Search

Many states now mandate early screening for dyslexia, but vary in how they address these mandates. There is confusion about the nature of screening versus diagnostic assessments, risk versus diagnosis, concurrent versus predictive validity, and inattention to indices of classification accuracy as the basis for determining risk. To help define what constitutes a screening assessment, we summarize efforts to develop short (3-5 min), teacher-administered screens that used multivariate strategies for variable selection, item response theory to select items that are most discriminating at a threshold for predicting risk, and statistical decision theory. These methods optimize prediction and lower the burden on teachers by reducing the number of items needed to evaluate risk. A specific goal of these efforts was to minimize decision errors that would result in the failure to identify a child as at risk of dyslexia/reading problems (false negatives) despite the inevitable increase in identifications of children who eventually perform in the typical range (false positives). Five screens, developed for different periods during kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2, predicted outcomes measured later in the same school year (Grade 2) or in the subsequent year (Grade 1). The results of this approach to development are applicable to other screening methods, especially those that attempt to predict those children at risk of dyslexia prior to the onset of reading instruction. Without reliable and valid early predictive screening measures that reduce the burden on teachers, early intervention and prevention of dyslexia and related reading problems will be difficult.

To learn to read, the brain must repurpose neural systems for oral language and visual processing to mediate written language. We begin with a description of computational models for how alphabetic written language is processed. Next, we explain the roles of a dorsal sublexical system in the brain that relates print and speech, a ventral lexical system that develops the visual expertise for rapid orthographic processing at the word level, and the role of cognitive control networks that regulate attentional processes as children read. We then use studies of children, adult illiterates learning to read, and studies of poor readers involved in intervention, to demonstrate the plasticity of these neural networks in development and in relation to instruction. We provide a brief overview of the rapid increase in the field's understanding and technology for assessing genetic influence on reading. Family studies of twins have shown that reading skills are heritable, and molecular genetic studies have identified numerous regions of the genome that may harbor candidate genes for the heritability of reading. In selected families, reading impairment has been associated with major genetic effects, despite individual gene contributions across the broader population that appear to be small. Neural and genetic studies do not prescribe how children should be taught to read, but these studies have underscored the critical role of early intervention and ongoing support. These studies also have highlighted how structured instruction that facilitates access to the sublexical components of words is a critical part of training the brain to read.

This article addresses the nature of dyslexia and best practices for identification and treatment within the context of multitier systems of support (MTSS). We initially review proposed definitions of dyslexia to identify key commonalities and differences in proposed attributes. We then review empirical evidence for proposed definitional attributes, focusing on key sources of controversy, including the role of IQ, instructional response, as well as issues of etiology and immutability. We argue that current empirical evidence supports a dyslexia classification marked by specific deficits in reading and spelling words combined with inadequate response to evidence-based instruction. We then propose a "hybrid" dyslexia identification process built to gather data relevant to these markers of dyslexia. We argue that this assessment process is best implemented within school-wide MTSS because it leverages data routinely collected in well-implemented MTSS, including documentation of student progress and fidelity of implementation. In contrast with other proposed methods for learning disability (LD) identification, the proposed "hybrid" method demonstrates strong evidence for valid decision-making and directly informs intervention.

Bowers ("Educational Psychology Review," 32, 681-705, 2020) reviewed 12 meta-analytic syntheses addressing the effects of phonics instruction, concluding that the evidence is weak to nonexistent in supporting the superiority of systematic phonics to alternative reading methods. We identify five issues that limit Bowers' conclusions: (1) definition issues; (2) what is the right question?; (3) the assumption of "phonics first"; and (4) simplification of issues around systematic versus explicit phonics. We then go on to consider (5) empirical issues in the data from meta-analyses, where Bowers misconstrues the positive effects of explicit phonics instruction. We conclude that there is consistent evidence in support of explicitly teaching phonics as part of a comprehensive approach to reading instruction that should be differentiated to individual learner needs. The appropriate question to ask of a twenty-first century science of teaching is not the superiority of phonics versus alternative reading methods, including whole language and balanced literacy, but how best to combine different components of evidence-based reading instruction into an integrated and customized approach that addresses the learning needs of each child. [For Bowers' "Reconsidering the Evidence That Systematic Phonics Is More Effective than Alternative Methods of Reading Instruction," see EJ1263190.]

This study examines the initial word reading performance of fourth-grade struggling readers and the extent to which differing levels of word reading performance at pretest influenced their response to reading interventions. A large group of students with significant reading comprehension difficulties (N = 481) were classified into three clusters of word reading proficiency based on their pretest performance: (a) very low, (b) low, and (c) near adequate. We examined their performance on several academic, language, and executive functioning measures at the beginning of the year and their reading comprehension performance at the beginning of year and after 1 year of reading intervention to examine how each cluster responded to instruction. Results from a discriminant function analysis indicated that performance on five pretest variables were meaningful predictors of word reading proficiency cluster membership: phonological processing, writing fluency, math calculation, math fluency, and reading efficiency and comprehension. Results also demonstrated that word reading proficiency at pretest was related to response to intervention on reading comprehension measures. Students in the very low word reading proficiency cluster showed minimal response to intervention whereas the near-adequate word reading cluster demonstrated greatest response to intervention. These results suggest word reading is a critical predictor of response to intervention for students with significant comprehension problems in the upper elementary grades and that students with the most substantial word reading problems may require more intensive and specialized treatments than students with greater word reading performance to show meaningful progress in reading.

The role of executive function (EF) in the reading process, and in those with reading difficulties, remains unclear. As members of the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, we review multiple perspectives regarding EF in reading and then summarize some of our recent studies of struggling and typical readers in grades 3-5. Study 1a found that a bi-factor structure best represented a comprehensive assessment of EF. Study 1b found that cognitive and behavioral measures of EF related independently to math and reading. Study 1c found that EF related to reading, above and beyond other variables, but Study 1d found no evidence that adding an EF training component improved intervention response. Study 1e found that pretest EF abilities did not relate to intervention response. Neuroimaging studies examined EF-related brain activity during both reading and nonlexical EF tasks. In Study 2a, the EF task evoked control activity, but generated no differences between struggling and typical readers. The reading task, however, had group differences in both EF and reading regions. In Study 2b, EF activity during reading at pretest was related to intervention response. Across studies, EF appears involved in the reading process. There is less evidence for general EF predicting or improving intervention outcomes.

We examine the efficacy of an intervention to improve word reading and reading comprehension in fourth- and fifth-grade students with significant reading problems. Using a randomized control trial design, we compare the fourth- and fifth-grade reading outcomes of students with severe reading difficulties who were provided a researcher-developed treatment with reading outcomes of students in a business-as-usual (BAU) comparison condition. A total of 280 fourth- and fifth-grade students were randomly assigned within school in a 1:1 ratio to either the BAU comparison condition (n = 139) or the treatment condition (n = 141). Treatment students were provided small-group tutoring for 30 to 45 minutes for an average of 68 lessons (mean hours of instruction = 44.4, SD = 11.2). Treatment students performed statistically significantly higher than BAU students on a word reading measure (effect size [ES] = 0.58) and a measure of reading fluency (ES = 0.46). Though not statistically significant, effect sizes for students in the treatment condition were consistently higher than BAU students for decoding measures (ES = 0.06, 0.08), and mixed for comprehension (ES = -0.02, 0.14).

