Reading and Writing

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 437–480 | Cite as

Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties

  • Frank R. Vellutino
  • Donna M. Scanlon
  • Haiyan Zhang
  • Christopher Schatschneider
Article

Abstract

Entry-level kindergartners in classrooms from five middle class school districts were given a test of letter identification and children who scored at or below the 30th percentile on the test were classified as “at risk” for early reading difficulties. Half of these children were randomly assigned to a project-based intervention condition where they received supplementary intervention in small groups until the end of their kindergarten year. The other half received whatever remedial services were available at their home schools and literacy skills development in both groups was tracked throughout kindergarten. All available at-risk children were again assessed at the beginning of first grade and dichotomized into a “continued-risk” group and a “no-longer-at-risk” group using a composite measure of basic word level skills. Normal reader controls were also identified using the same measure. Children in the continued-risk group received either project-based intervention (one-to-one tutoring 30 min daily) or school-based intervention throughout first grade. Intervention for project treatment children was discontinued at the end of first grade and literacy development in all groups was tracked until the end of third grade. The present study focused on literacy development in children who received only project-based kindergarten intervention or both (project-based) kindergarten and first grade intervention, relative to the normal reader controls. Of special interest was the question of whether measures of response to intervention would more effectively distinguish between continued-risk and no-longer-at-risk children than would kindergarten screening measures, measures of intelligence, or measures of reading-related cognitive abilities. Results indicated that the RTI measures more effectively and more consistently distinguished between these two groups than did the psychometric measures.

Keywords

Response to intervention (RTI) Reading difficulties At-risk Continued risk 

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(8), 414–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badian, N. A. (1994). Preschool prediction: Orthography and phonological skills, and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, R. (Eds.). (2002). Identifying learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., & Stone, C. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Pacific Grove: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  7. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Catts, H. (1991). Early identification of dyslexia: Evidence from a follow-up study of speech-language impaired children. Annals of dyslexia, 41, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour. Auckland: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & 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, 398–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. (1976). Rapid “automatized” naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Denton, C. A., & Mathes, P. G. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities for change. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale, (pp. 229–251). York Press: Baltimore.Google Scholar
  13. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test-third edition. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  14. Eeds, M. (1985). Bookwords: Using a beginning word list of high frequency words from children’s literature K-3. The Reading Teacher, 38, 415–423.Google Scholar
  15. Felton, R. H. (1992). Early identification of children at risk of reading disabilities. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 115–140.Google Scholar
  16. Fletcher J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Fowler, A. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foorman, B. R. (Ed.) (2003). Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale, (pp. 73–120). York Press: Baltimore.Google Scholar
  19. Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C.D., Chen, D., Mouzaki, A., Schatschneider, C., Wrister, K., & Taylor, R. (1998). Technical report: Texas primary reading inventory technical (1998) Edition. Houston, TX: Center for Academic and Reading Skills at University of Houston.Google Scholar
  20. Fuchs, L. (2002). Three conceptualizations of “treatment” in a responsiveness to treatment framework for LD identification. In R. Bradley, L Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 521–529). Erlbaum: Mahwah.Google Scholar
  21. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1997). Use of curriculum-based measurement in identifying students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30, 1–16.Google Scholar
  22. Fuchs, D., & Young, C. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73(1), 8–30.Google Scholar
  23. Gerber, M. M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gersten, R. L., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alterative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–519). Erlbaum: Mahwah.Google Scholar
  26. Gresham, F. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (2007). What is the role of intelligence in the identification of SLD? Issues and clarifications (in preparation).Google Scholar
  27. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8.Google Scholar
  28. Haager, D., Vaughn, S., & Klinger, J. K. (Eds.). (2007). Validated practices for three tiers of reading intervention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  29. Harris, A. J., & Jacobson, M. D. (1982). Basic reading vocabularies. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839–843.Google Scholar
  32. Jenkins, J. R., & O’Connor, R. E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabiities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99–149). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Jenkins, J. R. (2003). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the conference on response to intervention as learning disabilities identification, sponsored by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Kansas City.Google Scholar
  34. Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerheyden, A. M. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer Science Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Kaplan, E. K., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston naming test. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.Google Scholar
  36. Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disabilities: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 553–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McEneaney, J. E., Lose, M. K., & Schwartz, R. M. (2006). A transactional perspective on reading difficulties and response to intervention. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mellard, D. F. et al. Guest Editors. (2005/2006). Research topics in responsiveness to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6) Part 1; 39(2) Part 2.Google Scholar
  41. O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 532–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Connor, R. E., & Jenkins, J. R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Read, C. (1971). Preschool children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1–34.Google Scholar
  44. Reinking, D., & Alvermann, D. E. (Eds.). (2006). Current issues in special education and reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 92–128.Google Scholar
  45. Reschly, D. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). A comparison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average, and good readers who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scanlon, D. M., Vellutino, F. R., Small, S. G., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney, J. (2005). Severe reading difficulties: Can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view from the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium: York Press.Google Scholar
  50. Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282.Google Scholar
  52. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 24–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swets, J. A. (1992). The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stakes diagnostics. American Psychologist, 47, 522–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tangel, D. M., & Blachman, B. A. (1992). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on kindergarten children’s invented spelling. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(2), 233–261.Google Scholar
  57. Torgesen, J. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565–613). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Torgesen, J. K., Burgess, S., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. (1996, April). Predicting phonologically based reading disabilities: What is gained by waiting a year? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Torgesen, J. K., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Uhry, J. (1993). Predicting low reading from phonological awareness and classroom print. Educational Assessment, 1, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409.Google Scholar
  63. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Murray, C. (2007). Monitoring response to intervention for students at-risk for reading difficulties: High and low responders. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerheyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 234–243). New York: Springer Science Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The Interactive Strategies approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 573–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two year follow-up of difficult to remediate, readily remediated poor readers. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 73–120). Baltimore: York Press.Google Scholar
  66. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vellutino F. R., Scanlon D. M., & Tanzman M. S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R. S., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, Sheila, & Fanuele, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between reading disabled and non-reading disabled children: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin: PRO-ED Inc.Google Scholar
  71. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  72. Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  73. Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests-revised. Circle Pines: American Guidance Services.Google Scholar
  74. Yopp (1995). Yopp-singer test of phoneme segmentation. Reading Teacher, 49(1), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank R. Vellutino
    • 1
  • Donna M. Scanlon
    • 1
  • Haiyan Zhang
    • 1
  • Christopher Schatschneider
    • 2
  1. 1.University at Albany, The State University of New YorkAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations