A latent variable investigation of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening-Kindergarten assessment: Construct identification and multigroup comparisons between Spanish-speaking English-language learners (ELLs) and non-ELL students
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2014
A latent variable investigation of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening-Kindergarten assessment: Construct identification and multigroup comparisons between Spanish-speaking English-language learners (ELLs) and non-ELL students
Psychometric properties of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Kindergarten (PALS-K) instrument were investigated in a sample of 2844 first-time public school kindergarteners. PALS-K is a widely used English literacy screening assessment. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a theoretically defensible measurement structure that was found to replicate in a randomly selected hold-out sample when examined through the lens of confirmatory factor analytic methods. Multigroup latent variable comparisons between Spanish-speaking English-language learners (ELLs) and non-ELL students largely demonstrated the PALS-K to yield configural and metric invariance with respect to associations between subtests and latent dimensions. In combination, these results support the educational utility of the PALS-K as a tool for assessing important reading constructs and informing early interventions across groups of Spanish-speaking ELL and non-ELL students.
AdamsM. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AndersonJ.GerbingD. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
3.
BandyopadhyayS.CornellD.KonoldT. (2009). Validity of three school climate scales to assess bullying, aggressive attitudes, and help seeking. School Psychology Review, 38, 338–355.
4.
BearD. R.InvernizziM.TempletonS.JohnstonF. (2012). Words their way: Word study for phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
5.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
6.
BrowneM.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK.LongJ. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
BusA. G.van IJzendoornM. H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414.
8.
ChenF. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
11.
ChiappeP.SiegelL.Wade-WoolleyL. (2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400.
12.
ClayM. (1975). What did I write?Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
13.
DavidsonF. (1994). Norms appropriacy of achievement tests: Spanish-speaking children and English children’s norms. Language Testing, 11, 83–95.
14.
DickinsonD.NeumanS. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2). New York: Guilford.
15.
FanX.SivoS. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate and Behavioral Research, 42, 509–529.
16.
FasholaO. S.DrumP. A.MayerR. E.KangS. J. (1996). A cognitive theory of orthographic transitioning: Predictable errors in how Spanish-speaking children spell English words. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 825–843.
17.
FinneyS. J.DiStefanoC. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
18.
FoulinJ. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 129–155.
19.
FlaniganK. (2007). A concept of word in text: A pivotal event in early reading acquisition. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 37–70.
20.
FoxJ.FairbairnS. (2011). Test review: ACCESS for ELLs. Language Testing, 28, 425–431. doi: 10.1177/0265532211404195
21.
FoyJ.MannV. (2006). Changes in letter sound knowledge are associated with development of phonological awareness in pre-school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 28, 143–161. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9817.2006.00279.x
22.
FryR.GonzalesF. (2008). One-in-five and growing fast: A profile of Hispanic public school students. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/92.pdf
23.
GerbingD.AndersonJ. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 132–160.
24.
GevaE.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.SchusterB. (2000). Understanding individual differences in word recognition skills of ESL children. Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 121–154.
25.
HammillD. D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Exceptional Children, 70, 453–468.
26.
HeckmanJ. J.MasterovD. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29, 446–493. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9353.2007.00359.x
27.
HelmanL. (2005). Using literacy assessment results to improve teaching for English-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 58, 668–677. doi: 10.1598/RT.58.7.7
28.
HiebertE. H.TaylorB. M. (2000). Beginning reading instruction: Research on early interventions. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 455–482). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structual Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
31.
HuC.PellegriniE. K.ScanduraT. A. (2011). Measurement invariance in mentoring research: A cross-cultural examination across Taiwan and the U.S. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 274–282.
InvernizziM.JuelC.SwankL.MeierC. (2009). PALS-K technical reference. Charlottesville, VA: University Printing Services.
34.
InvernizziM.JusticeL.LandrumT.BookerK. (2004). Early literacy screening in kindergarten: Widespread implementation in Virginia. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 479–500. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3604_3
35.
