1 The Case for Using Responsiveness to Intervention to Identify Reading Disability: A Brief Review...
Transcript of 1 The Case for Using Responsiveness to Intervention to Identify Reading Disability: A Brief Review...
11
The Case for Using The Case for Using Responsiveness to Intervention to Responsiveness to Intervention to Identify Reading Disability: A Identify Reading Disability: A Brief Review of Relevant Brief Review of Relevant ResearchResearch
Frank R. VellutinoFrank R. Vellutino
Child Research and Study CenterChild Research and Study Center
University at Albany-SUNYUniversity at Albany-SUNY
22
Why do some children have difficulty Why do some children have difficulty learning to read ?learning to read ?
Two Broad PossibilitiesTwo Broad Possibilities
Basic deficits in reading related cognitive Basic deficits in reading related cognitive
abilities.abilities.
Experiential / Instructional deficitsExperiential / Instructional deficits..
The failure to make this distinction leads The failure to make this distinction leads
to a wide spread problem: Misdiagnosing to a wide spread problem: Misdiagnosing
Children as “Disabled Readers.”Children as “Disabled Readers.”
33
Psychometric ApproachPsychometric Approach
Definition by ExclusionDefinition by Exclusion IQ-Achievement discrepancy.IQ-Achievement discrepancy.
Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent
absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage
used as exclusionary criteria. used as exclusionary criteria.
““Neuropsychological” tests of reading-related cognitive Neuropsychological” tests of reading-related cognitive
abilities.abilities.
Estimates of incidence of reading disability range Estimates of incidence of reading disability range
from 10% to 20% using the above criteria.from 10% to 20% using the above criteria.
44
The Psychometric Exclusionary The Psychometric Exclusionary Definition of Reading Disability: A Definition of Reading Disability: A
Brief HistoryBrief History
55
Kirk and Bateman (1962, 1963): Kirk and Bateman (1962, 1963): Learning disabilities are caused by Learning disabilities are caused by
neurodevelopmental disorders affecting neurodevelopmental disorders affecting
academic learning in otherwise normal academic learning in otherwise normal
children.children. Specific learning disabilities are different Specific learning disabilities are different
from general learning difficulties caused from general learning difficulties caused
by low IQ, sensory, physical, or by low IQ, sensory, physical, or
emotional deficits, or socioeconomic emotional deficits, or socioeconomic
disadvantage. disadvantage.
66
Rutter and Yule (1975)—Isle of Wight StudyRutter and Yule (1975)—Isle of Wight Study Large Scale epidemiological study of reading Large Scale epidemiological study of reading
difficulties in U.K.difficulties in U.K. Percentage of children whose reading scores were Percentage of children whose reading scores were
significantly below those predicted by their ages and IQs was significantly below those predicted by their ages and IQs was
greater than expected (more than the 2.3% anticipated by a greater than expected (more than the 2.3% anticipated by a
normal curve model).normal curve model).
Rutter & Yule distinguished between “Specific Reading Rutter & Yule distinguished between “Specific Reading
Retardation” and “General Reading Backwardness” Retardation” and “General Reading Backwardness”
due to low intelligence.due to low intelligence.
77
Contraindications to IQ-Achievement Contraindications to IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Discrepancy Definitions of Reading
DisabilityDisability
88
Rutter and Yule’s (1975) Isle of Wight Rutter and Yule’s (1975) Isle of Wight
Study and Kirk and Bateman’s work Study and Kirk and Bateman’s work
became the basis for Public Law 94-142, became the basis for Public Law 94-142,
which mandated that learning disabilities which mandated that learning disabilities
be defined as achievement deficits in be defined as achievement deficits in
otherwise normal children who have at otherwise normal children who have at
least average intelligence.least average intelligence. P.L.- 94-142 led to the widespread use of P.L.- 94-142 led to the widespread use of
psychometric exclusionary definitions of psychometric exclusionary definitions of
LD having the IQ-achievement discrepancy LD having the IQ-achievement discrepancy
as its central defining criterion. as its central defining criterion.
