We examined cognitive attributes, attention, and self–efficacy of fourth grade struggling readers who were identified as adequate responders (n = 27), inadequate responders with comprehension only deficits (n = 46), and inadequate responders with comprehension and word reading deficits (n = 52) after receiving a multicomponent reading intervention. We also included typical readers (n = 40). These four groups were compared on measures of nonverbal reasoning, working memory, verbal knowledge, listening comprehension, phonological awareness, and rapid naming as well as on teacher ratings of attention problems and self–reported self–efficacy. The two inadequate responder groups demonstrated difficulties primarily with verbal knowledge and listening comprehension compared to typical readers and adequate responders. Phonological awareness and rapid naming differentiated the two inadequate responder groups. In addition, both inadequate responder groups showed more attention problems and low self–efficacy compared to typical readers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlofS. M., CattsH. W., & LittleT. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?. Reading and Writing, 19, 933–958.
2.
Al OtaibaS., & FuchsD. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–316.
3.
AndersonJ. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New Yor k, NY: Worth.
4.
AugustD., & ShanahanT. (2006). Executive summary: Developing literacy in second–language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language–Minority Children and Youth. Retrieved May, 21, 2015 from http://www.cal.org/natl_lit_panel/reports/ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
5.
BaddleyA. D. (1986). Working memory. London: Oxford University Press.
6.
BanduraA. (1977). Self–efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
7.
BarthA. E., StuebingK. K., AnthonyJ. L., DentonC. A., MathesP. G., FletcherJ. M., & FrancisD. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 296–307.
8.
BeasleyT. M., & SchumackerR. E. (1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 79–93.
BlackwellL. S., TrzesniewskiK. H., & DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263.
11.
BulgrenJ. A., Sampson GranerP., & DeshlerD. D. (2013). Literacy challenges and opportunities for students with learning disabilities in social studies and history. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 17–27.
12.
CainK., OakhillJ., & BryantP. (2000). Phonological skills and comprehension failure: A test of the phonological processing deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 13, 31–56.
13.
CainK., OakhillJ., & BryantP. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31.
14.
CattsH. W., ComptonD., TomblinJ. B., & BridgesM. S. (2012). Prevalence and nature of late–emerging poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 166–181.
15.
CattsH. W., AdlofS. M., & WeismerS. E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293.
16.
ChallJ. S., & JacobsV. A. (2003). Poor children's fourth–grade slump. American Educator, 27, 14–17.
17.
ChapmanJ. W., TunmerW. E., & ProchnowJ. E. (2000). Early reading–related skills and performance, reading self–concept, and the development of academic self–concept: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 703.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO.
20.
ConlonE. G., Zimmer–GembeckM. J., CreedP. A., & TuckerM. (2006). Family history, self–perceptions, attitudes and cognitive abilities are associated with early adolescent reading skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 11–32.
21.
ComptonD. L., FuchsL. S., FuchsD., LambertW., & HamlettC. (2012). The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 79–95.
22.
ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., EllemanA. M., & GilbertJ. K. (2008). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late–emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329–337.
23.
CuttingL. E., & ScarboroughH. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.
24.
CuttingL. E., MaterekA., ColeC. A., LevineT. M., & MahoneE. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59, 34–54.
25.
DanemanM., & MerikleP. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta–analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.
26.
DiakidoyI.A.N., StylianouP., KarefillidouC., & PapageorgiouP. (2005). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80.
27.
DuncanG. J., DowsettC. J., ClaessensA., MagnusonK., HustonA. C., KlebanovP., … & JapelC. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428.
28.
EdmondsM. S., VaughnS., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC., CableA., TackettK., & SchnakenbergJ. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research, 79, 262–300.
29.
FletcherJ. M., StuebingK. K., BarthA. E., DentonC. A., CirinoP. T., FrancisD. J., & VaughnS. (2011). Cognitive correlates of inadequate response to reading intervention. School Psychology Review, 40, 3–22.
30.
