The purpose of this study was to classify Korean readers into subgroups based on their reading achievement and to examine the relationships between these subgroups and a set of cognitive-linguistic variables. The reading achievement and cognitive-linguistic skills of 394 elementary school students were measured and the data were analyzed by disaggregating into primary grade level (i.e., Grades 1–3) and intermediate grade level (i.e., Grades 4–6). The main results are summarized as follows. First, three subgroups of readers were found based on the reading achievement for the primary grade level: “very poor word readers and poor comprehenders,” “poor readers,” and “average readers.” Second, four subgroups of readers were found based on the reading achievement for the intermediate grade level: “very significantly poor readers,” “very poor readers,” “average word readers but poor comprehenders,” and “average readers.” Third, vocabulary, rapid naming, phonological memory, and phonological awareness were cognitive-linguistic variables that significantly differentiated “very poor readers” and “poor readers” from “average readers” for the primary grade level. Fourth, phonological memory, rapid naming, sentence repetition, and listening comprehension were cognitive-linguistic variables that significantly differentiated “very poor readers” and “poor readers” from “average readers” for the intermediate grade level. This article also discusses the limits of this research and the implications in practice. Finally, this article touches upon the direction of future studies.
AdolfS.CattsH.LittleT. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?Reading and Writing, 19, 933–958.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
3.
Brasseur-HockI. F.HockM. F.KiefferM. J.BiancarosaG.DeshlerD. D. (2011). Adolescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 438–452.
4.
BulyM. R.ValenciaS. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 219–239.
5.
CainK.OakhillJ. V.BarnesM. A.BryantP. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and the relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859.
6.
CastlesA.ColtheartM. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47(2), 149–180.
7.
CirinoP. T.RomainM. A.BarthA. E.TolarT. D.FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26, 1059–1086.
8.
CollinsL. M.LanzaS. T. (2009). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences (Vol. 718). John Wiley.
9.
D’AngiulliA.SiegelL. S. (2003). Cognitive functioning as measured by the WISC-R: Do children with learning disabilities have distinctive patterns of performance?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(1), 48–58.
10.
de JongP. F.van der LeijA. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(1), 51–77.
11.
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.
12.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2019). Learning disabilities from identification to intervention. Guilford Press.
13.
FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.ShankweilerD. P.KatzL.LibermanI. Y.StuebingK. K.. . . ShaywitzB. A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6–23.
14.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
15.
HolopainenL.HoangN.KochA.KoflerD. (2020). Latent profile analysis of students’ reading development and the relation of cognitive variables to reading profiles. Annals of Dyslexia, 70, 94–114.
16.
HulmeC.SnowlingM. J. (2011). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties: Nature, causes, and treatments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 139–142.
JacksonN. E.ColtheartM. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure: Toward an integrated cognitive psychology of atypical reading. Psychological Press.
19.
JungT.WickramaK. A. S. (2007). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317.
20.
KatzL.FrostR. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In FrostR.KatzL. (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (Vol. 94, pp. 67–84). North-Holland.
21.
KendeouP.Van den BroekP.WhiteM. J.LynchJ. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 765–778.
22.
KimA. H.KimU. J.HwangM.YooH. S. (2014). Test of Reading Achievement and Reading Cognitive Processes (RA-RCP). Hakjisa.
23.
KimA. H.KimU. J.KangE. Y. (2016). A confirmatory factor analysis on reading constructs across ages. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 21(4), 631–641.
24.
KimA. H.KimU. J.YooH. S. (2020). Test of Writing Achievement and Writing Cognitive Processes (WA-WCP). Hakjisa.
25.
KimA. H.KimU. J.YooH. S.HwangM. A.ParkS. H. (2011). Predictors of word recognition and reading fluency abilities of elementary school students. Journal of Elementary Education, 24, 277–303.
26.
KimA. H.YooH. S.HwangM.KimU. J.KohS. R. (2010). Prediction of reading comprehension in elementary school students. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 15(3), 357–380.
27.
KimJ. (2014). It proposes to enact the Basic Education Act. Good Teacher.
28.