99
Several large scale studies have shown that:Several large scale studies have shown that:
IQ does not predict reading achievement with a IQ does not predict reading achievement with a
high degree of accuracy (Malmquist, 1960).high degree of accuracy (Malmquist, 1960). Many IQ tests include items that depend on language Many IQ tests include items that depend on language
and/or reading ability (e.g. vocabulary, general and/or reading ability (e.g. vocabulary, general
knowledge; Bond & Fay, 1950; Durrell, 1933).knowledge; Bond & Fay, 1950; Durrell, 1933).
Non-verbal IQ tests predict reading achievement Non-verbal IQ tests predict reading achievement
with very low accuracy (Vellutino et al, 1994; 1996; with very low accuracy (Vellutino et al, 1994; 1996;
2000). 2000).
1010
Rutter and Yule’s findings were not replicated Rutter and Yule’s findings were not replicated
in later research; their results were found to be in later research; their results were found to be
due to measurement problems on the reading due to measurement problems on the reading
tests they used (Rodgers, 1983; Share et al., tests they used (Rodgers, 1983; Share et al.,
1987).1987).
Other studies found that:Other studies found that: IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers were no IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers were no
different than non-discrepant poor readers on different than non-discrepant poor readers on
measures of reading-related cognitive abilities measures of reading-related cognitive abilities
(Fletcher et al., 1994; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994). (Fletcher et al., 1994; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994).
Also, that some good readers have IQ-achievement Also, that some good readers have IQ-achievement
discrepancies.discrepancies.
Therefore the IQ-achievement discrepancy is Therefore the IQ-achievement discrepancy is
not a very precise measure of reading not a very precise measure of reading
disability.disability.
1111
Two important questions emerged from Two important questions emerged from
these findings:these findings: To what degree can IQ set upper limits on To what degree can IQ set upper limits on
and/or predict ability to learn to read? and/or predict ability to learn to read?
To what degree can IQ scores predict To what degree can IQ scores predict
response to remediation in struggling response to remediation in struggling
readers?readers?
1212
Can low IQ children learn to Can low IQ children learn to read? read?
Siegel (1988) compared reading disabled Siegel (1988) compared reading disabled
(n=250) and non-reading disabled children (n=250) and non-reading disabled children
(n=719) on language and literacy skills (ages 7 (n=719) on language and literacy skills (ages 7
to 16) and stratified these children into four IQ to 16) and stratified these children into four IQ
subgroups: IQ< 80; 80 to 90; 91 to 109; >110. subgroups: IQ< 80; 80 to 90; 91 to 109; >110.
the non-disabled readers fell into the same IQ the non-disabled readers fell into the same IQ
ranges as the disabled readers.ranges as the disabled readers.
within each of the IQ ranges, the disabled within each of the IQ ranges, the disabled
readers performed below the non-disabled readers performed below the non-disabled
readers on language-based measures (e.g. readers on language-based measures (e.g.
phoneme awareness, verbal memory, etc.).phoneme awareness, verbal memory, etc.).
1313
Share et al. (1989) stratified 3 year olds Share et al. (1989) stratified 3 year olds
into different IQ subgroups and tracked into different IQ subgroups and tracked
reading growth in these children until age reading growth in these children until age
13. 13. Siegel’s results were essentially replicated: Siegel’s results were essentially replicated:
disabled and non-disabled readers were found disabled and non-disabled readers were found
in each IQ subgroup.in each IQ subgroup.
IQ did not predict rate of growth in reading.IQ did not predict rate of growth in reading.
All of these studies provided evidence that All of these studies provided evidence that
measures of language and language-based measures of language and language-based
skills are better predictors of reading skills are better predictors of reading
ability than are IQ scores.ability than are IQ scores.