InvernizziM.LandrumT.TeichmanA.TownsendM. (2010). Increased implementation of emergent literacy screening in pre-kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 437–446. doi: 10.1007/s10643–009–0371–7
InvernizziM.SwankL.JuelC.MeierJ. (2003). Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening-Kindergarten. Charlottesville, VA: University Printing.
38.
JuelC. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.
39.
KeithT. Z. (1997). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In FlanaganD. P.GenshaftJ. L.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 373–402). New York: Guilford Press.
40.
KeithT. Z.FugateM. H.DeGraffM.DimondC. M.ShadrachE. A.StevensM. L. (1995). Using multi-sample confirmatory factor analysis to test for construct bias: An example using the K-ABC. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 347–364.
41.
KlineR. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
42.
LesauxN. K.KodaK.SiegelL. S.ShanahanT. (2006). Development of literacy of language minority learners. In AugustD. L.ShanahanT. (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 75–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
LesauxN. K.RuppA.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, 821–834.
44.
LesauxN. K.SiegelL. S. (2003). The development of reading in children who speak English as a second language. Developmental Psychology, 39, 1005–1019.
45.
LibermanI. Y.ShankweilerD.FischerF.CarterB. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201–212.
46.
LundbergI.FrostJ.PetersenO. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
47.
MarshH. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept and the application of hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 17–39.
48.
McBride-ChangC. (1998). The development of invented spelling. Early Education and Development, 9, 147–160. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed0902_3
49.
MilfontT.FischerR. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3, 111–121.
50.
MorrisD. (1993). The relationship between children’s concept of word in text and phoneme awareness in learning to read: A longitudinal study. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 133–154.
51.
MorrisD.BloodgoodJ.PerneyJ. (2003). Kindergarten predictors of first- and second-grade reading achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 93–109.
52.
MuterV.DiethelmK. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51, 187–219.
53.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
57.
PerneyJ.MorrisD.CarterS. (1997). Factorial and predictive validity of first graders’ scores on the Early Reading Screening instrument. Psychological Reports, 81, 207–210.
58.
RaynoldsL.UhryJ. (2010). The invented spellings of non-Spanish phonemes by Spanish-English bilingual and English monolingual kindergarteners. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 495–513.
59.
ReadC. (1971). Preschool children’s knowledge of English orthography. Harvard Education Review, 41, 1–34.
60.
ReardonS.GalindoC. (2009) The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 853–891. doi: 10.3102/0002831209333184
61.
SassD. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 347–363.
62.
SatorraA.BentlerP. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 66, 507–514.
63.
ScarboroughH. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In ShapiroB. K.AccardoP. J.CaputeA. J. (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
64.
SchreiberJ. (2008). Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4, 83–97.
65.
SnowC. E.BurnsM. S.GriffinP. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
66.
StahlS. A.MurrayB. A. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221–234.
67.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
68.
StevensonH. W.NewmanR. S. (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes in mathematics and reading. Child Development, 57, 646–659. doi:10.2307/1130343
69.
SwetsJ.DawesR.MonahanJ. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26.
70.
TanakaJ.HubaG. (1984). Confirmatory hierarchical factor analyses of psychological distress measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 621–635.
71.
TorgesenJ. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 7–26.
72.
TorgesenJ. K.DavisC. (1996). Individual difference variables that predict responses to training in phonological awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 1–21. doi:10.1006/jecp.1996.0040
73.
TownsendM.KonoldT. (2010). Measuring early literacy skills: A latent variable investigation of the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening for Preschool. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 115–128.
VandenbergR.LanceC. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.
76.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M. (2001). Emergent literacy skills, early instruction, and individual differences as determinants of difficulties in learning to read: The case for early intervention. In NeumanS. B.DickinsonD. K. (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 295–321). New York: Guilford.
77.
YoppH. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159–177. doi:10.2307/747800
