Journal of Learning Disabilities

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aaron, P.G.
Right arrow Articles by Bentum, K. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aaron, P.G.
Right arrow Articles by Bentum, K. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 41, No. 1, 67-84 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0022219407310838

Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading Disabilities Based on the Component Model of Reading

An Alternative to the Discrepancy Model of LD

P.G. Aaron

Indiana State University

R. Malatesha Joshi

Texas A&M University

Regina Gooden

St. Thomas University

Kwesi E. Bentum

Bi-County Special Education Cooperative, Sterling, Illinois

Currently, learning disabilities (LD) are diagnosed on the basis of the discrepancy between students' IQ and reading achievement scores. Students diagnosed with LD often receive remedial instruction in resource rooms. The available evidence suggests that the educational policy based on this discrepancy model has not yielded satisfactory results. This has led researchers to try other paradigms, such as the component model and response to intervention, for dealing with children with reading disabilities. The component model of reading (CMR) described in the present article identifies the reading component that is the source of reading difficulty and targets instruction at that component. Study 1 describes the CMR and reports on its validity. Study 2 describes the successful outcome of a 7-year CMR-based reading instruction program. Compared to the discrepancy model, the CMR has demonstrated several advantages.

Key Words: component model of reading • discrepancy model of learning disability • cognitive domain • psychological domain • ecological domain • differential diagnosis • word-recognition training • comprehension strategy training

