1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
21.
FryR. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?Pew Hispanic Center.
22.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L. (2013). Intervention effects for students with comorbid forms of learning disability: Understanding the needs of nonresponders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(6), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412468889
23.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.ComptonD. L.PowellS. R.SeethalerP. M.CapizziA. M.SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.29
24.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SeethalerP. M.BarnesM. A. (2020). Addressing the role of working memory in mathematical word-problem solving when designing intervention for struggling learners. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01070-8
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.SeethalerP. M.CuttingL. E.Mancilla-MartinezJ. (2019). Connections between reading comprehension and word-problem solving via oral language comprehension: Implications for comorbid learning disabilities. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(165), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20288
26.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.StuebingK.FletcherJ. M.HamlettC. L.LambertW. (2008). Problem solving and computational skill: Are they shared or distinct aspects of mathematical cognition?Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.30
27.
FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.FuchsD.SeethalerP. M. N.MartinB. (2018). Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word-problem solving: Insights into word-problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259
28.
FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.PowellS. R.CirinoP. T.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.SeethalerP. M.TolarT. D. (2016). The role of cognitive processes, foundational math skill, and calculation accuracy and fluency in word-problem solving versus prealgebraic knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 2085–2098. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000227
29.
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
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01069.x
32.
GeneseeF.ParadisJ.CragoM. B. (2004). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on bilingualism & second language learning (Vol. 11). Paul H Brookes.
33.
HalleT.HairE.WandnerL.McNamaraM.ChienN. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.07.004
34.
JordanN. C.HanichL. B. (2000). Mathematical sematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300605
35.
KeenanJ. M.BetjemannR. S.OlsonR. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279
36.
KershawS.SchatschneiderC. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 25, 433–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9278-3
KiefferM. J. (2008). Catching up or falling behind? Initial English proficiency, concentrated poverty, and the reading growth of language minority learners in the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 851–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.851
39.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
40.
KintschW.GreenoJ. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92, 109–129.
41.
KlingnerJ. K.ArtilesA. J.Méndez BarlettaL. (2006). English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020101
42.
KoponenT.AroM.PoikkeusA.-M.NiemiP.LerkkanenM.-K.AhonenT.NurmiJ.-E. (2018). Comorbid fluency difficulties in reading and mathematics: Longitudinal stability across early grades. Exceptional Children, 84(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918756269
43.
LanderlK.MollK. (2010). Comorbidity of learning disorders: Prevalence and familial transmission. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(3), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02164.x
44.
LocascioG.MahoneE. M.EasonS. H.CuttingL. E. (2010). Executive Dysfunction among children with reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(5), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355476
45.
LukG.ChristodoulouJ. A. (2016). Assessing and understanding the needs of dual-language learners. In LesauxN.JonesS. (Eds.), The leading edge of early childhood education: Linking science to policy for a new generation of pre-K (pp. 67–90). Harvard Education Press.
Mancilla-MartinezJ. (2020). Understanding and supporting literacy development among English learners: A deep dive into the role of language comprehension. AERA Open, 6(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420912198
48.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.HwangJ. K.OhM. H. (2021). Assessment selection for multilingual learners’ reading development. The Reading Teacher. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2053
49.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.HwangJ. K.OhM. H.McClainJ. B. (2019). Early elementary grade dual language learners from Spanish-speaking homes struggling with English reading comprehension: The dormant role of language skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 880–894. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000402
50.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.LesauxN. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01633.x
51.
Mancilla-MartinezJ.LesauxN. K. (2017). Early indicators of later English reading comprehension outcomes among children from Spanish-speaking homes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 428–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1320402
52.
MillerA. C.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.KearnsD.ZhangW.YenLPattonSKirchnerD. P. (2014). Behavioral attention: A longitudinal study of whether and how it influences the development of word reading and reading comprehension among at-risk readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(3), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2014.906691
PerfettiC. A. (1988). Verbal efficiency in reading ability. In DanemanM.MackinnonG. E.WallerT. G. (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 6, pp. 109–143). Academic Press.
55.
PetersenD. B.GraggS. L.SpencerT. D. (2018). Predicting reading problems 6 years into. The Future: Dynamic Assessment Reduces Bias and Increases Classification Accuracy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-DYSLC-18-0021
56.
PickeringS.GathercoleS. (2001). Working memory test battery for children. The Psychological Corporation.
57.
RappD. N.BroekP.v d McMasterK. L.KendeouP.EspinC. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530417
58.
RhodesK. T.Branum-MartinL.MorrisR. D.RomskiM.SevcikR. A. (2015). Testing math or testing language? The construct validity of the KeyMath-Revised for children with intellectual disability and language difficulties. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 120(6), 542–568.
59.
SamsonJ. F.LesauxN. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326221
60.
SantiK. L.KhalafS.BuntaF.RojasR.FrancisD. J. (2019). IQ-achievement discrepancy for identification of disabilities in Spanish-speaking English learners. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(166), 111–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20304
61.
SchrankF. A.MathematicserN.McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Riverside.
62.
SchrankF. A.McGrewK. S.MathematicserN. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Riverside.
63.
SeethalerP. M.FuchsL. S. (2017). Vanderbilt Word Reading Test. Vanderbilt University.
64.
ShankweilerD.LundquistE.KatzL.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.BradyS.FowlerA.DreyerL. G.MarchioneK. E.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(1), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0301_4
65.
StataCorp. (1985–2019). Stata Statistical Software: Release 16.
66.
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
67.
SwansonJ.SchuckS.MannM.CarlsonC.HartmanK.SergeantJ.ClevengerW.WasdellM.McClearyR.LakesK.WigalT. (2004). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: The SNAP and the SWAN rating scales. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 51–70.
68.
TolarT. D.FuchsL.CirinoP. T.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.FletcherJ. M. (2012). Predicting development of mathematical sematical word problem solving across the intermediate grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1083–1093. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029020
69.
TollS. W. M.Van der VenS. H. G.KroesbergenE. H.Van LuitJ. E. H. (2011). Executive functions as predictors of math learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410387302
70.
Van der SluisS.De JongP. F.Van der LeijA. (2007). Executive functioning in children, and its relations with reasoning, reading, and arithmetic. Intelligence, 35(5), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.001
71.
WangA. Y.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2016). Cognitive and linguistic predictors of mathematical sematical word problems with and without irrelevant information. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.015
72.
WechslerD. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. The Psychological Corporation.
73.
WilkinsonG. S.RobertsonG. J. (2006). WRAT 4: Wide Range Achievement Test. Psychological Assessment Resources.
74.
WillcuttE.Sonuga-BarkeE. J.NiggJ.SergeantJ. A. (2008). Recent developments in neuropsychological models of childhood psychiatric disorders. Advances in Biological Psychiatry, 24, 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1159/000118526
75.
WillcuttE. G.PetrillS. A.WuS.BoadaR.DeFriesJ. C.OlsonR. K.PenningtonB. F. (2013). Comorbidity between reading disability and mathematics disability: Concurrent psychopathology, functional impairment, and neuropsychological functioning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(6), 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413477476
76.
WinslerA.KimY. K.RichardE. R. (2014). Socio-emotional skills, behavior problems, and Spanish competence predict the acquisition of English among English language learners in poverty. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2242–2254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037161
77.
WolfM. K.KaoJ.GriffinN.HermanJ. L.BachmanP. L.ChangS. M.FarnsworthT. (2008). Issues in assessing English language learners: English language proficiency measures and accommodation uses. Practice Review (Part 2 of 3). CRESST Report 732. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
78.
WoodcockR. W. (1997). Woodcock diagnostic reading battery. Riverside.
79.
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
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.
