How Initial Word Reading and Language Skills Affect Reading Comprehension Outcomes for Students With Reading Difficulties.

Sharon Vaughn, Greg Roberts, Philip Capin, Jeremy Miciak, Eunsoo Cho, Jack M Fletcher
Author Information
  1. Sharon Vaughn: The University of Texas at Austin.
  2. Greg Roberts: The University of Texas at Austin. ORCID
  3. Philip Capin: The University of Texas at Austin.
  4. Jeremy Miciak: University of Houston.
  5. Eunsoo Cho: Michigan State University.
  6. Jack M Fletcher: University of Houston.

Abstract

This study examined how differences in listening comprehension and word reading at the beginning of the school year influence changes in reading comprehension for English learners (ELs) with significant reading difficulties compared to non-ELs with significant reading difficulties. The study investigated heterogeneity in response to instruction among 400 struggling readers in fourth grade ( = 183 for non-EL; = 217 for EL) who received an intensive reading intervention. At pretest, word reading, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension were measured, and at posttest, reading comprehension was measured again. Results from moderated multiple regression analyses showed a significant three-way interaction such that reading comprehension at posttest was higher for ELs than non-ELs with similar levels of low word reading but relatively higher levels of listening comprehension. However, non-ELs outperformed ELs with similar levels of relatively high word reading and average to high listening comprehension. The findings suggest that pre-intervention skill profiles may need to be interpreted differently for ELs and non-ELs with significant reading difficulties in relation to language and literacy outcomes.

References

  1. J Learn Disabil. 2012 Sep-Oct;45(5):433-52 [PMID: 22293684]
  2. Sci Stud Read. 2017;21(5):428-448 [PMID: 31511760]
  3. Ann Dyslexia. 1987 Jan;37(1):189-200 [PMID: 24234994]
  4. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2010 Dec 1;31(6):475-483 [PMID: 21243117]
  5. Multivariate Behav Res. 2005;40(3):373-400 [PMID: 26794689]
  6. J Educ Psychol. 2010 Aug;102(3):701-711 [PMID: 20856691]
  7. Read Writ. 2013 Aug;26(7):1059-1086 [PMID: 24000271]
  8. J Res Educ Eff. 2016;9(Suppl 1):23-44 [PMID: 28491206]
  9. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Aug 16;60(8):2185-2198 [PMID: 28715547]
  10. Except Child. 2011 May;77(4):391-407 [PMID: 23125463]
  11. Rev Educ Res. 2015 Sep 1;85(3):395-429 [PMID: 26535015]
  12. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006 Apr;49(2):278-93 [PMID: 16671844]
  13. Rev Educ Res. 2016 Sep;86(3):756-800 [PMID: 28529386]
  14. Top Lang Disord. 2016 Oct-Dec;36(4):368-389 [PMID: 28943694]

Grants

  1. P50 HD052117/NICHD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0readingcomprehensionlisteningwordELssignificantnon-ELsdifficultieslevelsReadingstudy=measuredposttesthighersimilarrelativelyhighexamineddifferencesbeginningschoolyearinfluencechangesEnglishlearnerscomparedinvestigatedheterogeneityresponseinstructionamong400strugglingreadersfourthgrade183non-EL217ELreceivedintensiveinterventionpretestResultsmoderatedmultipleregressionanalysesshowedthree-wayinteractionlowHoweveroutperformedaveragefindingssuggestpre-interventionskillprofilesmayneedinterpreteddifferentlyrelationlanguageliteracyoutcomesInitialWordLanguageSkillsAffectComprehensionOutcomesStudentsDifficulties

Similar Articles

Cited By