Journal of Learning Disabilities

Most research on early identification of reading disabilities has focused on word reading problems and little attention has been given to reading comprehension difficulties. In this study, we investigated whether measures of language ability and/or response to language intervention in kindergarten uniquely predicted reading comprehension difficulties in third grade. A total of 366 children were administered a battery of screening measures at the beginning of kindergarten and progress monitoring probes across the school year. A subset of children also received a 26-week Tier 2 language intervention. Participants’ achievement in word reading was assessed at the end of second grade, and their performance in reading comprehension was measured as the end of third grade. Results showed that measures of language ability in kindergarten significantly added to the prediction of reading comprehension difficulties over and above kindergarten word reading predictors and direct measures of word reading in second grade. Response to language intervention also proved to be a unique predictor of reading comprehension outcomes. Findings are discussed in terms of their relevance for the early identification of reading disabilities.

Two subtypes of dyslexia (phonological, visual) have been under debate in various studies. However, the number of symptoms of dyslexia described in the literature exceeds the number of subtypes, and underlying relations remain unclear. We investigated underlying cognitive features of dyslexia with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. A sample of 446 students (63 with dyslexia) completed a large test battery and a large questionnaire. Five factors were found in both the test battery and the questionnaire. These 10 factors loaded on 5 latent factors (spelling, phonology, short-term memory, rhyme/confusion, and whole-word processing/complexity), which explained 60% of total variance. Three analyses supported the validity of these factors. A confirmatory factor analysis fit with a solution of five factors (RMSEA = .03). Those with dyslexia differed from those without dyslexia on all factors. A combination of five factors provided reliable predictions of dyslexia and nondyslexia (accuracy >90%). We also looked for factorial deficits on an individual level to construct subtypes of dyslexia, but found varying profiles. We concluded that a multiple cognitive deficit model of dyslexia is supported, whereas the existence of subtypes remains unclear. We discussed the results in relation to advanced compensation strategies of students, measures of intelligence, and various correlations within groups of those with and without dyslexia.

Clinicians uniformly recommend accommodations for college students with learning disabilities; however, we know very little about which accommodations they select and the validity of their recommendations. We examined the assessment documentation of a large sample of community college students receiving academic accommodations for learning disabilities to determine (a) which accommodations their clinicians recommended and (b) whether clinicians’ recommendations were supported by objective data gathered during the assessment process. In addition to test and instructional accommodations, many clinicians recommended that students with learning disabilities should have different educational expectations, standards, and methods of evaluation (i.e., grading) than their nondisabled classmates. Many of their recommendations for accommodations were not supported by objective evidence from students’ history, diagnosis, test data, and current functioning. Furthermore, clinicians often recommended accommodations that were not specific to the student’s diagnosis or area of disability. Our findings highlight the need for individually selected accommodations matched to students’ needs and academic contexts.

The concept of Matthew effects in reading development refers to a longitudinally widening gap between high achievers and low achievers. Various statistical approaches have been proposed to examine this idea. However, little attention has been paid to psychometric issues of scaling. Specifically, interval-level data are required to compare performance differences across performance ranges, but only ordinal-level data are available with current literacy measures. To demonstrate the interpretability problems of contrasting growth slopes, we use data from a longitudinal study of literacy development. We explore the possibility of comparing across ages, matched for performance, and we examine the consequences of nonlinear growth, temporal lag estimates, and individual differences in developmental progression. We conclude that, although conceptually appealing, the widening gap prediction is not empirically testable.

Research has suggested that different strategies used when solving fraction problems are highly correlated with students’ problem-solving accuracy. This study (a) utilized latent profile modeling to classify students into three different strategic developmental levels in solving fraction comparison problems and (b) accordingly provided differentiated strategic training for students starting from two different strategic developmental levels. In Study 1 we assessed 49 middle school students’ performance on fraction comparison problems and categorized students into three clusters of strategic developmental clusters: a cross-multiplication cluster with the highest accuracy, a representation strategy cluster with medium accuracy, and a whole-number strategy cluster with the lowest accuracy. Based on the strategic developmental levels identified in Study 1, in Study 2 we selected three students from the whole-number strategy cluster and another three students from the representation strategy cluster and implemented a differentiated strategic training intervention within a multiple-baseline design. Results showed that both groups of students transitioned from less advanced to more advanced strategies and improved their problem-solving accuracy during the posttest, the maintenance test, and the generalization test.

Despite their ascertained neurobiological origin, specific learning disorders (SLD) often have been found to be associated with some emotional disturbances in children, and there is growing interest in the environmental and contextual variables that may modulate children’s developmental trajectories. The present study was aimed at evaluating the psychological profile of parents and children and the relationships between their measures. Parents of children with SLD (17 couples, 34 participants) and parents of children with typical development (17 couples, 34 participants) were administered questionnaires assessing parenting styles, reading history, parenting stress, psychopathological indexes, and evaluations of children’s anxiety and depression. Children (N = 34, 10.7 ± 1.2 years) were assessed with self-evaluation questionnaires on anxiety, depression, and self-esteem and with a scale assessing their perception of parents’ qualities. Results showed that parents of children with SLD have higher parental distress, poorer reading history, and different parenting styles compared to parents of children with TD; there were no differences in psychopathological indexes. The SLD group also rated their children as more anxious and depressed. Children with SLD had lower scholastic and interpersonal self-esteem, but they report ratings of parents’ qualities similar to those of TD children. Relationships between parents’ and children’s measures were further explored. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

This study explored the double-deficit hypothesis (DDH) in a transparent orthography (Finnish) and extended the view from reading disabilities to comorbidity of learning-related problems in math and attention. Children referred for evaluation of learning disabilities in second through sixth grade (N = 205) were divided into four groups based on rapid automatized naming (RAN) and phonological awareness (PA) according to the DDH: the double-deficit group, the naming speed deficit–only group, the phonological deficit–only group, and the no-deficit group. The results supported the DDH in that the prevalence and severity of reading disability were greatest in the double-deficit group. Despite the greater prevalence of reading disabilities in single-deficit groups compared to the no-deficit group, the means of reading measures in the single-deficit groups were similar to those of the no-deficit group. The PA single-deficit group was poorer in spelling than the no-deficit group and single-naming-deficit group. Deficits in RAN or PA were primarily linked to reading disabilities but not with math or attention problems. The results supported the DDH partially and indicate that deficits in RAN and PA are specific to reading disabilities.