Disorders of reading, math, and attention frequently co-occur in children. However, it is not yet clear which cognitive factors contribute to comorbidities among multiple disorders and which uniquely relate to one, especially because they have rarely been studied as a triad. Thus, the present study considers how reading, math, and attention relate to phonological awareness, numerosity, working memory, and processing speed, all implicated as either unique or shared correlates of these disorders. In response to findings that the attributes of all three disorders exist on a continuum rather than representing qualitatively different groups, this study employed a dimensional approach. Furthermore, we used both timed and untimed academic variables in addition to attention and activity level variables. The results supported the role of working memory and phonological awareness in the overlap among reading, math, and attention, with a limited role of processing speed. Numerosity was related to the comorbidity between math and attention. The results from timed variables and activity level were similar to those from untimed and attention variables, although activity level was less strongly related to cognitive and academic/attention variables. These findings have implications for understanding cognitive deficits that contribute to comorbid reading disability, math disability, and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

This study examined how differences in listening comprehension and word reading at the beginning of the school year influence changes in reading comprehension for English learners (ELs) with significant reading difficulties compared to non-ELs with significant reading difficulties. The study investigated heterogeneity in response to instruction among 400 struggling readers in fourth grade (n = 183 for non-EL; n = 217 for EL) who received an intensive reading intervention. At pretest, word reading, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension were measured, and at posttest, reading comprehension was measured again. Results from moderated multiple regression analyses showed a significant three-way interaction such that reading comprehension at posttest was higher for ELs than non-ELs with similar levels of low word reading but relatively higher levels of listening comprehension. However, non-ELs outperformed ELs with similar levels of relatively high word reading and average to high listening comprehension. The findings suggest that pre-intervention skill profiles may need to be interpreted differently for ELs and non-ELs with significant reading difficulties in relation to language and literacy outcomes.

We investigated the classification accuracy of learning disability (LD) identification methods premised on the identification of an intraindividual pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) method using multiple indicators for all latent constructs. Known LD status was derived from latent scores; values at the observed level identified LD status for individual cases according to the concordance/discordance method. Agreement with latent status was evaluated using (a) a single indicator, (b) two indicators as part of a test-retest "confirmation" model, and (c) a mean score. Specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) were generally high for single indicators (median specificity = 98.8%, range = 93.4%-99.7%; median NPV = 94.2%, range = 85.6%-98.7%), but low for sensitivity (median sensitivity = 49.1%, range = 20.3%-77.1%) and positive predictive value (PPV; median PPV = 48.8%, range = 23.5%-69.6%). A test-retest procedure produced inconsistent and small improvements in classification accuracy, primarily in "not LD" decisions. Use of a mean score produced small improvements in classifications (mean improvement = 2.0%, range = 0.3%-2.8%). The modest gains in agreement do not justify the additional testing burdens associated with incorporating multiple tests of all constructs.

We examined the effectiveness of a researcher-provided reading intervention with 484 fourth graders with significant reading difficulties. Students were randomly assigned to one year of intervention, two years of intervention, or a business-as-usual comparison condition (BAU). Students assigned to two years of intervention demonstrated significantly greater gains in reading fluency compared to students who received one year of intervention and the BAU group. Students in both the one- and two-year groups demonstrated similar and significantly larger gains in word reading in comparison to the BAU group. There were no statistically significant differences between the three groups on standardized measures of reading comprehension. We discuss these results in the context of research with late elementary and secondary students targeting reading comprehension.