KuhnM. R.SchwanenflugelP. J.MeisingerE. B.LevyB. A.RasinskiT. V. (Eds.). (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251.
29.
KwakK. C.ParkH. W.KimC. T. (2001). Korean Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III (K-WISC-III). Special Education.
30.
LaasonenM.ServiceE.LipsanenJ.VirsuV. (2012). Adult developmental dyslexia in a shallow orthography: Are there subgroups?Reading and Writing, 25(1), 71–108.
31.
LaBergeD.SamuelsS. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.
32.
LanderlK.WimmerH. (2000). Deficits in phoneme segmentation are not the core problem of dyslexia: Evidence from German and English children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(2), 243–262.
LeeC. (1994). Vocabulary for Korean vocabulary education. Association of Korean Language Education Research.
35.
ManisF. R.SeidenbergM. S.DoiL. M.McBride-ChangC.PetersenA. (1996). On the bases of two subtypes of development dyslexia. Cognition, 58(2), 157–195.
36.
MayringerH.WimmerH. (2000). Pseudoname learning by German-speaking children with dyslexia: Evidence for a phonological learning deficit. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75(2), 116–133.
37.
Ministry of Education. (2019). Results of Korean National Assessment of Education Achievement (NAEA) in 2019.
38.
MuthenL. K.MuthenB. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
39.
NagS.CaravolasM.SnowlingM. J. (2011). Beyond alphabetic processes: Literacy and its acquisition in the alphasyllabic languages. Reading and Writing, 24(6), 615–622.
40.
NationK.ClarkeP.MarshallC. M.DurandM. (2004). Hidden language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading comprehension and specific language impairment?Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 199–211.
41.
National Reading Panel (U.S.), National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (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. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
42.
NicolsonR. I. (1996). Developmental dyslexia: Past, present and future. Dyslexia, 2(3), 190–207.
43.
NylundK.AsparouhovT.MuthenB. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535–569.
44.
OrpinasP.RaczynskiK.PetersJ. W.ColmanL.BandalosD. (2015). Latent profile analysis of sixth graders based on teacher ratings: Association with school dropout. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 577–592.
45.
OuelletteG. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554–566.
46.
SeymourP.AroM.ErskineJ. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
47.
ShaywitzS. E.EscobarM. D.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M.MakuchR. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal distribution of reading ability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 326(3), 145–150.
48.
SimpsonG. B.KangH. (2004). Syllable processing in alphabetic Korean. Reading and Writing, 17(1–2), 137–151.
49.
SparksR. L. (2015). Language deficits in poor L2 comprehenders: The simple view. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 635–658.
50.
StanovichK. E.SiegelL. S.GottardoA. (1997). Converging evidence for phonological and surface subtypes of reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 114–127.
51.
TaylorI.OlsonD. R. (1995). An introduction to reading the world’s scripts. In TaylorI.OlsonD. R. (Eds.), Scripts and literacy (pp. 1–15). Kluwer Academic.
52.
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.
53.
VellutinoF. R.FletcherJ. M.SnowlingM. J.ScanlonD. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40.
54.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33(3), 321–363.
55.
VerhoevenL.KeuningJ. (2018). The nature of developmental dyslexia in a transparent orthography. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(1), 7–23.
56.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.HechtS. A.BarkerT. A.BurgessS. R.DonahueJ.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, 468–479.
57.
WangM.ChoJ.LiC. (2017). Learning to read Korean. In VerhoevenL.PerfettiC. (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 57–81). Cambridge University Press.
58.
WerfelK. L.KrimmH. (2017). A preliminary comparison of reading subtypes in a clinical sample of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 2680–2686.
59.
WimmerH.MayringerH. (2002). Dysfluent reading in the absence of spelling difficulties: A specific disability in regular orthographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 272–277.
60.
WimmerH.MayringerH.LanderlK. (1998). Poor reading: A deficit in skill-automatization or a phonological deficit?Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(4), 321–340.
61.
ZoccolottiP.De LucaM.Di PaceE.JudicaA.OrlandiM.SpinelliD. (1999). Markers of developmental surface dyslexia in a language (Italian) with high grapheme–phoneme correspondence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(2), 191–216.
