Responsiveness to Intervention

Children at Risk forReading Failure

Constructing an EarlyScreening Measure

G. Nicole Davis • Endia J. Undo

Donald L. Compton

With the recent reauthorization of theIndividuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act (IDEA, 2004), statesnow have the option of discontinuinguse of lQ-achievement discrepancyprocedures as part of the learning dis-ability (LD) identification process infavor of a Response to hitervention (RTI)approach. RTI is based on the premisethat students are identified as LD whentheir response to an effective education-al intervention is dramatically inferior tothat of peers (e.g., D. Fuchs, Mock. Mor-gan. & Young, 2003; Vaughn & Fuchs,2003). RTI approaches for identifyingchildren with reading disabilities (RD)have advantages over traditional IQ-achievement discrepancy procedures,including earlier identification of RD toavoid a "wait-to-fail" model, a strongfocus on providing effective instructionand improving student outcomes, and adecision-making process supported bycontinuous progress monitoring of skillsclosely aligned with desired Instruction-al outcomes (see Vaughn & Fuchs).

Schools can operationalize RTI throughvarious methods (see D. Fuchs et al.,2003); current models favor a three-tiersystem (see Bradley, Danielson, &Hallahan, 2002). In Tier 1, all students

participate in generally effec-tive reading instruction in thegeneral education classroom,and the school monitors eachstudent's rate of readinggrowth. Children whose levelof performance and/or rate of improve-ment are dramatically below that ofpeers (based on classroom, school, dis-trict, state, or national norms) are desig-nated as "at risk" for poor reading out-comes, and possibly RD. Such childrenmove to the second tier in the RTIprocess.

In Tier 2, students receive small-group instruction and their progress isagain monitored. The purpose of thissecond tier is twofold: to prevent read-ing difficulty by delivering a more inten-sive (and presumably effective) inter-vention that accelerates reading devel-opment, and to assess the child'sresponsiveness to instructional intensityfrom which the vast majority of childrenshould profit. In the event the childresponds, he is returned to classroominstruction and is deemed disability-free. Otherwise, it is assumed that thechild has an intrinsic deficit, that is, aputative deficit or disability that pre-vents the child from benefiting from theinstruction (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003).

Failure to respond appropriately to Tier2 instruction signals a need for the childto move to a third and final RTI tier, syn-onymous with special education place-ment, after an abbreviated special edu-cation evaluation.

im Models for RDMenfmcationRTI models for identifying RD rely onaccurately identifying children whowithout Tier 2 tutoring would developRD. Tier 2 is intended to prevent read-ing difficulty by delivering a more inten-sive intervention that accelerates read-ing development, and to assess thechild's responsiveness to this instruc-tional intensity. The success of RTI—interms of both prevention and identifica-tion—hinges on using a diagnosticscreening device to accurately deter-mine a "risk pool" of children whorequire Tier 2 intervention.

By definition, a diagnostic screeningmeasure is a brief assessment that pro-vides predictive information about a

32 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

child's development in a specific aca-demic area. Its purpose is to identifyany children who are at risk so thatthese children can receive extra supportthrough Tier 2 intervention services.This diagnostic screening represents aform of high-stakes decision making—IDEA requires that states identify,locate, and evaluate all children withdisabilities (from birth to age 21) whoare in need of early intervention or spe-cial education services. Given thisrequirement, RTI procedures for deter-mining RD risk must yield a high per-centage of "true positives" {approaching100%), while at the same time identify-ing a manageable risk pool by limitingthe number of children falsely identifiedas at risk for RD.

How can practitioners improve theirability to systematically identify chil-dren truly in need of Tier 2 intervention,within an RTI model of identificationand prevention? The RTI processincludes making diagnostic decisions,adapting screening measures as a func-tion of reading development, and con-tinually improving the accuracy ofscreening decisions. Our recommenda-tions include diversifying screeninginformation to include family risk fac-tors, focusing on first grade children,and conducting short-term progressmonitoring to gauge response to thegeneral education curriculum.

--'-•n Making

The majority of RTI models for prevent-ing and identifying children with RDbegin with a universal screening device.The school administers this screeningmeasure to all children to identify aninitial pool of children suspected ofbeing at risk for developing RD. Thisrisk pool can be further refined byadministering additional tests to chil-dren whose scores do not clearly distin-guish them as at risk for RD. Screeninginformation must then be dichotomizedinto a yes-no decision of risk for eachchild screened. In making a diagnosticdecision there are four possible out-comes, two that are correct and two thatare incorrect:

In one correct outcome, RD risk ispresent (or positive); this outcome isreferred to as a "true positive." In the

other correct outcome, RD risk isabsent or negative; this outcome isdesignated a "true negative."

Of the two incorrect outcomes, one is"false positive" and the other "falsenegative." False positives occurwhen children who eventuallybecome good readers score belowthe cut score on the screening instru-ment and are falsely identified as atrisk. False positives undermine theintent of RTI by increasing the num-ber of children identified as at risk,and, as a result, stress schoolresources to provide intervention toan inflated percentage of the popula-tion (Fletcher et al., 2002; Jenkins &O'Connor, 2002). False negativesrefer to children who score above thecut score on a screening instrumentbut who later exhibit reading prob-lems. As a result, at-risk children aredeprived of the early interventionthey require.

The majority of RTI modelsfor preventing and identifyingchildren with RD begin witha universal screening device.

Typically, schools make these riskdecisions by selecting a critical cut-point of scores. A child scoring belowthe cut-point is considered at risk ofdeveloping RD. The cut-point can beadjusted up or down to produce more orfewer positive decisions. Adjusting thecut-point to be more lenient willincrease the probability that a greaterpercentage of true positives vi;ill beidentified as at risk for RD. Unfor-tunately, more lenient cut-points alsoresult in a greater number of false posi-tives. Alternatively, if the cut-point ismade stricter to decrease the probabilityof false positives, then the number oftrue positives will correspondingly godown. When setting cut-points, schoolsneed to establish a balance betweentrue positives and false positives. Thisbalance should be determined by thenegative ramifications of misdiagnosingtrue positives as not at risk for RD ver-

sus the cost of providing Tier 2 inter-vention to children who are false posi-tives and would develop normally inreading without the intervention.

The vast majority of prediction stud-ies have focused on identifying childrenat risk of RD prior to the onset of formalreading instruction. Early identificationof a risk pool of children facilitates theirparticipation in second-tier interventionbefore the onset of significant readingproblems, and increases the possibilitythat they will establish and maintainnormal levels of growth in critical earlyreading skills. However, predictingwhich children are at risk for developingRD based on measures of early lan-guage ability and print knowledge hasproven problematic. Many kindergartenstudies using measures of phonologicalprocessing, alphabetic knowledge, gen-eral language ability, and print conceptsoverpredicted risk status with estimatesof false positives ranging from 20% to60% (see Jenkins & O'Connor, 2002;Torgesen, 2002). At the same time, ratesof false negatives also have been high,ranging from 10% to 50% (Torgesen).Thus, there is considerable need toimprove our ability to identify initialrisk within an RTI approach to prevent-ing and identifying RD.

Predicting which children areat risk for developing RD basedon measures of early language

ability and print knowledge hasproven problematic.

Screening WHh an Eye o«Reading Devel^mentThe majority of early reading screenersfocus on language-based tasks that arepivotal to the proper development oftwo broad areas: word reading and lan-guage comprehension (Gough &TXinmer, 1986). These two areas inter-act during reading, but they can alsofunction independently and competewith each other for resources. Jenkinsand O'Connor (2002) argued that spe-cific traits that forecast later reading

TEACHING ExrEPTiONAL CHILDREN • MAY/JUNE 2007 • 33

success may vary according to chil-dren's reading development, suggestingthat the measures included on a screen-ing battery should change as a functionof grade level. During early readingdevelopment, as children learn to"crack the code," the processes thatsupport word reading ability accountfor the majority of performance vari-ability on reading tasks. As childrenbecome more fluent in recognizingwords, the relative importance of wordreading in accounting for reading skillvariation diminishes and languagecomprehension skill and backgroundknowledge account for the lion's shareof individual differences in readingskill. Although word reading and com-prehension skill share many importantunderlying processes, there are process-es unique to each skill. In assessmentsintended to identify children at risk forfuture reading problems, it is essentialto include predictors sensitive to futureword reading and comprehension skillsin the screening battery.

Cemponants of Word! ReadingResearch indicates that phonologicalawareness skills and emergent printknowledge are the strongest early pre-dictors of word reading development(e.g., Adams, 1990; Scarborough, 1998).Plionological awareness is the explicitknowledge of, and sensitivity to, speechsound segments used in a language.Phonological awareness skills facilitatethe acquisition of spelling-to-soundtranslation routines that form the basisof early decoding skill development,and therefore are strongly associatedwith the development of early wordreading skills. Phonological awarenesshas typically been assessed using a vari-ety of tasks such as rhyming, allitera-tion, blending of syllables, blending ofspeech sounds, segmenting of syllables,segmenting of speech sounds, and final-ly manipulation of syllables and ofspeech sounds. When choosing amongso many different phonological aware-ness tasks, it is important to make surethat the task used on a screening meas-ure is age appropriate. Schatschneider,Francis, Foorman, Fletcher, and Mehta(1999) reported that blending tasks aremore accurate determinants of phono-

logical awareness skills in younger chil-dren, whereas deletion tasks are betterpredictors in older children.

Research indicates that

phonological awareness skills and

emergent print knowledge are the

strongest early predictors of word

reading development.

Measures of emerging print knowl-edge have been shown to be strong pre-dictors of early word reading ability.One of the best print knowledge predic-tors of future word reading skill is letter-naming skill. Letter-name knowledgeinfluences early word reading by pro-moting the emergence of a phonologi-cally based strategy. This strategybridges the gap from a strictly visual-cue strategy of word reading to a pho-netic-cue strategy. In fact, letter knowl-edge is a good early predictor of chil-dren at risk for future word readingproblems independent of phonologicalawareness skill. When measured in pre-school through early first grade, letterknowledge is the single best predictor ofsubsequent word reading ability (Share,Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 2002).Treiman, Weatherston, and Berch(1994) found that children learned let-ters with the letter sound in their namefaster than letters that did not have theletter sound in the name. (For example,children's knowledge of letters such as vand k was better than h and w.) Withthe exception of children with persistentreading problems, who often experiencelasting problems retaining short vowelsounds, the predictive utility of letterknowledge quickly diminishes as chil-dren learn to read.

In addition to phonological aware-ness skill and letter knowledge, theamount of time that a child is exposedto print is also important to readingdevelopment. As children interact withour writing system they are exposed tothe various relationships that constituteour spelling system, and develop anunderstanding of the basic properties of

our writing system. Children as early asfirst grade become sensitive to lettersequence constraints within the Englishspelling system (TVeiman. 1993). Forinstance, when first-grade children areasked to choose which letter string (beffvs. ffeb) looks more like a word theyconsistently select beff over ffeb.Kindergarteners, however, do not con-sistently choose either pair above thelevel of chance, which means they like-ly guess; resuits suggest that perform-ance on this task was related to wordreading ability and not age [Compton,2000). This mental collection of spellingpatterns in a language—orthographicknowledge—is a necessary part of theability to identify words rapidly in atext. However, this type of orthographicknowledge is used best as an early pre-dictor to distinguish at-risk childrenfrom typically developing children. Itloses its predictive power soon afterchildren begin formal reading instruc-tion.

There is some consensus that meas-ures assessing phonological awareness,letter knowledge, print concepts, andorthographic knowledge are particularlysensitive in predicting early word read-ing problems (Torgesen, 2002). This setof measures is sufficient for kinder-garten screening batteries. As childrenmove into first grade, however, screen-ing batteries should broaden to includeadditional measures assessing decodingand word identification skills. In theearly elementary grades, measures ofspeeded word recognition emerge asone of the most reliable indicators ofserious reading problems (Compton &Carlisle, 1994). Automatic and fluentword recognition is important to com-prehension of a text. A child who strug-gles to recognize words automaticallyand fluently will have fewer resourcesavailable for building meaning out ofthe text.