This study investigated the reading profiles of middle school Spanish-speaking emergent bilinguals (EBs) with significantly below grade level reading comprehension and whether these profiles varied in their reading comprehension performance over time. Latent profile analyses were used to classify Grade 6 and 7 Hispanic EBs (n = 340; 39% female) into subgroups based on their word reading and vocabulary knowledge. Growth models were then fit within each profile to evaluate reading comprehension performance over time. Analyses revealed four latent profiles emerged: (a) very low word reading and low vocabulary (10%), (b) low word reading and low vocabulary (71%), (c) average word reading and low vocabulary (16%), and (d) high word reading and low vocabulary (3%). Subgroups varied in their reading comprehension initially and over one year. Students in the subgroup marked by very low word reading and low vocabulary showed the lowest reading comprehension performance initially; however, they also showed the greatest growth over one year. These findings suggest that there is heterogeneity in the reading skill profiles of Spanish-speaking EBs with reading comprehension difficulties. They also underscore the prevalence of word reading difficulties among these students. These may be important factors to consider when developing interventions to prevent and remediate these difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Component skills and discourse frameworks of reading have identified characteristics of readers and texts that influence comprehension. However, these 2 frameworks have not previously been integrated in a comprehensive and systematic way to explain performance on any standardized assessment of reading comprehension that is in widespread use across a broad developmental spectrum. The current study undertook such an integration using the reading comprehension subtest of the Gates-McGinitie Reading Tests, investigating characteristics of the test's reading passages and comprehension questions and the component reading skills of students in middle and high school (n = 1,190) in order to determine the extent to which each of these dimensions affect test performance, both on average and through interaction with one another. The component skills of reading included word reading, reading fluency, vocabulary, background knowledge, and working memory. Test questions were coded for their processing demands, specifically the need to recall information from test and to form text-based inferences, while text passages were measured on word frequency, sentence length, text cohesion, and genre. We found that better vocabulary and background knowledge were the most important reader characteristics in accounting for reading comprehension. The processing demands of test questions were not highly predictive of item difficulty. Rather, genre was the most important passage feature in explaining item difficulty. Reader-test interactions were present, but were not pronounced. We discuss the importance of these findings as they relate to the measurement of comprehension and the integration of component skills and text-discourse models of reading.

We review literature related to the assessment and identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) and Intellectual Disabilities (ID). SLD and ID are the only two disorders requiring psychometric test performance for identification within the group of neurodevelopmental disorders in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – 5. SLD and ID are considered exclusionary of one another, but the processes for assessment and identification of each disorder vary. There is controversy about the identification and assessment methods for SLD, with little consensus. Unlike ID, SLD is weakly related to full-scale IQ, and there is insufficient evidence that the routine assessment of IQ or cognitive skills adds value to SLD identification and treatment. We have proposed a hybrid method based on the assessment of low achievement with norm-referenced tests, instructional response, and other disorders and contextual factors that may be comorbid or contraindicative of SLD. In contrast to SLD, there is strong consensus for a three-prong definition for the identification and assessment of ID: (a) significantly subaverage IQ, (b) adaptive behavior deficits that interfere with independent living in the community, and (c) age of onset in the developmental period. For both SLD and ID, we identify areas of controversy and best practices for identification and assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No previous empirical study has investigated whether the learning disabilities (LD) identification decisions of proposed methods to operationalize processing strengths and weaknesses approaches for LD identification are associated with differential treatment response. We investigated whether the identification decisions of the concordance/discordance model (C/DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004) and cross-battery assessment approach (XBA method; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) were consistent and whether they predicted intervention response beyond that accounted for by pretest performance on measures of reading. Psychoeducational assessments were administered at pretest to 203 4th graders with low reading comprehension and individual results were utilized to identify students who met LD criteria according to the C/DM and XBA methods and students who did not. Resulting group status permitted an investigation of agreement for identification methods and whether group status at pretest (LD or not LD) was associated with differential treatment response to an intensive reading intervention. The LD identification decisions of the XBA and C/DM demonstrated poor agreement with one another (? = -0.10). Comparisons of posttest performance for students who met LD criteria and those who did not meet were largely null, with small effect sizes across all measures. LD status, as identified through the C/DM and XBA approaches, was not associated with differential treatment response and did not contribute educationally meaningful information about how students would respond to intensive reading intervention. These results do not support the value of cognitive assessment utilized in this way as part of the LD identification process.

