Most students who receive special education services have significant difficulties with reading. Because teachers are considered the major source of referral for special education services, they must know the characteristic reading behaviors that distinguish students with reading disabilities. The purpose of this study was to validate literature-based reading behaviors by professionals who work with students with reading disabilities (RD) and to identify those behaviors that predict reading disabilities. Utilizing a rating scale developed from the neuropsychological and learning disability literature, 391 professionals were asked to identify reading behaviors in their poor readers identified as having learning disabilities (LD). Findings from t-test analyses revealed statistically significant differences between students with LD who had reading disabilities and students with LD without reading disabilities, affirming the literature-based group of behaviors that constitute reading disability. Additionally, reading rate was found to be most predictive of reading disability in the LD group with reading disabilities. Implications include characteristic reading behaviors that can be used with other reading measures during screening and diagnosis and that can be considered when planning remedial intervention programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bryant, D.P., Bryant, B.R., & Hammill, D.D. (2000). Characteristic behaviors of students with learning disabilities who have teacher-identified math weaknesses. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 168-177, 199.
2.
Bryant, D.P., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Ugel, N., Hamff, A., & Hougen, M. (2000). Reading outcomes for students with and without reading disabilities in general education middle-school content area classes . Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 238-252.
3.
Ciborowski, J. (1992). Textbooks and the students who can't read them: A guide to teaching content. Boston, MA: Brookline Books.
4.
Egan, O., & Archer, P. (1985). The accuracy of teachers' ratings of ability. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 25-34.
5.
Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp.3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Bames, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley , L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185-250). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P.G., & Lipsey, M.W. (2000). Reading differences between low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller , & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 81-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
Gough, P.B., Hoover, W.A., & Peterson, C.L. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
Gough, P.B., & Walsh, M. (1991). Chinese, Phoenicians, and the orthographic cipher of English. In S. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 199-209). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K.M. (1997). Teachers as "tests:" Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties . School Psychology Review, 26(1), 47-61.
Hammill, D.D., & Hresko, W.P. (1994). Comprehensive Scales of Student Abilities: Quantifying academic skills and school related behavior through the use of teacher judgments . Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
14.
Jenkins, J.R., & O'Connor, R.E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/leaming disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99-149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
16.
Kame'enui, E.J., Simmons, D.C., Good, R.H., & Harn, B.A. (2001). The use of fluency-based measures in early identification and evaluation of intervention efficacy in schools. In M.Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 307-332). Timonium, MD: York Press.
17.
Keogh, B.K., & Speece, D.L. (1996). Learning disabilities within the context of schooling . In D. L. Speece & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
Lyon, G.R. (1998). Overview of reading and literacy initiatives (Report to Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
19.
McGhee, R., Bryant, B.R., Larsen, S.C., & Rivera, D.M. (1995). Test of Written Expression. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
20.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M.J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word-recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory andLanguage , 37, 85-101.
21.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1994). Learning disabilities: Issues on definition- Revised . In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities (pp. 61-66). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
22.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. National Institutes of Health Pub. No. 00-4769. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(8), 468-478, 486.
25.
Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading. New York: Guilford Press.
26.
United States Department of Education. (2002 ). Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
27.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining leaming disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146.
28.
Young, A., & Bowers, P.G. (1995). Individual difference and text difficulty determinants of reading fluency and expressiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60, 428-454.
29.
Zigmond, N. (1990). Rethinking secondary school programs for students with learning disabilities. Focus onExceptional Children , 23, 1-24.