Comiionenis ol Reacling

Reading comprehension relies on morethan just accurate and fluent wordrecognition. Ultimately, the efficiencywith which a person builds a mentalrepresentation of a text's meaningrequires sufficient knowledge of and

34 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

ability to access vocabulary, grammar,and relevant background knowledge. Itcomes as no surprise, then, that meas-ures of naming and processing speed,working memory, and oral languageimprove the prediction of reading com-prehension performance. In particular,vocabulary, grammatical ability, andsentence repetition skill have a stronginfluence on later comprehension evenafter accounting for participants' age,gender, IQ, and socioecouomic stand-ing.

Reading comprehension relies

on more than just accurate and

fluent word recognition.

Vocabulary is the main oral languagecontributor to word-level comprehen-sion. It supports comprehensionbecause children must be able to effi-ciently retrieve the meaning of thewords in a text. Early vocabularyknowledge has consistently been shownto relate to later reading comprehensionskill {see McCardie, Scarborough. &Catts, 2001). Vocabulary is clearly animportant variable when predictinglong-term reading development andreading disability and can be includedin screening batteries as early as pre-school (Scarborough, 1991).

At a sentence level, the grammaticalstructure of the language is equallyimportant for construction of text mean-ing as vocabulary. Grammar comprisesboth syntax and morphology. Syntax isthe rule system within a language thatgoverns the way that words can bearranged within a clause and/or a sen-tence. Morphology is the smallest unitof meaning contained within a wordand is often associated with root wordsand a combination of prefixes and suf-fixes to form words. Although less stud-ied than phonological awareness orvocabulary, children's grammaticaldevelopment in these two areas aregood predictors of early readingachievement (Eibro & Scarborough,2004]. Grammatical abilities at thebeginning of kindergarten are predictive

of variance in reading at the end of firstgrade {Share, Jorm, Maclean, &Matthews, 1984). Both receptive gram-mar tasks (such as understanding themeaning of complex syntactic and mor-phological clauses) and expressivegrammar tasks (mean length of utter-ance and sentence repetition tasks)measured in young children have beenshown to account for variance in read-ing development {Scarborough, 1998).

Background knowledge is also veryimportant to constructing the meaningof text, but difficult to measure.Individuals who are proficient at com-prehending a written text make connec-tions within and across texts. This inte-gration of information requires back-ground knowledge from a variety ofsources on a range of topics. In addi-tion, children need to have a schema forthe various situations elaborated in atext. For example, a story about a libraryor a zoo requires some level of knowl-edge about those places. Children withmore elaborate schemas will have adeeper level of comprehension thanchildren with little to no backgroundknowledge about those places. It is alsoimportant for children to realize whentheir schemas are incorrect or incom-plete and to assimilate the new infor-mation.

In sum, a broad array of skills influ-ences early reading development.Numerous groups have argued thatmultivariate approaches to screeningincreases accuracy beyond reliance onany single test or measure (Compton,Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006; Fletcheret al., 2002; Francis, Fletcher, Catts, &Tomblin, 2005; McCardie et al., 2001).Therefore, we recommend using screen-ing batteries during the RTI process thatinclude multiple tasks, rather than sin-gle-task instruments. Screening batter-ies should include a mixture of sevenbroad skills areas that relate to futurereading skill: (a) phonological skills, {b)orthographic knowledge, (c) letterknowledge, (d) word reading ability, (e)vocabulary, (f) syntactic ability, and (g)background knowledge. Each of theseskills Is influenced by development;consequently, the items on the screenershould vary as a function of age andreading development. A screener's

effectiveness depends not only on howwell it evaluates behaviors, but also onhow well a measure is incorporated intothe response to intervention process.

Improving H M JUcwroqfof 5creeninc| DocUloiuThe accuracy of RD risk determinationcan be improved by diversifying thescreening information to include familyrisk factors, focusing on first-grade chil-dren, and conducting short-termprogress monitoring to gauge studentresponse to the general education cur-riculum.

Diversifying Screening Informcition

Influential variables such as home envi-ronment and attention/behavior ratingstend to be left off of classroom-basedscreeners in favor of language-basedtasks, with the assumption that thesemeasures do not provide enough predic-tive value to warrant the extra time andresources required for their administra-tion. To the contrary, studies havereported that phonological skills andhome background factors are reliablepredictors of early reading development{Vellutino et al., 1996).

