The present study investigated the identification of end of first grade (n = 125) and end of third grade (n = 77) reading comprehension difficulties using beginning of first grade decoding-related and language-related predictors. Reading comprehension was defined using a composite of three standardized reading comprehension measures. Students at or below the 25th percentile on the reading comprehension composite were considered to have difficulty with reading comprehension. Sight word reading efficiency and sentence repetition predicted end of first grade reading comprehension difficulties. Sight word reading efficiency, sentence repetition, and oral discourse predicted end of third grade reading comprehension difficulties. Both screening batteries yielded high classification accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 94.7% in Grade 1 and AUC = 90.5% in Grade 3). Results are discussed in light of the research base on early screening for reading comprehension difficulties.
AdlofS. M.CattsH. W.LittleT. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933–958.
2.
BabyakM. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66, 411–421.
3.
BouwmeesterW.TwiskJ. W.KappenT. H.van KleiW. A.MoonsK. G.VergouweY. (2013). Prediction models for clustered data: Comparison of a random intercept and standard regression model. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 19.
4.
CarpenterJ.BithellJ. (2000). Bootstrap confidence intervals: When, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 1141–1164.
5.
CattsH. W.ComptonD.TomblinJ. B.BridgesM. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late-emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 166–181.
6.
CattsH. W.NielsenD. C.BridgesM. S.LiuY. (2016). Early identification of reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 451–465.
7.
CattsH. W.NielsenD. C.BridgesM. S.LiuY. S.BontempoD. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 281–297.
8.
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, 156–175.
9.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BoutonB.GilbertJ. K.BarqueroL. A.. . . CrouchR. C. (2010). Selecting at-risk first-grade readers for early intervention: Eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two-stage gated screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327–340.
10.
ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.BryantJ. 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.
11.
CooperD.RothF.SpeeceD.SchatschneiderC. (2002). The contribution of oral language to the development of phonological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 399–416.
12.
CuttingL. E.ScarboroughH. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.
13.
DeLongE. R.DeLongD. M.Clarke-PearsonD. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44, 837–845.
14.
de WinterJ. D.DodouD. I. M. I. T. R. A.WieringaP. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 147–181.
15.
EfronB.HastieT.JohnstoneI.TibshiraniR. (2004). Least angle regression. The Annals of Statistics, 32, 407–499.
16.
FinchH. (2014). A comparison of methods for group prediction with high dimensional data. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 13, 5.
17.
FloritE.CainK. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553–576.
18.
FriedmanJ.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (2010). Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software, 33, 1–22.
19.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SörbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
20.
HanleyJ. A.McNeilB. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839–843.
21.
HarrellF. E. (2001). Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
22.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.
23.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
24.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446. (2004).
25.
JiangY.MetzC. E.NishikawaR. M. (1996). A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitive diagnostic tests. Radiology, 201, 745–750.
26.
KlemM.Melby-LervågM.HagtvetB.LysterS. H.GustafssonJ.HulmeC. (2015). Sentence repetition is a measure of children’s language skills rather than working memory limitations. Developmental Science, 18, 146–154.
McNamaraJ. K.ScissonsM.GutknecthN. (2011). A longitudinal study of kindergarten children at risk for reading disabilities: The poor really are getting poorer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 421–430.
31.
McNeishD. (2015). Using lasso for predictor selection and to assuage overfitting: A method long overlooked in behavioral sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 471–484.
32.
McNeishD. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23, 412–433.
33.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2009). Measures of Academic Progress. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.
34.
OakhillJ. V.CainK.BryantP. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468.
35.
O’ConnorR. E.JenkinsJ. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.
36.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and Data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620.
38.
RobinX.TurckN.HainardA.TibertiN.LisacekF.SanchezJ. C.MüllerM. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 77.
39.
SpeeceD. L.SchatschneiderC.SilvermanR. D.CaseL. P.JacobsD.CooperD. (2011). Early identification of reading problems in a response to intervention framework. Elementary School Journal, 111, 585–607.
40.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency: Examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
41.
VenkatramanE. S. (2000). A permutation test to compare re-ceiver operating characteristic curves. Biometrics, 56, 1134–1138.
42.
WagnerR. K.TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.PearsonN. A. (2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
43.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
44.
WiseJ.SevcikR.MorrisR.LovettM.WolfM. (2007). The relationship among receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills, word identification skills, and reading comprehension by children with reading disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1093–1109.
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.
