Predicting Response to Early Reading Intervention From Verbal IQ, Reading-Related Language Abilities, Attention Ratings, and Verbal IQ—Word Reading Discrepancy: Failure to Validate Discrepancy Method

• Published in: Journal of learning disabilities 2003-01, Vol.36 (1), p.24-33
• Main Authors: Stage, Scott A., Abbott, Robert D., Jenkins, Joseph R., Berninger, Virginia W.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Attention; Attention Deficit Disorders; Candidates; Child; Child Health; Child Language; Decision making; Discrepancies; Discrepancy Formulas; Discrepancy Measure; Dyslexia - prevention & control; Early Intervention; Early intervention programmes; Early literacy; Early Reading; Elementary Education; Female; Grade 1; Grapheme phoneme correspondence; Humans; Instructional Effectiveness; Intelligence; Intelligence Quotient; Intelligence tests; Intervention; Language Impairments; Language proficiency; Language Skills; Language testing; Learning disabilities; Male; Naming; Orthographic processing; Phonetics; Phonological processing; Phonology; Predictor Variables; Prospective Studies; Reading; Reading achievement; Reading Difficulties; Reading disabilities; Reading Instruction; Reading Tests; Remedial Teaching - methods; Special education; Verbal Ability; Verbal Behavior; Vocabulary; Vocabulary Development
• ISSN: 0022-2194; 1538-4780
• DOI: 10.1177/00222194030360010401

Additional analyses of a previously published study addressed three questions about growth in word reading during early reading intervention: (1) How well do Verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities (phonological, rapid naming, and orthographic), and attention ratings predict reading growth? (2) How well do language deficits predict reading growth? and (3) How well does Verbal IQ—word reading discrepancy predict reading growth? Univariate analyses showed that Verbal IQ, phonological skills, orthographic skills, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and attention ratings predicted the response to early intervention, but multivariate analyses based on a combination of predictors for real-word reading and pseudoword reading showed that Verbal IQ was not the best unique predictor. Students with double or triple deficits in language skills (RAN, phonological, and orthographic processing) responded more slowly to early intervention than students without language deficits. Verbal IQ—word reading discrepancy did not predict the response to early intervention in reading. Overall results supported the use of reading-related language and attention measures rather than IQ—achievement discrepancy in identifying candidates for early reading intervention.