This study examined the effectiveness of a researcher-provided intervention with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties. The intervention emphasized multisyllable word reading, fluent reading of high-frequency words and phrases, vocabulary, and comprehension. To identify the participants, 1,695 fourth-grade students were screened using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, and those whose standard scores were 85 or lower were included in the study (N = 483). Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either researcher-provided intervention (n = 323) or intervention provided by school personnel (business as usual, BAU) (n = 161). Findings revealed no statistically significant differences between students in the researcher-provided intervention and BAU groups. Using effect sizes as an indicator of impact, students in the researcher-implemented treatment generally outperformed students in the school-implemented treatment (BAU). Examining growth in standard scores, both groups made significant gains in reading outcomes with standard score growth from pretest to posttest of 3 standard score points on decoding, 5 on fluency, and 2.0 to 7 standard score points on reading comprehension measures.

An appropriate estimate of statistical power is critical for the design of intervention studies. Although the inclusion of a pretest covariate in the test of the primary outcome can increase statistical power, samples selected on the basis of pretest performance may demonstrate range restriction on the selection measure and other correlated measures. This can result in attenuated pretest-posttest correlations, reducing the variance explained by the pretest covariate. We investigated the implications of two potential range restriction scenarios: direct truncation on a selection measure and indirect range restriction on correlated measures. Empirical and simulated data indicated that direct range restriction on the pretest covariate greatly reduced statistical power and necessitated sample size increases of 82%-155% (dependent on selection criteria) to achieve equivalent statistical power to parameters with unrestricted samples. However, measures demonstrating indirect range restriction required much smaller sample size increases (32%-71%) under equivalent scenarios. Additional analyses manipulated the correlations between measures and pretest-posttest correlations to guide planning experiments. Results highlight the need to differentiate between selection measures and potential covariates and to investigate range restriction as a factor impacting statistical power.

Difficulties suppressing previously encountered but currently irrelevant information from working memory characterize less skilled comprehenders in studies in which they are matched to skilled comprehenders on word decoding and nonverbal IQ. These "extreme" group designs are associated with several methodological issues. When sample size permits, regression approaches permit a more accurate estimation of effects. Using data for students in Grades 6 through 12 (n = 766), regression techniques assessed the significance and size of the relation of suppression to reading comprehension across the distribution of comprehension skill. After accounting for decoding efficiency and nonverbal IQ, suppression, measured by performance on a verbal proactive interference task, accounted for a small amount of significant unique variance in comprehension (less than 1%). A comparison of suppression in less skilled comprehenders matched to more skilled comprehenders (48 per group) on age, word reading efficiency, and nonverbal IQ did not show significant group differences in suppression. The implications of the findings for theories of reading comprehension and for informing comprehension assessment and intervention are discussed.

Three cohorts of third-grade students (N = 813) were evaluated on achievement, cognitive abilities, and behavioral attention according to contrasting research traditions in defining math learning disability (LD) status: low achievement versus extremely low achievement and IQ-achievement discrepant versus strictly low-achieving LD. We use methods from these two traditions to form math problem solving LD groups. To evaluate group differences, we used MANOVA-based profile and canonical analyses to control for relations among the outcomes and regression to control for group definition variables. Results suggest that basic arithmetic is the key distinguishing characteristic that separates low-achieving problem solvers (including LD, regardless of definition) from typically achieving students. Word problem solving is the key distinguishing characteristic that separates IQ-achievement-discrepant from strictly low-achieving LD students, favoring the IQ-achievement-discrepant students.

Few empirical investigations have evaluated learning disabilities (LD) identification methods based on a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (PSW). This study investigated the reliability of LD classification decisions of the concordance/discordance method (C/DM) across different psychoeducational assessment batteries. C/DM criteria were applied to assessment data from 177 second-grade students based on 2 psychoeducational assessment batteries. The achievement tests were different, but were highly correlated and measured the same latent construct. Resulting LD identifications were then evaluated for agreement across batteries on LD status and the academic domain of eligibility. The 2 batteries identified a similar number of participants as having LD (80 and 74). However, indices of agreement for classification decisions were low (? = 0.29), especially for percent positive agreement (62%). The 2 batteries demonstrated agreement on the academic domain of eligibility for only 25 participants. Cognitive discrepancy frameworks for LD identification are inherently unstable because of imperfect reliability and validity at the observed level. Methods premised on identifying a PSW profile may never achieve high reliability because of these underlying psychometric factors. An alternative is to directly assess academic skills to identify students in need of intervention.