FletcherJ. M., StuebingK. K., BarthA. E., MiciakJ., FrancisD. J., & DentonC. A. (2014). Agreement and coverage of indicators of response to intervention: A multi–method comparison and simulation. Topics in Language Disorders, 34, 74–89.
31.
FloritE., & CainK. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 553–576.
32.
FrickeS., Bowyer–CraneC., HaleyA. J., HulmeC., & SnowlingM. J. (2013). Efficacy of language intervention in the early years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 280–290.
33.
FuchsD., ComptonD. L., FuchsL. S., BryantV.J., HamlettC. L., & LambertW.(2012). First–grade cognitive abilities as long–term predictors of reading comprehension and disability status. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 217–231.
34.
GoughP. B., HooverW. A., PetersonC. L., (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In CornolidC. & OakhillJ. (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and interventions (pp. 113–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
HabermanS. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross–classified tables. Biometrices, 29, 205–220.
36.
HooverW. A., & GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.
37.
JohnstonT. C., & KirbyJ. R. (2006). The contribution of naming speed to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 19, 339–361.
38.
JeanM., & GevaE. (2009). The development of vocabulary in English as a second language children and its role in predicting word recognition ability. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 153–185.
39.
KaufmanA. S., & KaufmanN. L. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence test (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessment.
40.
KatzirT., LesauxN. K., & KimY. S. (2009). The role of reading self–concept and home literacy practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22, 261–276.
41.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
42.
KirbyJ. R., & SavageR. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?. Literacy, 42, 75–82.
43.
LeachJ. M., ScarboroughH. S., & RescorlaL. (2003). Late–emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 211–224.
44.
LepolaJ., SalonenP., & VaurasM. (2000). The development of motivational orientations as a function of divergent reading careers from pre–school to the second grade. Learning and Instruction, 10, 153–177.
45.
LesauxN. K., & KiefferM. J. (2010). Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 596–632.
46.
MacGinitieW. H. (2000). Gates–MacGinitie reading tests. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
47.
Mancilla–MartinezJ., & LesauxN. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling readers: The case of Spanish–speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 701.
48.
MiciakJ., StuebingK. K., VaughnS., RobertsG., BarthA. E., FletcherJ. M., & VanDerHeydenA. (2014). Cognitive Attributes of Adequate and Inadequate Responders to Reading Intervention in Middle School. School Psychology Review, 4, 407–427.
49.
MorganP. L., FuchsD., ComptonD. L., CordrayD. S., & FuchsL. S. (2008). Does early reading failure decrease children's reading motivation?. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 387–404.
50.
NationK., & SnowlingM. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word–recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85–101.
51.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). NAEP 2013 reading: A report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: Author.
52.
NelsonJ. R., BennerG. J., & GonzalezJ. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta–analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 255–267.
53.
OuelletteG. P. (2006). What's meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566.
54.
PickeringS., & GathercoleS. E. (2001). Working memory test battery for children (WMTB–C). Psychological Corporation.
55.
ProchnowJ. E., TunmerW. E., & ChapmanJ. W. (2013). A longitudinal investigation of the influence of literacy–related skills, reading self–perceptions, and inattentive behaviours on the development of literacy learning difficulties. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60, 185–207.
56.
RabinerD. L., MaloneP.S., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2004). The impact of tutoring on early reading achievement for children with and without attention problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 273–284.
57.
RobertsG., RaneS.FallA.M., DentonC. A., FletcherJ. M., & VaughnS. (2014). The impact of intensive reading intervention on level of attention in middle school students. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2014.913251
SideridisG. D., MouzakiA., SimosP., & ProtopapasA. (2006). Classification of students with reading comprehension difficulties: The roles of motivation, affect, and psychopathology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 159–180.
60.
SeigneuricA., EhrlichM. F., OakhillJ. V., & YuillN. M. (2000). Working memory resources and children's reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 13, 81–103.
61.
ScammaccaN. K., RobertsG., VaughnS., & StuebingK. K. (2013). A meta–analysis of interventions for struggling readers in Grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of learning disabilities, 0022219413504995.