Home background variables such associoeconomic status {SES) and homeliteracy environment have predictivevalidity in identifying students who mayfail to respond properly to intervention{Foorman et al., 1997). Snow, Barnes,Chandler, Goodman, and Hemphill(1991) noted that parent education andincome was highly associated with

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • MAY/JUNE 2007 • 35

student achievement, more so thanschool or classroom factors. Parentincome and education and student eligi-bility for free or reduced lunch are usedmost frequently in research to approxi-mate student SES. Whether studentsqualify for free or reduced lunch tendsto have a slightly higher relation to aca-demic achievement than parent income,education, or occupation (Sirin, 2005]-Sirin noted that although SES measureshave proven to be reliable predictorsacross studies, measures of home back-ground variables such as number ofbooks in home, availability of comput-ers, and other educational resourceshave also proven to be good predictors.The relation between these home back-ground variables and achievement isstrongest when the data are collecteddirectly from parents, as opposed to sec-ondary sources or students (Sirin); aparental survey is the most efficientmeans of gathering this information.

Many genetic factors also influencereading ability, and some of these fac-tors interact with one another and withthe environment. An estimated 30% to70% of the variability in performanceon measures of reading ability is genet-ically determined (Pennington & Olson,2005), Pennington and Lefly (2001)reported that children without a readingdisability diagnosis who had a parent orsibling with a diagnosed reading dis-ability scored significantly lower thansame age controls on measures of basicliteracy skills such as reading andspelling. Therefore, family history of areading problem can be a powerful toolto predict at-risk status, especially whenused in conjunction with assessments oflinguistic and cognitive skills.

A child's attention and behavior inthe classroom environment are alsohighly predictive of future language andliteracy growth. Teacher ratings of stu-dent attention and behavior are highlyeffective predictors of future readingability and growth (Stage, Abbott,Jenkins, & Berninger, 2003). Attention isimportant because of its relevance toattention deficit/hyperactivity disorder(ADHD), but even in children withoutan ADHD diagnosis, attention explainssignificant variance in word readingtask after accounting for age. Given the

high percentages of reported false nega-tives and false positives when using justlanguage and print knowledge to predictrisk, teacher ratings of student behaviorand attention should also be included inthe assessment battery.

Focusing on First-Grade Children

Research shows that accurate determi-nation of the risk pool tends to increaseas children experience more readinginstruction, leading some to suggest thatscreening should occur at the beginningof first grade rather than in kindergarten[Fletcher et al., 2002). Increased powerto classify correctly first-grade childrenas at risk for RD likely comes from threesources (Fletcher et al.);

'• The collection of first-grade screen-ing measures expands to includeskills more closely aligned with read-ing (e.g., word identification andnonword decoding).

Initial differences among kinder-garten children due to variation infamily literacy practices may dimin-ish with formal kindergarten instruc-tion.

Measurement precision increaseswith age as intrachild instabilitydecreases.

Despite the benefits of waitinganother year, the accuracy of determin-ing risk among first graders is still lessthan ideal. Simply waiting to screenuntil the beginning of first grade willlikely be insufficient to improve theaccuracy of RD risk determination to alevel that is required within an RTImodel. We recognize the tension creat-ed by waiting to make risk designationsin first grade versus making decisions inkindergarten, allowing early preventiveintervention. It therefore may makesense to identify and give support tothose children most at risk for develop-ing reading difficulties in kindergarten,and monitor the progress of the remain-ing risk pool into first grade.

Children's Response to GeneralEducation Curriculum

A third approach for increasing theaccuracy of RD risk designation is short-term progress monitoring (i.e,, 5-10weeks into first grade). Inadequate

response to classroom instruction, asrevealed by slope and/or level, shouldindicate risk for poor long-term out-come beyond that associated with initialscreening performance (e.g., L. S. Fuchs& Fuchs. 1998). L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, andCompton (2004) reported that growth(i.e., slope) on a measure of word iden-tification fluency correlated stronglywith end-of-first-grade word identifica-tion, passage reading fluency, and pas-sage comprehension. In addition,Compton et al. (2006) demonstratedthat using progress monitoring datafrom the beginning of first grade signifi-cantly improved the ability to predictwho would develop RD at the end ofsecond grade. Even so, very few studieshave examined the utility of using short-term progress monitoring as a strategyfor determining long-term outcome, orhow progress monitoring might be usedin combination with other screeningmeasures to improve decision accuracy;this is an important avenue for futureresearch.