1414
Siegel (1989) and others have also pointed out Siegel (1989) and others have also pointed out
that:that: Most intelligence tests currently in use evaluate Most intelligence tests currently in use evaluate
acquired knowledge or cognitive abilities that can acquired knowledge or cognitive abilities that can
either be adversely affected by reading ability or either be adversely affected by reading ability or
adversely affect this ability. adversely affect this ability.
Children who suffer from long-standing reading Children who suffer from long-standing reading
difficulties eventually become below average difficulties eventually become below average
performers in areas such as vocabulary and syntactic performers in areas such as vocabulary and syntactic
knowledge, due to their limited ability to profit from knowledge, due to their limited ability to profit from
reading (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino et al., 1995).reading (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino et al., 1995).
1515
Problems with the Psychometric Problems with the Psychometric ApproachApproach
No control for pre-school experiences and instructionNo control for pre-school experiences and instruction Low diagnostic validity of most testsLow diagnostic validity of most tests Rely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancyRely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancy Too many children classified as “disabled readers” Too many children classified as “disabled readers”
(10%-20%)(10%-20%) Low expectations for achievementLow expectations for achievement No direction for instructionNo direction for instruction Little or no attention given to the quality and/or Little or no attention given to the quality and/or
characteristics of instructioncharacteristics of instruction
1616
Major ObjectivesMajor Objectives
To distinguish between biologically-based To distinguish between biologically-based
cognitive causes and experiential/instructional cognitive causes and experiential/instructional
causes of reading difficulties.causes of reading difficulties.
To compare responsiveness to intervention To compare responsiveness to intervention
(RTI) vs. psychometric approaches to (RTI) vs. psychometric approaches to
diagnosing reading disability.diagnosing reading disability.
To develop benchmarks for early identification To develop benchmarks for early identification
of children at-risk for reading difficulties.of children at-risk for reading difficulties.
First Grade Intervention StudyFirst Grade Intervention Study (Vellutino et al., 1996) (Vellutino et al., 1996)
1717
Major Components of the StudyMajor Components of the Study
Testing at the beginning of kindergarten to Testing at the beginning of kindergarten to
evaluate emergent literacy skills and reading-evaluate emergent literacy skills and reading-
related cognitive abilities (n = 1407).related cognitive abilities (n = 1407).
Periodic observation of language arts instruction Periodic observation of language arts instruction
in all kindergarten classrooms. in all kindergarten classrooms.
Selection of poor and normal readers in mid-first Selection of poor and normal readers in mid-first
grade, using psychometric and exclusionary grade, using psychometric and exclusionary
criteria like those used in public schools.criteria like those used in public schools.
1818
Major Components of the Study (Cont’)Major Components of the Study (Cont’)
Daily one-to-one tutoring for most of the poor Daily one-to-one tutoring for most of the poor
readers (n=76); school-based remediation readers (n=76); school-based remediation
provided for the rest of them (n = 42).provided for the rest of them (n = 42).
Tutoring was highly individualized and Tutoring was highly individualized and
comprehensive.comprehensive.
First and third grade cognitive testing for all First and third grade cognitive testing for all
target children. target children.
Progress in acquiring major reading skills was Progress in acquiring major reading skills was
systematically evaluated from kindergarten systematically evaluated from kindergarten
through the end of fourth grade.through the end of fourth grade.
1919
Approach to Instruction: Interactive Strategies Approach to Instruction: Interactive Strategies
Components of Daily Tutoring Components of Daily Tutoring
Re-reading texts for fluency Re-reading texts for fluency
Phonological skills Phonological skills
Reading new texts Reading new texts
Sight word practice Sight word practice
Writing Writing
Instruction designed to promote interactive use of Instruction designed to promote interactive use of
text-based and code-based strategies in text text-based and code-based strategies in text
reading reading
2020
Major FindingsMajor Findings
Struggling readers in first grade performed below Struggling readers in first grade performed below
average on kindergarten measures of emergent average on kindergarten measures of emergent
literacy skills.literacy skills.
