1 The Case for Using The Case for Using Responsiveness to Intervention Responsiveness to Intervention to Identify Reading Disability: to Identify Reading Disability: A Brief Review of Relevant A Brief Review of Relevant Research Research Frank R. Vellutino Frank R. Vellutino Child Research and Study Center Child Research and Study Center University at Albany-SUNY University at Albany-SUNY
39
Embed
1 The Case for Using Responsiveness to Intervention to Identify Reading Disability: A Brief Review of Relevant Research Frank R. Vellutino Child Research.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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?
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
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