The present study examined the predictive validity of a dynamic test of decoding in which participants are taught three novel letters and how to synthesize the corresponding letter sounds into new words. One version of this dynamic test was administered to 158 kindergarten children before the onset of formal reading instruction along with traditional predictors of reading. Similarly, a parallel version of the dynamic test was administered to the same children after a few months of formal reading instruction. At the end of grade 2, the children were assessed on outcome measures of reading and categorized as having disabilities with either accuracy or fluency measures. Administered before as well as after the onset of formal reading instruction, the dynamic test of decoding contributed uniquely to the prediction of difficulties with reading accuracy at the end of grade 2 after control for traditional predictors of reading. Difficulties with reading fluency were also predicted by the dynamic decoding test, but the unique prediction value was more limited. This study showed that a dynamic assessment of decoding can be a useful addition to traditional test batteries for early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Even when taken before formal reading instruction, a combination of the dynamic assessment and two traditional measures (letter knowledge and rapid automatized naming) yielded a very high prediction accuracy of reading difficulties at the end of grade 2.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Bailey, A. L., & Drummond, K. V. (2006). Who is at risk and why? Teachers’ reasons for concern and their understanding and assessment of early literacy. Educational Assessment, 11, 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_2.
Borstrøm, I., & Petersen, D. K. (2006). Læseevaluering på begyndertrinnet [Evaluation of beginning reading] (2nd ed.). Copenhagen, Denmark: Alinea.
Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment: a review. Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907310366.
Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., Liu, Y. S., & Bontempo, D. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(3), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498115.
Catts, H. W., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Bridges, M. S., & Mendoza, K. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326219.
Cho, E., Compton, D. L., Gilbert, J. K., Steacy, L. M., Collins, A. A., & Lindström, E. R. (2017). Development of first-graders’ word reading skills: for whom can dynamic assessment tell us more? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415599343.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & 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, 394–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0622.214.171.1244.
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Gilbert, J. K., Barquero, L. A.,… Crouch, R. 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(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018448.
de Jong, P. F. (2007). Phonological awareness and the use of phonological similarity in letter–sound learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98(3), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.06.003.
Elbro, C. (1990). Differences in dyslexia. A study of reading strategies and deficits in a linguistic perspective. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Elbro, C. (2005). Literacy acquisition in Danish: A deep orthography in cross-linguistic light. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 31–45). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elbro, C., Borstrøm, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: the importance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 36–60.
Elbro, C., Daugaard, H. T., & Gellert, A. S. (2012). Dyslexia in a second language?-a dynamic test of reading acquisition may provide a fair answer. Annals of Dyslexia, 62(3), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0071-7.
Elbro, C., Nielsen, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1994). Dyslexia in adults: evidence for deficits in nonword reading and in the phonological representation of lexical items. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 205–226.
Elbro, C., & Petersen, D. K. (2004). Long-term effects of phoneme awareness and letter sound training: an intervention study with children at risk for dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 660–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06126.96.36.1990.
Fien, H., Smith, J. L. M., Smolkowski, K., Baker, S. K., Nelson, N. J., & Chaparro, E. (2015). An examination of the efficacy of a multitiered intervention on early reading outcomes for first grade students at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(6), 602–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414521664.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., & Caffrey, E. (2011). The construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment of young children learning to read: implications for RTI frameworks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411407864.
Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. 2017. Try a little bit of teaching. A dynamic assessment of word decoding as a kindergarten predictor of word reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 277–291.
Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326207.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75–111.
Juul, H., Poulsen, M., & Elbro, C. (2014). Separating speed from accuracy in beginning reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1096–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037100.
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.
Møller, H. L., Arnbak, E., Petersen, D. K., Poulsen, M., Juul, H., & Elbro, C. (2014). Teknisk rapport om ordblindetesten [Technical report on the dyslexia test]. Retrieved from The Danish Ministry of Education, the Dyslexia Test website: https://ordblindetest.nu/vejleder/pdf/TekniskRapportOrdblindetesten.pdf.
Nergård-Nilssen, T., & Hulme, C. (2014). Developmental dyslexia in adults: behavioural manifestations and cognitive correlates. Dyslexia, 20(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1477.
Partanen, M., & Siegel, L. S. (2014). Long-term outcome of the early identification and intervention of reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 27(4), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9472-1.
Petersen, D. B., Allen, M. M., & Spencer, T. D. (2016). Predicting reading difficulty in first grade using dynamic assessment of decoding in early kindergarten: a large-scale longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414538518.
Poulsen, M., Nielsen, A.-M. V., Juul, H., & Elbro, C. (2017). Early identification of reading difficulties: a screening strategy that adjusts the sensitivity to the level of prediction accuracy. Dyslexia, 23(3), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1560.
Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: a longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.525.
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., Erskine, J. M., Wimmer, H., Leybaert, J., Elbro, C.,… Olofsson, A. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
Virinkoski, R., Lerkkanen, M. K., Holopainen, L., Eklund, K., & Aro, M. (2017). Teachers’ ability to identify children at early risk for reading difficulties in grade 1. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0883-5.
Warmington, M., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phoneme awareness, visual-verbal paired-associate learning, and rapid automatized naming as predictors of individual differences in reading ability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.534832.
The authors are grateful to several MA students for their help with data collection, and to the children and their schools for their participation.
This research was supported by the Danish foundation Trygfonden, the Danish Ministry of Education, and the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs.
About this article
Cite this article
Gellert, A.S., Elbro, C. Predicting reading disabilities using dynamic assessment of decoding before and after the onset of reading instruction: a longitudinal study from kindergarten through grade 2. Ann. of Dyslexia 68, 126–144 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-018-0159-9
- Dynamic assessment
- Early identification
- Reading disabilities