Language Basis of Reading Comprehension Difficulties Hugh W. Catts, Ph.D. University of Kansas NIU...

Language Basis of Reading Comprehension Difficulties

Hugh W. Catts, Ph.D.University of Kansas

NIU 2013

Outline• Model of reading comprehension• Language basis of comprehension difficulties• Evidence for language basis• Early identification

Reading Comprehension

The construction of a mental model or meaning representation based on a printed text and one’s prior knowledge

Mental Model

Text Knowledge

Mental ModelMeaning RepresentationCoherent Understanding

Situation Model

Mental Model

Text Knowledge

Context• Purpose• Motivation• Mental Alertness

Standard of Coherence

Mental Model

Text Knowledge

Mia ensimmäisen joukkueen, joka muodostuu gophers. Kun koira suunnitelman epäonnen laukaukseksi pannut toimeen. Sen jälkeen hän järjestivät juhlat mutta vieraita ei ole niiden moottoripyöriin. Lisäksi hänen stereojärjestelmä ei ole tarpeeksi suuri. Hävytöntä puheluita piti joitakin niin kauan numero annettiin muuttaa. Asennus oli vilkkuva neonvalot kadun toiselle puolelle että loppujen lopuksi oli. Hän muotoili kysymystään ad siitä nyt luokiteltujen ja joka hänen.

Mia first let loose a team of gophers. The plan backfired when a dog chased them away. She then threw a party but the guests failed to bring their motorcycles. Furthermore, her stereo system was not loud enough. Obscene phone calls gave her some hope until the number was changed. It was the installation of the blinking neon lights across the street that finally did the trick. She framed the ad from the classified section and now has it hanging on her wall.

Knowledge

GETTING RID OF BAD NEIGHBORS

1. Where did Mia put the gophers?

2. Why did Mia want the guests to bring their motorcycles?

3. What did the ad say?

Mental Model

Text Knowledge

Mental Model

Text KnowledgeLanguage

Speech

LanguageComprehension

Simple View of Reading(Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990)

WordRecognition x

LanguageComprehension

Reading Comprehension

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS(syllables, phonemes, etc.)

DECODING (alphabetic principle, spelling-sound correspondences)

SIGHT RECOGNITION(of familiar words)

Adapted from Scarborough, H. S. in Neuman, S.B. & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York: Guilford Press.

SEMANTICS & GRAMMAR(vocabulary, syntax)

TEXT PROCESSING(text structures, cohesion)

BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE(facts, concepts, etc.)

VERBAL REASONING(problem solving, inferencing)

METACOGNITION(comprehension strategies)

Variance Explained in Reading Comprehension

2nd Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Word Recognition Listening Comprehension


2nd Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.68




20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

68%50% 40%




20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

68%50% 40%

9%

21% 36%


Unique & Shared Variance in Reading Comprehension


20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

27.00%12%

41%

38%38%

9%21% 36%

Word Recognition Shared Listening Comprehension

Simple View (SEM)

Construct First Grade Second Grade Third Grade

Word Recognition .81 .48 .48

Listening Comp .22 .57 .60

Preliminary results from the LARRC Consortium

Language Basis of Reading Comprehension

Specific Language Impairment (SLI)

• A disorder that involves delayed onset and protracted development of language (including morphosyntax, semantics, phonology, or pragmatics) relative to other areas of development

• Generally identifiable during the preschool years (3 to 5 years of age) Tager-Flusber & Cooper (1999)

Iowa Longitudinal Study• Identified 225 children

with LI (123 SLI, 102 NLI) and 379 without LI in kindergarten (age 5-6 years)

• Drawn from an epidemiologic sample of over 7000 children

• Followed in 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 10th grades

• Word Recognition Word Identification Word Attack (WRMT-R)

• Reading Comprehension WRMT-R Passage Comp Gray Oral Reading Test-3 Diagnostic Achievement Battery (QRI, 8th,10th)

Percentage of Reading Disorders(Reading Comprehension > 1 SD below the mean)