Although an RTI approach has

undeniable advantages over

traditional IQ-achievement

discrepancy procedures, its

effectiveness is dependent on the

accurate and efficient identification

of a risk pool of children whoenter Tier 2 intervention.

Final IhoughffsAlthough an RT! approach has undeni-able advantages over traditionalIQ-achievement discrepancy proce-dures, its effectiveness is dependent onthe accurate and efficient identificationof a risk pool of children who enter Tier2 intervention. Given that reading devel-opment is influenced by a broad arrayof developmentally influenced skills,screening batteries must vary accordingto children's reading development.Schools can improve the accuracy ofidentifying children in need of Tier 2

36 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

intervention by instituting early screen-ing that focuses on the areas of phono-logical skills, orthographic knowledge,letter knowledge, word reading ability,vocabulary, syntactic ability, and back-ground knowledge. Moreover, schoolsshould take into account that academicperformance is influenced significantlyby home environment, and factor vari-ables such as number of books in thehome and the occurrence of reading dis-ability in other family members into therisk calculation. Finally, progress moni-toring techniques will help to accurate-ly gauge children's response to the gen-eral education curriculum.

RelerencesAdams, M, J, (1990), Beginning to read:

Thinking and learning about print.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bradley. R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D, P.(Eds,). (2002). Identification of learningdisabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah,NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum,

Compton, D. L, (2000). Modeling the growthof decoding skills in first-grade children.Scientific Studies of Reading 4{i),219-258.

Compton, D. L,, & Carlisle, J, F, (1994).Speed of word recognition as a distin-guishing characteristic of reading disabili-ties. Educational Psychology Review, 6(2),115-140,

Compton, D. L,, Fuchs, D,, Fuchs, L, S., &Bryant, J- D. (2006). Selecting at-risk read-ers in first grade for early intervention: Atwo-year longitudinal study of decisionrules and procedures. Joumai of Educa-tional Psychology. 98(2), 394-409,

Elbro, C . & Scarborough, H, (2004). Earlyidentification. In P, Bryant & T, Nunes(Eds,). Intemational handbook of chil-dren's literacy (pp. 319-359). Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Kluwer,

Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Boudousquie,A,, Barnes, M,, Schatschneider, C, &Francis, D, (2002), Assessment of readingand learning disabilities: A research-basedintervention-oriented approach. Joumai ofSchool Psychology. 40(1), 27-63.

Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D.,Mehta, P.. Schatschneider, C, & Fletcher,J. M. (1997). Early interventions for chil-dren with reading disabilities. ScientificStudies of Reading, !(3), 255-276.

Francis. D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Catts, H,, &Tomblin, B. (2005). Dimensions affectingthe assessment of reading comprehension.In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds,), Child-ren's reading comprehension and assess-ment (pp. 369-394), Mahwah. NJ:Lawrence Frlbaum,

Fuchs, D,, Mock, D,, Morgan, P. L,, & Young.C, (2003), Responsiveness-to-interven-

tion: Definitions, evidence, and implica-tions for the learning disabilities con-struct, Leaming Disabilities Research andPractice, I8{i), 157-171.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). TVeatmentvalidity: A unifying concept for reconcep-tualizing identification of learning disabil-ities. Leaming Disabilities Research &Practice, I3{4), 204-219.

Fuchs, L. S.. Fuchs, D.. & Complon. D. L(2004). Monitoring early reading develop-ment in first grade: Word identificationfluency versus nonsense word fluency.Exceptional Children. 71, 7-21.

Gough. P. B.. & •Uinmer, W. E, (1986),Decoding, reading and reading disability.Remedial and Special Education. 7(1),6-10.