References

  • Aaron, P.G. (1997a). A component-based approach to the diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities. In B. Ericson & J. Ronnberg (Eds.), Reading disability and its treatment (pp. 37–66). Norrköping, Sweden: Läspedagogiska Institutet, Linköping University.
  • Aaron, P.G. (1997b). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Aaron, P.G., Franz, S., & Manges, A. (1990). Dissociation between pronunciation and comprehension in reading disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 1–22.
  • Aaron, P.G., Joshi, R.M., Ayotollah, M., Ellsberry, A., Henderson, J., & Lindsey, K. (1999). Decoding and sight-word naming: Are they independent components of word recognition skill? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 89–127.[CrossRef]
  • Aaron, P.G., Joshi, R.M., Palmer, H., Smith, N., & Kirby, E. (2002). Separating genuine cases of reading disability from reading deficits caused by predominantly inattentive ADHD behavior. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 425–447.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Aaron, P.G., Joshi, R.M., & Williams, K.A. (1999). Not all reading disabilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–127.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Aaron, P.G., & Kotva, H. (1999). Component model—based remedial treatment of reading disabilities. In I. Lundberg, E. Tonnessen, & I. Austad (Eds.), Dyslexia: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 221–244). Boston: Kluwer.
  • Adlof, S.M., Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Little, D.T. (2005, June). The role of fluency in reading comprehension: Should fluency be included in the simple view? Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Toronto, ON, Canada.
  • Bentum, K., & Aaron, P.G. (2003). Does reading instruction in learning disability resource rooms really work? A longitudinal study. Reading Psychology, 24, 361–382.[CrossRef]
  • Berninger, V.W., Dunn, A., Lin, S.C., & Shimada, S. (2004). School evolution: Scientist—practitioner educators creating optimal learning environments for all students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 500–508.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485—486.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grader readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18–37.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Carlisle, J.F., & Katz, L.A. (2005). Word learning and vocabulary instruction. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (pp. 345–375). Baltimore: Brookes.
  • Carlson, E. (1997). In-school and post-school outcomes of students declassified from special education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
  • Carver, R.P. (1998). Predicting reading level in Grades 1 to 6 from listening level and decoding level: Testing theory relevant to simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121–154.[CrossRef]
  • Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Fey, M.E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–165.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (Eds.). (1999). Language and reading disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Cho, J.R., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Correlates of Korean Hangul acquisition among kindergartners and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 3–16.[CrossRef]
  • Coltheart, M., Patterson, K.A., & Marshall, J.C. (1980). Deep dyslexia. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Crain, S. (1989). Why poor readers misunderstand spoken sentences. In D. Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability (pp. 30–42). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • de Jong, P.F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77.[CrossRef]
  • Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482—489.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Duke, N., Pressley, M., Fingeret, L., Golos, D., Halladay, J., Hilden, K., et al. (2006, July). Revisiting the simple view of reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  • Ehri, L.C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Frith, U., & Snowling, M. (1983). Reading for meaning and reading for sound in autistic and dyslexic children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 320–342.
  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). What's so "special" about special education? Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 522–530.[ISI]
  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness to intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 151–171.
  • Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33–45.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • 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, 485–486, 516–524.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(2), 6–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (2001). A new tool for measuring and understanding individual differences in reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 103–128.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hawelka, S., & Wimmer, H. (2005). Impaired visual processing of multi-element arrays is associated with increased number of eye movements in dyslexic reading. Vision Research, 45, 855–863.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Haynes, M.C., & Jenkins, J.R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 161–190.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Healy, J. (1982). The enigma of hyperlexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 319–338.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hinshelwood, J. (1895). Word blindness and visual memory. Lancet, 21(1), 1506–1508.
  • Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.[CrossRef]
  • Jackson, M.D., & McClelland, J.L. (1979). Visual factors in word perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 365–370.
  • Joshi, R.M., & Aaron, P.G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21, 85–97.[CrossRef]
  • Joshi, R.M., Williams, K., & Wood, J. (1998). Predicting reading comprehension from listening comprehension: Is this the answer to the IQ debate? In C. Hulme & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 319–327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Karlsen, B., & Gardner, E.F. (1996). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace.
  • Kavale, K.A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553–562.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Kovaleski, J.F. (2004). Response to instruction, the identification of learning disabilities: A guide to school teams. NASP Communique, 32(5), 2–5.
  • Kintsch, W., & Kozminsky, E. (1977). Summarizing stories and reading and listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 491–499.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Kirk, S.A. (1963, April). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the conference "Exploration Into the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child," Chicago.
  • Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (1998). Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  • Lyon, R., Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Torgesen, J., Wood, F.B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
  • MacGinitie, W.H., & MacGinitie, R.K. (1989). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests. Chicago: Riverside.
  • McDermott, K.B., Watson, J.M., & Ojemann, J.G. (2006). Presurgical language mapping. Current Trends in Psychological Science, 14, 291–294.[CrossRef]
  • Mirak, L.J., Scarborough, H.S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Moody, S.W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Fischer, M. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in resource rooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 64, 211–215.
  • Morgan, W.P. (1896). A case of congenital word blindness. British Medical Journal, 2, 1368.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. ( 1998). Report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Health and Human Performance. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrppubskey.cfm
  • Orton, S.T. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech problems in children. New York: Norton.
  • Palincsar, D., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.[CrossRef]
  • Palmer, J., McCleod, C., Hunt, E., & Davidson, J. (1985). Information processing correlates of reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 59–88.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Patterson, K.E., Marshall, J.C., & Coltheart, M. (1985). Surface dyslexia. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Perfetti, C.A. (1988). Verbal efficiency theory in reading ability. In M. Daneman, G. E. MacKinnnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 109–143). New York: Academic Press.
  • Poldrack, R.A., & Wagner, A.D. (2004). What can neuroimaging tell us about the mind? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 177–181.[CrossRef]
  • Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, A.E., Liberman, A., Brady, S., et al. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149–156.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Spalding, R.B., & Spalding, W.T. (1990). The writing road to reading. New York: Morrow.
  • Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Feeman, D.J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278–303.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stothard, S. (1994). The nature and treatment of reading comprehension difficulties. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling (Eds.), Reading development and dyslexia (pp. 85–102). London: Whurr.
  • Swanson, H.L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instructional model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 129–140.[CrossRef]
  • Swanson, H.L., Howard, C.B., & Saez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 252–269.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  • Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. (2002). Reading instruction for students with LD and EBD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 2–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Vukovic, R.K., & Siegel, L.S. (2006). The double-deficit hypothesis: A comprehensive analysis of evidence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 25–47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive Test Of Phonological Proficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  • Wleklenski, M.H. (1993). Effectiveness of special education programs on the reading achievement of students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana State University, Terre Haute.
  • Wolf, M., & Bowers, P.G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for developmental dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Woodcock, R.W. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery. Allen, TX: DLM.
  • Woodcock, R.W. (1991). Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery—Revised. Chicago: Riverside.
  • Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests Of Achievement (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children's problems in text comprehension: An experimental investigation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aaron, P.G.
Right arrow Articles by Bentum, K. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Aaron, P.G.
Right arrow Articles by Bentum, K. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?