2nd Grade

4th Grade

8th Grade

10th grade

0

20

40

60

80

100

SLI NLI Normal


2nd Grade

4th Grade

8th Grade

10th grade

0

20

40

60

80

100

SLI NLI Normal

Relative Risk

2nd 4th 8th 10th

SLI 5.0 4.8 5.3 5.5

NLI 7.8 8.2 7.9 9.2

SLI NLI

Poor Comprehenders

Deficits in reading comprehension but normal decoding

“specific comprehension deficit”

Poor Comprehenders• Used arbitrary cut-offs that were subject to error• Artificially created subgroups where none exist

Latent Class Analysis• “Classifies” subjects on the bases of multiple measures of

reading comprehension and word recognition and provides probability of class membership

• Constrained groups on the basis of 8th grade scores

Constraints

8th RC 8th WR

Poor comprehender -1 1Poor decoder 1 -1Generally poor -1 -1Generally good 1 1Average free to vary

Latent Class Analysis• “Classifies” subjects on the bases of multiple measures of

reading comprehension and word recognition and provides probability of class membership

• Constrained groups on the basis of 8th grade scores• Classified students on basis of 8th and 10th grade scores

Average Class Probabilities

Class 1 2 3 4 5

1 0.82 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.13

2 0.00 0.80 0.02 0.05 0.13

3 0.02 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.06

4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.03

5 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.88

Class Size (weighted)

Poor Comprehenders

Poor Decoders

Generally PoorGenerally High Average

6.5% 3.7% 19.4% 25.7% 44.8%

6.5 +19.4 = 25.9% 6.5/25.9 = 25.1%

Kindergarten Language Abilities

PC PD Poor Good Average

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

VocabularyGrammarNarration

History of Language Impairments (K)

Poor Comprehenders 27.4% (22.5 SLI, 4.9 NLI)

Poor Decoder 0% Generally Poor 47.9% (20.1 SLI, 27.8 NLI)

Generally Good .3% (.3% NLI)

Average 7.4% (5.1 SLI, 2.3 NLI)

Poor Comprehenders• Often did not have a reading problem until later

in school• Normal readers in 2nd grade• Problems emerged in 4th grade• Has been described “Fourth grade slump”

Late-Emerging Poor Reader

Late-Emerging Poor Readers

• 493 participants from Iowa study• Multiple measures of reading comprehension and word

reading at 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 10th grades• Used Latent transition analysis

Classes Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10

TD → TD → TD → TDRD → RD → RD → RDTD → RD → RD → RDTD → TD → RD → RDTD → TD → TD → RDRD → TD → TD → TDRD → RD → TD → TDRD → RD → RD → TD

Late-Emerging• About 70% were normal readers at all grades• 17% were poor readers with early and persistent deficits• 13% had late emerging deficits (42% of all poor readers)• Emerged by 4th grade and tended to be stable thereafter• Most of these children had comprehension problems (65%)

and many had a history of language impairments (46%)

Can we predict who will be a late-emerging poor reader or a poor comprehender based on earlier language skills?

Early Identification

Means “predicting the future”

“It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

Yogi Berra

Yogi Berra

“It’’s like deja-vu all over again.”

“Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”

“Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.”

Catts, H., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (2001). Estimating risk for future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38-50.

Adlof, S. A., Catts, H.W., Lee, J. (2010). Kindergarten predictors of second vs. eight grade reading comprehension impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 332-345.

Catts, H., Nielsen, D., & Bridges, M. (in progress). Early identification of reading disabilities within a RTI framework.