The kindergarten language arts program was an The kindergarten language arts program was an
influential determinant of first grade reading influential determinant of first grade reading
achievement. achievement.
The majority of tutored children (67%) scored in The majority of tutored children (67%) scored in
the average range after 15 weeks of daily one-one the average range after 15 weeks of daily one-one
tutoring (50% for comparison group). tutoring (50% for comparison group).
Only 15.8% scored below 15th percentile (1.5% of the Only 15.8% scored below 15th percentile (1.5% of the
population) population)
2121
Figure 1. Growth Curves for Mean Raw Scores on the WRMT-R Word Identification Subtest for Normal and
Tutored Poor Readers0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
VLG (n = 19)
LG (n = 15)
GG (n = 17)
VGG (n = 18)
AvIQNorm (n = 21)
AbAvIQNorm (n = 30)
Kindergarten Grade 1Winter
Grade 1Spring
Grade 2Fall
Grade 2Winter
Grade 2Spring
Grade 3Spring
Grade 4Spring
Time Intervals Between Tests in Months
Wo
rd Id
en
tifi
ca
tio
n R
aw
Sc
ore
s o
n W
RM
T-R
VLG = Very Limited Grow thLG = Limited Grow thGG = Good Grow thVGG = Very Good Grow thWRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised
2222
Figure 2. Growth Curves for Mean Raw Scores on the WRMT-R Word Attack
Subtest for Normal and Tutored Poor Readers
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Time Intervals Between Tests (Months)
Wo
rd A
tta
ck
Ra
w S
co
re o
n W
MR
T-R
VLG (n=19)
LG (n=15)
GG (n=17)
VGG (n=18)
AvIQNorm(n=21)
AbAVIQNorm (n=30)
Grade 1 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 2 Grade 2 Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring
Kindergarten Grade 3 Grade 4 Spring Spring
VLG = Very Limited Grow thLG = Limited Grow thGG = Good Grow thVGG = Very Good Grow thWRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised
2323
Major Findings (cont’)Major Findings (cont’)
IQ scores did not:IQ scores did not: reliably differentiate struggling and normal reliably differentiate struggling and normal
readers. readers.
predict response to intervention. predict response to intervention.
predict reading growth in normal readers.predict reading growth in normal readers.
Language-based measures, especially Language-based measures, especially phonological measures did:phonological measures did:
reliably differentiate struggling and normal reliably differentiate struggling and normal readers.readers.
reliably differentiate difficult to remediate reliably differentiate difficult to remediate and readily remediated tutored children.and readily remediated tutored children.
2424
Kindergarten and First Grade Kindergarten and First Grade Intervention StudyIntervention Study
(Spring 1997-Spring 2002)(Spring 1997-Spring 2002)
Major ObjectivesMajor Objectives
Evaluate the utility of remedial intervention for Evaluate the utility of remedial intervention for
“at risk” kindergarteners.“at risk” kindergarteners.
Further evaluate the RTI approach to identifying Further evaluate the RTI approach to identifying
children at-risk for early and long-term reading children at-risk for early and long-term reading
difficulties. difficulties.
