Can Curriculum-Embedded Measures Predict the Later Reading Achievement of Kindergarteners at Risk of Reading Disability?

Abstract

This study examined the changing role and longitudinal predictive validity of curriculum-embedded progress-monitoring measures (CEMs ) for kindergarten students receiving Tier 2 intervention and identified as at risk of developing reading difficulties. Multiple measures were examined to determine whether they could predict comprehensive latent first- and second-grade reading outcomes and whether their predictive validity changed concurrent with reading development. CEMs of phonemic, alphabetic, and integrated tasks were given 3 times during the kindergarten year to 299 students. Structural equation modeling indicates that CEMs explained a significant amount of variance on first- (54%–63%) and second-grade (34%–41%) outcomes. The predictive validity of specific measures varied over the kindergarten year with sound and letter identification measures being predictive early and segmenting and word reading becoming important as reading abilities progressed. Findings suggest that CEMs may be viable and helpful tools for making data-driven instructional decisions in a response to intervention framework.

Keywords

CEM kindergarten reading difficulties RTI data-driven instruction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Al Otaiba

Torgesen

J. K.

(2007). Effects from intensive standardized kindergarten and first-grade interventions for the prevention of reading difficulties. In Jimerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention the science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 212–222). New York, NY: Springer.

Badian

N. A.

(1995). Predicting reading ability over the long term: The changing roles of letter naming, phonological awareness, and orthographic processing. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 79–96. doi:10.1007/BF02648213

Bishop

A. G.

(2003). Prediction of first-grade reading achievement: A comparison of fall and winter kindergarten screenings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 189–200. doi:10.2307/1593651

Catts

H. W.

Fey

M. E.

Zhang

Tomblin

J. B.

(1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0304_2

Chiappe

Siegel

L. S.

Wade-Woolley

(2002). Linguistic diversity and the development of reading skills: A longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 369–400. doi:10.1207/S1532799XSSR0604_04

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Bryant

J. D.

(2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394–409. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.394

Ehri

L. C.

McCormick

(1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 135–163. doi:10.1080/1057356980140202

Enders

C. K.

Bandalos

D. L.

(2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 430–457. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Compton

D. L.

(2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.

10.

Gersten

Compton

Connor

C. M.

Dimino

Santoro

Linan-Thompson

Tilly

W. D.

(2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=3

11.

Gersten

Dimino

J. A.

(2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 99–108. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.5

12.

Good

R. H.

III Kaminski

R. A.

(Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.

13.

Good

R. H.

III Kaminski

R. A.

Shinn

M. R.

Bratten

Shinn

Laimon

. . .Flindt

(2004). Technical adequacy of DIBELS: Results of the early childhood research institute on measuring growth and development (Technical Report No. 7). Eugene: University of Oregon.

14.

Hogan

T. P.

Catts

H. W.

Little

T. D.

(2005). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading: Implications for the assessment of phonological awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 285–293. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/029)

15.

Kirby

J. R.

Parrila

R. K.

Pfeiffer

S. L.

(2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 453–464. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.452

16.

Larsen

S. C.

Hammill

D. D.

Moats

L. C.

(2005). Test of Written Spelling (4th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

17.

Lembke

E. S.

McMaster

K. L.

Stecker

P. M.

(2010). The prevention science of reading research within a response-to-intervention model. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 22–35. doi:10.1002/pits.20449

18.

McCardle

Scarborough

H. S.

Catts

H. W.

(2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 230–239. doi:10.1111/0938-8982.00023

19.

Moats

L. C.

(2005). How spelling supports reading. American Educator, 6, 12–22.

20.

Morris

Bloodgood

Perney

(2003). Kindergarten predictors of first- and second-grade reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 104, 93–109. doi:10.1086/499744

21.

Morris

Bloodgood

J. W.

Lomax

R. G.

Perney

(2003). Developmental steps in learning to read: A longitudinal study in kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 302–328. doi:10.1598/RRQ.38.3.1

22.

Pearson/Scott Foresman. (2004). Scott Foresman sidewalks: Early reading intervention. Glenview, IL: Author.

23.

Pennington

B. F.

Lefly

D. L.

(2001). Early reading development in children at family risk for dyslexia. Child Development, 72, 816–833. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00317

24.

Scanlon

D. M.

Vellutino

F. R.

(1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first-grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2, 54–63. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2779(1996)2:1<54::AID-MRDD9>3.0.CO;2-X

25.

Schatschneider

Francis

D. J.

Carlson

C. D.

Fletcher

J. M.

Foorman

B. R.

(2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.265

26.

Speece

D. L.

Mills

Ritchey

K. D.

Hillman

(2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36, 223–233. doi:10.1177/002246690303600403

27.

Stecker

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113

28.

Tindal

Marston

Deno

S. L.

(1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Report No. 9). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.

29.

Torgesen

J. K.

(1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22, 32–39.

30.

Wagner

R. K.

Torgesen

J. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

(1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

31.

Woodcock

R. W.

(1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test–Revised/Normative update. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Assessments. (Original work published 1987)