Prediction of RD

Predicting reading outcomes• classified children from Iowa sample as good and poor

readers (-1SD)• Based on 2nd grade or 8th grade reading comprehension• Kindergarten (spring) measures to predict outcomes

Kindergarten Predictors• Letter identification• Phoneme deletion• Rapid naming• Sentence imitation• Vocabulary production/comprehension• Grammatical understanding• Grammatical completion• Narrative production/comprehension• Mother’s education• Nonverbal IQ

Predicting reading outcomes• Grouped children from Iowa sample into good and poor

readers (-1SD)• Based on 2nd grade or 8th grade reading comprehension• Kindergarten predictors (spring)• Logistic regression (best-subsets variable-selection)

Second Grade PredictorsSentence imitationLetter identificationMother’s education Reading Comprehension Rapid namingPhoneme deletion

Sensitivity = 92% Specificity = 80%

AUC = .90

Eight Grade PredictorsGrammatical completionNonverbal IQSentence imitation Reading Comprehension Phoneme deletionMother’s educationNarrative production

AUC = .87

Catts, Nielsen, & Bridges (in progress)

• 366 kindergarten children• Administered a screening battery at the

beginning of the year• Included a range of language measures• Measured reading outcomes at the end of 1st-3rd

grades

WRMT:R Passage ComprehensionStep Variables R2 p

1 Word recognition (2nd) .576 <.001

WRMT:R Passage ComprehensionStep Variables R2 R2

changep


2 Receptive Vocabulary (K)

3 Expressive Vocabulary (K)

4 Receptive Narration (K)

5 Expressive Narration (K)

6 Sentence Imitation (K)

WRMT:R Passage ComprehensionStep Variables R2 R2

changep


2 Receptive Vocabulary (K) .673 .097 <.001

3 Sentence Imitation (K) .682 .001 <.003

Gates-MacGinitieStep Variables R2 R2

changep


Gates-MacGinitieStep Variables R2 R2

changep


2 Receptive Vocabulary (K) .520 .075 <.001

3 Sentence Imitation (K)

4 Expressive Vocabulary (K)

5 Expressive Narration (K)

6 Receptive Narration (K)

Language Intervention• At-risk children• Randomly assigned to intervention condition• Vocabulary and narrative intervention• Pre- and post-test measures

WRMT:R Passage Comprehension (N=113)


Step Variables R2 R2

changep


2 Vocabulary (pre) .689 .068 <.001

3 Narration (pre) .691 .002 >.05



changep


2 Vocabulary (pre) .689 .068 <.001

3 Narration (pre) .691 .002 >.05

4 Vocabulary (post) .700 .009 .07

5 Narration (post) .719 .019 <.01

Gates-MacGinitie (N= 112)


changep


2 Vocabulary (pre) .462 .098 <.001

3 Narration (pre) .471 .009 >.05

Gates-MacGinitie (N= 112)


changep


2 Vocabulary (pre) .462 .098 <.001

3 Narration (pre) .471 .009 >.05

4 Vocabulary (post) .495 .024 <.05

5 Narration (post) --- --- ---

Thank you

Iowa Longitudinal Study

Evidence for Simple View• Aaron, Joshi, & Williams• Catts, Adlof, & Hogan, 2005• Hoover & Gough, 1990

Non-RDRD

P (RD) > P (RD) 90%

Percentage of Reading Disorders(Word Recognition > 1 SD below the mean)

2nd Grade

4th Grade

8th Grade

10th grade

0

20

40

60

80

100

SLI NLI Normal

Relative Risk

2nd 4th 8th 10th

SLI 3.1 3.3 3.7 2.9

NLI 5.6 5.9 5.8 4.7

Poor Comprehenders

2nd Grade 4th Grade 8th Grade 10th grade0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Typical-BNLI-BSLI-B

False Positive

Tru

e P

ositi

ve

.90

.80

Mental Model

Text KnowledgeLanguage

SpeechListening

Comprehension



20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

68%50%




20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

68%50% 40%

0.09




20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

68%50% 40%

9%

21%


Mental Model

Text Knowledge

The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange things into different groups. Of course, one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise you are pretty well set. It is important not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many.

Knowledge

WASHINGCLOTHES

Language Basis of Reading Comprehension Difficulties Hugh W. Catts, Ph.D. University of Kansas NIU...

Documents

Transcript of Language Basis of Reading Comprehension Difficulties Hugh W. Catts, Ph.D. University of Kansas NIU...