2525
At-Risk Children
Continued Risk
Intervention
(n=232)
Comparison
(n=230)
Kin
der
gar
ten
Fir
st g
rad
e
No-Longer
at-Risk
Normal
Readers
Not-at-Risk
Children
(n=898)
Th
ird
g
rad
e
Difficult to
Remediate
Less Difficult
to Remediate
No-Longer
at-Risk
First Grade
Intervention
Above
Average IQ
K-intervention
Average
IQ
2626
Kindergarten ScreeningN=1373letter identification (initial screening)letter identification (initial screening)phonological awareness (rhyme and alliteration)phonological awareness (rhyme and alliteration)RAN object namingRAN object namingnumber identificationnumber identificationcounting by 1’scounting by 1’s
Kindergarten InterventionN= 462Intervention n= 232Intervention n= 232Small groups, 2-3 days, weekly, 30min sessionsSmall groups, 2-3 days, weekly, 30min sessions
Comparison n=230Comparison n=230Small group instruction in some but not all schoolsSmall group instruction in some but not all schools
Intervention and comparison groups were equivalent on all screening measures
30%
Phoneme Awareness
Letter ID
Letter-Sound Association
Alphabetic Principle
Print Awareness
Print Conventions
Whole Word Identification
Text Reading
Ran
do
miz
ed D
esig
n
2727
Third grade Cognitive MeasuresThird grade Cognitive Measures
Rapid Naming (letter and objects)Rapid Naming (letter and objects)
Confrontational Naming Confrontational Naming
Verbal MemoryVerbal Memory
VocabularyVocabulary
Language ComprehensionLanguage Comprehension
Verbal and Non-verbal IntelligenceVerbal and Non-verbal Intelligence
First Grade InterventionFirst Grade Intervention
One-to-one Daily TutoringOne-to-one Daily Tutoring
Interactive Strategies ApproachInteractive Strategies Approach
2828
ResultsResults
2929
Kindergarten InterventionKindergarten Intervention
Project Treatment group performed Project Treatment group performed
significantly better than School-Based significantly better than School-Based
Comparison group on almost all emergent Comparison group on almost all emergent
literacy measures at the end of literacy measures at the end of
kindergartenkindergarten
Effect sizes consistently larger in schools Effect sizes consistently larger in schools
that provided no supplemental remedial that provided no supplemental remedial
services in kindergartenservices in kindergarten
3030
Table. 1Table. 1Effect sizes for intervention/comparison groups (end of Effect sizes for intervention/comparison groups (end of Kindergarten, no school-based remediation)Kindergarten, no school-based remediation)
3131
First Grade InterventionFirst Grade Intervention
First Grade RTI GroupsFirst Grade RTI Groups Children who received both kindergarten and first grade Children who received both kindergarten and first grade
intervention. intervention. Difficult to Remediate (DR): < SS 90 on WRMT-R Basic Skills Difficult to Remediate (DR): < SS 90 on WRMT-R Basic Skills
Cluster (BSC) at the end of third gradeCluster (BSC) at the end of third grade Less Difficult to Remediate (LDR): Less Difficult to Remediate (LDR): SS 90 on WRMT-R BSC at the SS 90 on WRMT-R BSC at the
end of third gradeend of third grade
Comparison GroupsComparison Groups Children who received only kindergarten intervention Children who received only kindergarten intervention
and were no longer at risk (NLAR)and were no longer at risk (NLAR) Normal reader controls (AvIQNorm, AbAvIQNorm)Normal reader controls (AvIQNorm, AbAvIQNorm)
3232
Performance on Achievement Performance on Achievement MeasuresMeasures
NLAR and LDR groups performed within the average range NLAR and LDR groups performed within the average range
and above the DR group on all literacy measures at the and above the DR group on all literacy measures at the
end of first, second and third grade (see handouts).end of first, second and third grade (see handouts).
LDR group performed at levels comparable to NLAR group LDR group performed at levels comparable to NLAR group
on all literacy measures at the end of first, second, and on all literacy measures at the end of first, second, and
third grade. third grade.
DR group performed within the average or low average DR group performed within the average or low average
ranges on all literacy measures at the end of first grade, ranges on all literacy measures at the end of first grade,
but fell below average on all measures over second and but fell below average on all measures over second and
third grade. third grade.
3333
3434
84% of the at risk children became at least average level readers after 84% of the at risk children became at least average level readers after receiving only kindergarten intervention or both kindergarten and first grade receiving only kindergarten intervention or both kindergarten and first grade intervention. intervention.
Of those who became average level readers, 73% (72/98) received only Of those who became average level readers, 73% (72/98) received only kindergarten intervention.kindergarten intervention.