We evaluated the technical adequacy of oral reading fluency (ORF) probes in which 1,472 middle school students with and without reading difficulties read fluency probes for 60 s versus reading the full passage. Results suggested that the reliability of 60-s probes (rs = 0.75) was not substantively different than full passage probes (rs = 0.77) among struggling readers and typically developing readers in Grades 6 to 8. The correlation of 60-s and the full passage probes with norm-referenced measures of ORF ranged from 0.32 to 0.83, and the correlation with norm-referenced measures of reading comprehension ranged from 0.32 to 0.54, indicating that both measures were moderately valid and adequate for use among middle school students. Last, full passage probes with sensitivity rates ranging from 0.40 to 0.45 were only slightly more sensitive for identifying at-risk readers than 60-s probes, with sensitivity rates ranging from 0.36 to 0.40, suggesting that the full passage probes identified a slightly higher percentage of at-risk students with reading difficulties.

We describe findings from a series of longitudinal studies utilizing a response to intervention framework implemented over 3 years with students in Grades 6 through 8 with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Students were identified based on reading comprehension scores in Grade 5 (n = 1,083) and then randomized to treatment or comparison conditions. Beginning in sixth grade, students assigned to intervention were provided treatment for 1, 2, or 3 years based on their response to instruction in each preceding year. Screening procedures, progress monitoring tools, tiers of instruction, and findings from each year of the study are reported. Additional studies investigating reading and behavioral outcomes through multi-level, growth modeling, and studies of the cognitive and neural correlates of inadequate response are also reported.

While the field of learning disabilities has grown substantially over the past several decades (Grigorenko et al. in Am Psychol 75:37, 2020) little work has explored the role of internalizing symptoms among struggling students. The present study compared struggling and typical readers on several child reported internalizing measures at both the beginning and end of a school year during which time they received either classroom-as-usual or research-team provided intensive intervention. Struggling readers who did and did not meet reading benchmarks were also compared at year-end. While minimal differences were present at the beginning of the year, numerous differences were observed at the end, with students exhibiting persistent reading struggles reporting significantly greater distress. Bi-directional associations emerged with beginning of year group status predicting internalizing symptoms and beginning of year internalizing symptoms predicting end of year intervention response group status. Findings are discussed in terms of future directions for enhancing intervention studies of struggling readers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For school-aged children with reading difficulties, an emerging and important area of investigation concerns determining predictors of intervention response. Previous studies have focused exclusively on cognitive and broadly defined behavioral variables. What has been missing, however, are studies examining anxiety, which is among the most commonly experienced difficulty for youth. Objective: The present study examined anxiety among children classified as typically achieving or showing inadequate/adequate response following an intervention for reading problems. Methods: Participants were 153 ethnically-diverse children (84 male, 69 female) evaluated in the winter and spring of their first-grade academic year. Children completed several standardized measures of reading achievement involving decoding and fluency along with a multidimensional anxiety rating scale. Results: Repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant main effects for time and scale and significant interactions for time × scale and group × scale. Logistic regression examined whether anxiety predicted response to intervention (Y/N) at the end of the school-year. Conclusions: Results showed overall decreases in anxiety over time, with the exception of the harm avoidance area which increased and also interacted with group (children with decoding/fluency difficulties reported less harm avoidance than typically achieving children). The harm avoidance area was most pertinent across analyses highlighting the potential importance of targeting this area; however, none of the anxiety scales predicted response group at the end of the intervention. Ongoing research is needed in this area in order to identify characteristics of inadequate responders to reading intervention programs and/or inform interventions that incorporate these socioemotional factors.

