This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Stage, S. A. Articles by Berninger, V. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stage, S. A. Articles by Berninger, V. W. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Predicting Response to Early Reading Intervention From Verbal IQ, Reading-Related Language Abilities, Attention Ratings, and Verbal IQ—Word Reading Discrepancy

Failure to Validate Discrepancy Method

University of Washington

Robert D. Abbott

University of Washington

Joseph R. Jenkins

University of Washington

Virginia W. Berninger

Multidisciplinary Learning Disabilities Center, the Literacy Trek Longitudinal Study, vwb{at}n.washington.edu

Additional analyses of a previously published study addressed three questions about growth in word reading during early reading intervention: (1) How well do Verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities (phonological, rapid naming, and orthographic), and attention ratings predict reading growth? (2) How well do language deficits predict reading growth? and (3) How well does Verbal IQ—word reading discrepancy predict reading growth? Univariate analyses showed that Verbal IQ, phonological skills, orthographic skills, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and attention ratings predicted the response to early intervention, but multivariate analyses based on a combination of predictors for real-word reading and pseudoword reading showed that Verbal IQ was not the best unique predictor. Students with double or triple deficits in language skills (RAN, phonological, and orthographic processing) responded more slowly to early intervention than students without language deficits. Verbal IQ—word reading discrepancy did not predict the response to early intervention in reading. Overall results supported the use of reading-related language and attention measures rather than IQ—achievement discrepancy in identifying candidates for early reading intervention.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 36, No. 1, 24-33 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/00222194030360010401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. C. Simmons, E. J. Kame'enui, B. Harn, M. D. Coyne, M. Stoolmiller, L. Edwards Santoro, S. B. Smith, C. T. Beck, and N. K. Kaufman Attributes of Effective and Efficient Kindergarten Reading Intervention: An Examination of Instructional Time and Design Specificity J Learn Disabil, August 1, 2007; 40(4): 331 - 347. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. M. Batsche, K. A. Kavale, and J. F. Kovaleski Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 6 - 19. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Fletcher, C. Denton, and D. J. Francis Validity of Alternative Approaches for the Identification of Learning Disabilities: Operationalizing Unexpected Underachievement J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2005; 38(6): 545 - 552. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Semrud-Clikeman Neuropsychological Aspects for Evaluating Learning Disabilities J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2005; 38(6): 563 - 568. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. L. Speece and K. D. Ritchey A Longitudinal Study of the Development of Oral Reading Fluency in Young Children At Risk for Reading Failure J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2005; 38(5): 387 - 399. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. F. Vadasy, E. A. Sanders, and J. A. Peyton Relative Effectiveness of Reading Practice or Word-Level Instruction in Supplemental Tutoring: How Text Matters J Learn Disabil, August 1, 2005; 38(4): 364 - 380. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Xiangdong Yang, J. Shaftel, D. Glasnapp, and J. Poggio Qualitative or Quantitative Differences?: Latent Class Analysis of Mathematical Ability for Special Education Students Journal of Special Education, February 1, 2005; 38(4): 194 - 207. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Semrud-Clikeman Neuropsychological Aspects for Evaluating Learning Disabilities Communication Disorders Quarterly, January 1, 2005; 26(4): 242 - 247. [Abstract] [PDF]