Jenkins, J, R., & O'Connor, R, E, (2002).Early identification and intervention foryoung children with reading/learning dis-abilities. In R. Bradley, L, Danielson, & D.Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learningdisabilities: Research to practice (pp.99-149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McCardle. P., Scarborough, H,, & Catts, H.[2001]. Predicting, explaining, and pre-venting children's reading difficulties,Leaming Disabilities Research & Practice.?6(4), 230-239,

Pennington. B. F, & Lefly, D, L, (2001), Earlyreading development in children at familyrisk for dyslexia. Child Development.72(3). 816-833,

Pennington, B. R, & Olson, R. K. (2005),Genetics of dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling &C. Hulme (Eds,), The science of reading: Ahandbook (pp. 453-472). Oxford, England:Blackwell.

Scarborough, H, S. (1991), Antecedents toreading disability: Preschool languagedevelopment and literacy experiences ofchildren from dyslexic families. Readingand Writing: An Interdisciplinary Joumai,3, 219-223.

Scarborough. H. S. (1998). Predicting thefuture achievement of second graders withreading disabilities: Contributions ofphonemic awareness, verbal memory,rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia.68. 115-136.

Schatschneider. C , Francis, D. J., Foorman,B, R,, Fletcher, J. M., & Mehta, P. (1999).The dimensionality of phonologicalawareness: An application of itemresponse theory. Journal of EducationalPsychology. 91, 439-449.

Share, D. L, Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R.. &Matthews, R, (1984), Sources of individualdifferences in reading acquisition. Joumaiof Educational Psychology, 76, 1309-1324,

Share, D, L., Jorm, A, R, Maclean, R., &Matthews. R, (2002), Temporal processingand reading disability, Reading andWriting: An Interdisciplinary Joumai, 15,151-178.

Sirin, S. R. (2005), Socioeconomic status andacademic achievement: A meta-analytic

review of research. Review of EducationalResearch. 75(3), 417-453.

Snow. C , Barnes, W, S,, Chandler. J.,Goodman, 1. R, & Hemphill, L, (1991).Unfulfilled expectations: Home and schoolinfluences on literacy. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,

Stage, S. A., Abbott, R, D,, Jenkins, J. R,, &Berninger, V, W. (2003), Predictingresponse to early reading inierventionfrom verbal IQ, reading-related languageabilities, aUention ratings, and verbal IQ-word redding discrepancy: Failure to vali-date discrepancy method. Journal ofLeaming Disabilities. 36(\). 24-33,

Torgesen, J, K, (2002). The prevention ofreading difficulties. Joumai of SchoolPsychology, 40(1), 7-26.

TYeiman. R. (1993). Beginning to spell: Astudy of first-grade children. New York:Oxford tJniversity Press,

TVeiman, R,, Weatherston, S.. & Berch, D.(1994). The role of letter names in chil-dren's learning of phoneme-graphemerelations. Applied Psycholinguistics. 15,97-122.

Vaughn, S,, & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefininglearning disabilities as inadequateresponse to instruction: The promise andpotential problems. Leaming DisabilitiesResearch & Practice. 18[i). 137-146.

Vellutino R R., Scanlon, D. M,, Sipay, E, R..Small, S, G., Pratt, A,, Chen, R., &Denckla, M. B, (1996). Cognitive profilesof difficult-to-remediate and readily reme-diated poor readers: Early intervention asa vehicle for distinguishing between cog-nitive and experiential deficits as basiccauses of specific reading disability,Joumai of Educational Psychology. 88,601-638.

G. Nicole Davis, Kennedy PostdoctoralFellow; Endia J. Undo (CEC TN Federation).Doctoral Student; and Donald L. Compton(CEC TN Federation). Associate Professor.Department of Special Education. VanderbiltUniuersity. Nashville. Tennessee.

Address correspondence to G. Nicole Davis,Peabody 328, Vanderbilt University. 230Appleton Place. Nashville. TN 37203 (e-mail:nikki. davis@vanderbilt. edu).

This research was supported in part by Grantm324U0l0004 from the U.S. Department ofEducation. Office of Special Education Pro-grams, and NIH Grants P30HD15052 and theRoadmap for Medical Research T32MH75883to Vanderbilt University. Statements do notreflect the position or policy of these agencies,and no official endorsement by them slwuldbe inferred.

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 39.No. 5, pp. 32-37.

Copyright 2007 CEC.

TEACHING ExcEPTtoNAL CHILDREN • MAY/JUNE 2007 • 37