No studies have investigated the cognitive attributes of middle school students who are adequate and inadequate responders to Tier 2 reading intervention. We compared students in Grades 6 and 7 representing groups of adequate responders (n = 77) and inadequate responders who fell below criteria in (a) comprehension (n = 54); (b) fluency (n = 45); and (c) decoding, fluency, and comprehension (DFC; n = 45). These students received measures of phonological awareness, listening comprehension, rapid naming, processing speed, verbal knowledge, and nonverbal reasoning. Multivariate comparisons showed a significant Group-by-Task interaction: the comprehension-impaired group demonstrated primary difficulties with verbal knowledge and listening comprehension, the DFC group with phonological awareness, and the fluency-impaired group with phonological awareness and rapid naming. A series of regression models investigating whether responder status explained unique variation in cognitive skills yielded largely null results consistent with a continuum of severity associated with level of reading impairment, with no evidence for qualitative differences in the cognitive attributes of adequate and inadequate responders.

Few empirical investigations have evaluated learning disabilities (LD) identification methods based on a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (PSW). This study investigated the reliability and validity of two proposed PSW methods: the concordance/discordance method (C/DM) and cross battery assessment (XBA) method. Cognitive assessment data for 139 adolescents demonstrating inadequate response to intervention was utilized to empirically classify participants as meeting or not meeting PSW LD identification criteria using the two approaches, permitting an analysis of: (a) LD identification rates, (b) agreement between methods, and (c) external validity. LD identification rates varied between the 2 methods depending upon the cut point for low achievement, with low agreement for LD identification decisions. Comparisons of groups that met and did not meet LD identification criteria on external academic variables were largely null, raising questions of external validity. This study found low agreement and little evidence of validity for LD identification decisions based on PSW methods. An alternative may be to use multiple measures of academic achievement to guide intervention.

We evaluated the effects of student characteristics (sight word reading efficiency, phonological decoding, verbal knowledge, level of reading ability, grade, gender) and text features (passage difficulty, length, genre, and language and discourse attributes) on the oral reading fluency of a sample of middle-school students in Grades 6-8 (N = 1,794). Students who were struggling (n = 704) and typically developing readers (n = 1,028) were randomly assigned to read five 1-min passages from each of 5 Lexile bands (within student range of 550 Lexiles). A series of multilevel analyses showed that student and text characteristics contributed uniquely to oral reading fluency rates. Student characteristics involving sight word reading efficiency and level of decoding ability accounted for more variability than reader type and verbal knowledge, with small, but statistically significant effects of grade and gender. The most significant text feature was passage difficulty level. Interactions involving student text characteristics, especially attributes involving overall ability level and difficulty of the text, were also apparent. These results support views of the development of oral reading fluency that involve interactions of student and text characteristics and highlight the importance of scaling for passage difficulty level in assessing individual differences in oral reading fluency.

Despite data supporting the benefits of early reading interventions, there has been little evaluation of the long-term educational impact of these interventions, with most follow-up studies lasting less than 2 years (Suggate, 2010). This study evaluated reading outcomes more than a decade after the completion of an 8-month reading intervention using a randomized design with 2nd and 3rd graders selected on the basis of poor word-level skills (Blachman et al., 2004). Fifty-eight (84%) of the original 69 participants took part in the study. The treatment group demonstrated a moderate to small effect size advantage on reading and spelling measures over the comparison group. There were statistically significant differences with moderate effect sizes between treatment and comparison groups on standardized measures of word recognition (i.e., Woodcock Basic Skills Cluster, d = 0.53; Woodcock Word Identification, d = 0.62), the primary, but not exclusive, focus of the intervention. Statistical tests on other reading and spelling measures did not reach thresholds for statistical significance. Patterns in the data related to other educational outcomes, such as high school completion, favored the treatment participants, although differences were not significant.

Although best known for work with children and adults with intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders, training in speech pathology and a doctorate in clinical psychology and neuropsychology was the foundation for Sara Sparrow's long-term interest in reading disabilities. Her first papers were on dyslexia and laterality, and the maturational lag theory of developmental dyslexia proposed with Paul Satz, her mentor. The research program that emerged from this work had a wide impact on early neuropsychological models of reading disabilities. Although Sara went on to research focused on children with other developmental disabilities after she moved to Yale University, this initial research influenced her career-long interests in assessment, developmental models of disabilities, and early screening methods.

Purpose: Agreement across methods for identifying students as inadequate responders or as learning disabled is often poor. We report (1) an empirical examination of final status (postintervention benchmarks) and dual-discrepancy growth methods based on growth during the intervention and final status for assessing response to intervention and (2) a statistical simulation of psychometric issues that may explain low agreement. Methods: After a Tier 2 intervention, final status benchmark criteria were used to identify 104 inadequate and 85 adequate responders to intervention, with comparisons of agreement and coverage for these methods and a dual-discrepancy method. Factors affecting agreement were investigated using computer simulation to manipulate reliability, the intercorrelation between measures, cutoff points, normative samples, and sample size. Results: Identification of inadequate responders based on individual measures showed that single measures tended not to identify many members of the pool of 104 inadequate responders. Poor to fair levels of agreement for identifying inadequate responders were apparent between pairs of measures. In the simulation, comparisons across 2 simulated measures generated indices of agreement (?) that were generally low because of multiple psychometric issues inherent in any test. Conclusions: Expecting excellent agreement between 2 correlated tests with even small amounts of unreliability may not be realistic. Assessing outcomes based on multiple measures, such as level of curriculum-based measure performance and short normreferenced assessments of fluency, may improve the reliability of diagnostic decisions.

The three target articles provide examples of intervention studies that are excellent models for the field. They rely on rigorous and elegant designs, the interventions are motivated by attention to underlying theoretical mechanisms, and longitudinal designs are used to examine the duration of effects of interventions that occur. When studies are carefully designed, effect sizes tend to be modest. We argue that the meaningfulness of effect sizes should not necessarily be determined with reference to Cohen's rule of thumb, and that modest effect sizes can result in major change in performance if they cumulate.

Considerable research evidence supports the provision of explicit instruction for students at risk for reading difficulties; however, one of the most widely implemented approaches to early reading instruction is Guided Reading (GR; Fountas & Pinnel, 1996), which deemphasizes explicit instruction and practice of reading skills in favor of extended time reading text. This study evaluated the two approaches in the context of supplemental intervention for at-risk readers at the end of Grade 1. Students (n = 218) were randomly assigned to receive GR intervention, explicit intervention (EX), or typical school instruction (TSI). Both intervention groups performed significantly better than TSI on untimed word identification. Significant effects favored EX over TSI on phonemic decoding and one measure of comprehension. Outcomes for the intervention groups did not differ significantly from each other; however, an analysis of the added value of providing each intervention relative to expected growth with typical instruction indicated that EX is more likely to substantially accelerate student progress in phonemic decoding, text reading fluency, and reading comprehension than GR. Implications for selection of Tier 2 interventions within a response-to-intervention format are discussed.

Little is known about how specific components of working memory, namely, attentional processes including response inhibition, sustained attention, and cognitive inhibition, are related to reading decoding and comprehension. The current study evaluated the relations of reading comprehension, decoding, working memory, and attentional control in 1,134 adolescent students. Path analyses were used to assess the direct and indirect effects of working memory and aspects of attentional control on reading comprehension and decoding. There were significant direct effects of working memory, sustained attention, and cognitive inhibition on reading comprehension, but not decoding. There was a significant direct effect of working memory and response inhibition on decoding, but not comprehension. These results suggest that different aspects of attentional control are important for decoding versus comprehension.