62.
SchunkD. H. (2003). Self–efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self–evaluation. Reading &Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172.
63.
SchatschneiderC., WagnerR. K., & CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 308–315.
64.
ShellD. F., ColvinC., & BruningR. H. (1995). Self–efficacy, attribution, and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement: Grade–level and achievement–level differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 386–398.
65.
SpiraE. G., BrackenS. S., & FischelJ. E. (2005). Predicting improvement after first–grade reading difficulties: the effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental Psychology, 41, 225.
66.
StageS. A., AbbottR. D., JenkinsJ. R., & BerningerV. W. (2003). 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. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24–33.
67.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
68.
StothardS. E., & HulmeC. (1996). A comparison of reading comprehension and decoding difficulties in children. Reading Comprehension Difficulties: Processes and Intervention, 93–112.
69.
SwansonH. L., & BerningerV. (1995). The role of working memory in skilled and less skilled readers’ comprehension. Intelligence, 21, 83–108.
70.
SwansonJ., SchuckS., MannM., CarlsonC., HartmanK., SergeantJ., et al. (2004). Categorical and dimensional definitions and evaluations of symptoms of ADHD: The SNAP and the SWAN rating scales. Retrieved July 20, 2012, from http://www.adhd.net/SNAP_SWAN.pdf.
71.
TabachnickB. G., & FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
72.
TabassamW., & GraingerJ. (2002). Self–concept, attributional style and self–efficacy beliefs of students with learning disabilities with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 141–151.
73.
TannenbaumK. R., TorgesenJ. K., & WagnerR. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third–grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381–398.
74.
TilstraJ., McMasterK., Van den BroekP., KendeouP., & RappD. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 383–401.
75.
TorgesenJ.K. (2005). Recent discoveries from research on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In SnowlingM. & HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook. Oxford: Black–well.
76.
TunmerW. E., & ChapmanJ. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux vocabulary knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 453–466.
77.
TorgesenJ. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64.
78.
TorgesenJ. K., WagnerR.K., & RashotteC. A. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency–2. Austin, TX: Pro–Ed.
79.
VaughnS., SolisM., MiciakJ., TaylorP., & FletcherJ. M. (in review). Effects from a randomized control trial comparing researcher and school implemented treatments with fourth graders with significant reading difficulties.
80.
VellutinoF. R., ScanlonD. M., & JaccardJ. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two–year follow–up to difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers. In FoormanB. R. (Ed.), Preventing and remediating difficulties (pp. 73–120). Balt imore, MD: York Press.
81.
VellutinoF. R., ScanlonD. M., SmallS., & FanueleD. P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first–grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 157–169.
82.
WaescheJ. S. B., SchatschneiderC., ManerJ., AhmedY., & WagnerR. (2011). Examining agreement and longitudinal stability among traditional and RTI–based definitions of reading disability using the affected–status agreement statistic. Journal of learning disabilities, doi: 10.1177/0022219410392048
83.
WagnerR. K., & TorgesenJ. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
84.
WagnerR. K., TorgesenJ. K., RashotteC. A., PearsonN. A. (2010). Test of sentence reading efficiency and comprehension (TOSREC). Austin, TX: PRO–ED.
85.
WagnerR. K., TorgesenJ. K., & RashotteC. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing (CTOPP). Austin, TX: Pro–Ed.
86.
WanzekJ., VaughnS., ScammaccaN. K., MetzK., MurrayC. S., RobertsG., & DanielsonL. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195.
87.
WanzekJ., WexlerJ., VaughnS., & CiulloS. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and Writing, 23, 889–912.
88.
WestfallP. H., YoungS. S., & WrightS. P. (1993). On adjusting P–values for multiplicity. Biometrics, 49, 941–945.
89.
WoodcockR. W., McGrewK. S., & MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
90.
YeagerD. S., & WaltonG. M. (2011). Social–psychological interventions in education They're not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81, 267–301.