Growth in kindergarten literacy skills predicted continued risk status at the Growth in kindergarten literacy skills predicted continued risk status at the beginning of first grade with 90% accuracy and no-longer-at risk status with beginning of first grade with 90% accuracy and no-longer-at risk status with 87% accuracy.87% accuracy.
Adding a measure of change over the summer increased predictive accuracy Adding a measure of change over the summer increased predictive accuracy to 95% for continued risk status and 96% for no-longer-at-risk status. to 95% for continued risk status and 96% for no-longer-at-risk status.
3535
Results (contd’)Results (contd’)
IQ tests did not predict end of second and third IQ tests did not predict end of second and third
grade reading achievement following first grade grade reading achievement following first grade
intervention, but measures of growth in reading intervention, but measures of growth in reading
did do so.did do so.
IQ tests did not reliably differentiate continued risk, IQ tests did not reliably differentiate continued risk,
no-longer-at risk, and typical readers in first grade; no-longer-at risk, and typical readers in first grade;
verbal IQ did differentiate these groups in third verbal IQ did differentiate these groups in third
grade, but non-verbal IQ did not reliably do so.grade, but non-verbal IQ did not reliably do so.
The continued risk children generally performed The continued risk children generally performed
below the no-longer-at-risk and typical readers on below the no-longer-at-risk and typical readers on
measures of language-based skills. measures of language-based skills.
3636
Implications and ConclusionsImplications and Conclusions
Early and long-term literacy difficulties can be Early and long-term literacy difficulties can be
prevented in most at risk children if they are:prevented in most at risk children if they are:
identified early in kindergarten. identified early in kindergarten.
provided with appropriate intervention to institute provided with appropriate intervention to institute
foundational literacy skills at the outset. foundational literacy skills at the outset.
Most at-risk children can profit from supplemental Most at-risk children can profit from supplemental
remediation in kindergarten and become at least remediation in kindergarten and become at least
average level readers in first grade and beyond.average level readers in first grade and beyond.
Some will need intensive remedial intervention Some will need intensive remedial intervention
beyond kindergarten or first grade in order to close beyond kindergarten or first grade in order to close
the gap. A very small number will continue to need the gap. A very small number will continue to need
support; such children may be classified as support; such children may be classified as
“reading disabled”. “reading disabled”.
3737
Continued use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to Continued use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to
diagnose reading disability is unwarranted; in two diagnose reading disability is unwarranted; in two
separate intervention studies we conducted, IQ tests: separate intervention studies we conducted, IQ tests:
did not reliably differentiate continued risk, no-longer-at did not reliably differentiate continued risk, no-longer-at
risk, and typically achieving readers.risk, and typically achieving readers.
did not differentiate difficult to remediate and less difficult did not differentiate difficult to remediate and less difficult
to remediate readers.to remediate readers.
did not predict long term reading achievement following did not predict long term reading achievement following
intensive intervention, whereas initial response to such intensive intervention, whereas initial response to such
intervention did do so. intervention did do so.
therefore, RTI may be a more effective approach to therefore, RTI may be a more effective approach to
identifying reading disability than is the IQ-achievement identifying reading disability than is the IQ-achievement
discrepancy. discrepancy.
3838
Impact of Initial RTI StudiesImpact of Initial RTI Studies
Stimulated subsequent RTI research. Stimulated subsequent RTI research.
Led to an RTI summit for researchers and Led to an RTI summit for researchers and
stakeholders in which the pros and cons of RTI vs stakeholders in which the pros and cons of RTI vs
the IQ-achievement discrepancy were debated the IQ-achievement discrepancy were debated
(August, 2001).(August, 2001).
Federal Funds for more RTI research became Federal Funds for more RTI research became
available (e.g Vanderbilt/Kansas NCLD).available (e.g Vanderbilt/Kansas NCLD).
Re-authorization of IDEA (July, 2004). Re-authorization of IDEA (July, 2004).
3939
Thank you!Thank you!