The purpose of this followup study was to determine the long-term predictive validity of theoretically coherent reading measures administered during fall and winter of kindergarten. Seventy-nine children were screened using measures representing letter identification, phonological awareness, phonological memory, and rapid automatized naming. Reading achievement was measured at the end of grades 1 through 4 on passage comprehension, oral reading fluency, sight-word recognition, and phonemic decoding. A multivariate screening model incorporating letter identification, phonological awareness, and rapid automatized naming emerged as the most parsimonious model for predicting long-term reading achievement. This screening model yielded the highest correlations with oral reading fluency as the outcome measure. There was no practical significance between the fall and winter screening over the four-year period using this model. Results are interpreted as confirming the importance of a multivariate screening approach using letter identification, phonological awareness, and rapid automatized naming at the earliest time frame in kindergarten.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsM.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about printCambridge MA: MIT Press.
2.
BaddeleyA.D. (1986). Working memory and comprehension. In BroadbentD.McGaughJ.KosslyM.MackintoshN.TulvingE.WeiskrantzL. (Eds.), Working memory (pp. 53–108). New York: Oxford University Press.)
3.
BishopA.G. (2001). Prediction of first grade reading achievement using phonological processing skills and letter identification during fall and winter of kindergarten. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
4.
BishopA.G. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading achievement: A comparison of fall and winter kindergarten screenings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 189–200.
5.
BlachmanB.A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In KamilM.L.MosenthalP.B.PearsonP.D.BarrR. (Eds.). Handbook on reading research (pp. 483–502). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.)
6.
CattsH.W.FeyM.E.ZhangX.TomblinJ.B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.
7.
CattsH.W.FeyM.E.ZhangX.TomblinJ.B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38–50.
8.
DenoS.L.FuchsL.S.MarstonD.ShinJ. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30 (4), 507–524.
9.
DeputyE.C. (1930). Predicting first grade reading achievement: A study in reading readiness. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Publications.
10.
Florida Department of Education. (2004). Technical assistance paper related to third-grade student progression. Tallahassee: Author. Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/progress.
11.
FoormanB.R.FletcherJ.M.FrancisD. (1997). A scientific approach to reading instruction. LD Online, Retrieved April 4, 2006, from www.ldonline.org
12.
FoormanB.R.FrancisD.J.FletcherJ.M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk-children. Journal of Education Psychology, 90, 37–55.
13.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.HospM.K.JenkinsJ.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 239–256.
14.
FuchsL.S.FuchsD.MaxwellL. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education9 (2), 20–29.
15.
GoodR.H.SimmonsD.C.Kame'enuiE. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third- grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
16.
GoswamiU. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In KamilM.L.MosenthalP.B.PearsonP.D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook on reading research (pp. 251–267). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.)
17.
GoswamiU.BryantP. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, UK: Erbaum.
18.
GottardoA.StanovichK.E.SiegelL.S. (1996). The relationships between phonological sensitivity, syntactic processing, and verbal working memory in the reading performance of third-grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63 (3), 563–582.
19.
HasbrouckJ.E.TindalG. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41–44.
20.
HasbrouckJ.E.TindalG. (2005). Oral reading fluency: 90 years of assessment (Behavioral Research & Teaching Technical Report No. 33). Eugene, OR: Author.
21.
HudsonR.MercerC.D.LaneH. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
22.
JenkinsJ.R.FuchsL. S.van den BroekP.EspinC.DenoS.L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 719–729.
23.
JenkinsJ.R.O'ConnorR.E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In BradleyR.E.DavidsonL.HallahanD.P. (Eds.). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice(pp. 99–150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.)
24.
KamhiA.G. (1997). Three perspectives on comprehension: Implications for assessing and treating comprehension problems. Topics in Language Disorders, 17 (3), 62–74.
LeslieL.CaldwellJ. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory (vol. 3). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
27.
LeslieL.CaldwellJ. (1995). Qualitative reading inventory (vol. 2). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
28.
McCardleP.ScarboroughH.CattsH.W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children's reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 16, 230–237.
29.
National Reading Panel. (2000). A report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
30.
O'ConnorR. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 43–54.
31.
O'ConnorR.E.JenkinsJ. (1999). Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.
32.
ParrilaR.KirbyJ.R.McQuarrieL. (2004). Articulation rate, naming speed, verbal short-term memory, and phonological awareness: Longitudinal predictors of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 3–26.
33.
ScanlonD.M.VellutinoF.R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first-grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 2, 54–63.
34.
ScarboroughH.S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk of reading difficulties: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In ShapiroB.K.AccardoP.J.CaputeA.J. (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum(pp. 75–120). Timonium, MD: York Press, Inc.)
35.
SchatschneiderC.FletcherJ.M.FrancisD.J.CarlsonC.D.FoormanB.R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (2), 265–282.
36.
SkinnerR.A.StaresinaL.N. (2004, January 8). State of the states. Education Week, 97–153.
37.
SnowC.E.BurnsM.S.GriffinP. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.)
38.
SpeeceD.MillsC.RitcheyK.HillmanE. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36, 223–233.
39.
TorgesenJ.K. (1998). Catch them before they fall. American Educator, 32–39.
40.
TorgesenJ.K.BurgessS.R. (1998). Consistency of reading related phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In MetsalaS.EhriL. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 161–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.)
41.
TorgesenJ.K.WagnerR.K.RashotteC.A. (1997). Approaches to the prevention and remediation of phonologically based reading disabilities. In BlachmanB. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 287–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates Inc.)
42.
TorgesenJ.K.WagnerR.W.RashotteC.A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
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.
45.
WagnerR.K.TorgesenJ.K.RashotteC.A.HechtS.A.BarkerT.A.BurgessS.R.DonahueJ.GaronT. (1997). Changing causal relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to fluent readers: A five-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 468–479.
46.
WagnerR.K.TorgesenJ.K.RashotteC.A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes (CTOPP). Austin, TX: ProEd.
47.
WolfM. (1997). A provisional, integrative account of phonological and naming-speed deficits in dyslexia: Implications for diagnosis and intervention. In BlachmanB. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia; Implications for early intervention (pp. 67–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.)
48.
WolfM.BowersP.G.BiddleK. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407.
49.
WolfM.Katzir-CohenT. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 211–238.
50.
WolkingW. D.NancarrowE.EhrhardtD. (1971). Florida language profile. Tallahassee: Florida State Department of Education, Exceptional Child Education Section.
