Adult literacy interventions often rely on models of reading validated with children or adult populations with a broad range of reading. Such models do not fully satisfy the need for intervention research and development for adults with low literacy. Thus, the authors hypothesized that a model representing the relationship between reading component skills would be predictive of reading comprehension for an adult population with low literacy and beneficial to adult literacy researchers. Using data from 174 adults participating in adult basic education and secondary education programs, the authors performed a path analysis of component skills' contribution to reading comprehension. The findings are clear that existing reading models do not describe this population. The implications are discussed in terms of instructional and curricular interventions.The National Assessment of Adult Literacy survey found that 43% of U.S. adults lacked the basic knowledge and skills needed to read and understand moderately dense texts, summarize, make simple inferences, determine cause and effect, or recognize an author's purpose (Kutner, Greenberg, & Baer, 2005). More than 60 million (79%) of these adults with low literacy were between 16 and 64 years old, indicating that a large literacy deficit exists among the current and future U.S. workforce (Kutner, et al., 2005;Kutner, et al., 2007;U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). To address the economic, civic, and cultural implications of this literacy deficit, Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA; P.L.105-220) supports basic literacy programs for adults.WIA requires that funded adult education (AE) programs use evidenced-based approaches to service delivery to ensure that participants receive effective instruction. Intervention researchers attempting to address this requirement are faced with the challenge of understanding which reading skills this population lacks and in which reading processes they experience breakdowns that impede reading development (Kruidenier, 2002;Rapp, van den Broek, McMaster, Kendeou, & Espin, 2007). Although several studies of adults with low literacy provide evidence of individual reading components' contributions to reading, no theory-based models of reading exist that represent the processes in which adult struggling readers engage (Comings & Soricone, 2007). Thus, as a substitute for such a model, adult literacy interventions often rely on theory, research, and models of reading that are based on studies of children or adults with a broad range of reading abilities (Kruidenier, 2002;McShane, 2005).The current approach to providing evidence for interventions is pragmatic, but ultimately may be incomplete or inaccurate because of such factors as a high prevalence of learning disabilities among adult literacy learners (Patterson, 2008) and developmental and experiential differences between children and adults (e.g., Bell & Perfetti, 1994;Davidson & Strucker, 2002;Gough, Hoover & Peterson, 1996;Greenberg, Ehri, & Perin, 2002;Sabatini, 2002). Thus, pro...

Many practitioners and state education agency staff would likely agree that the accuracy and consistency of specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility decisions is in need of improvement. One component of the SLD definition particularly controversial in the identification procedures is the evaluation of cognitive processes, primarily due to a lack of information about the role they might play in informing an SLD diagnosis and eligibility for special education services. A meta-analysis of 32 studies was conducted to examine the cognitive processing differences between students with SLD and typically achieving peers. The analysis found moderately large to large effect sizes in cognitive processing differences between groups of students with SLD and typically achieving students. These differences are of sufficient magnitude to justify including measures of cognitive processing ability in the evaluation and identification of SLD

This study describes response to intervention (RTI) screening and progress‐monitoring instruments and procedures in 41 local school settings. For screening the schools most often used published reading assessments or commercial products; a three‐times‐per‐year screening schedule was most prevalent. For progress monitoring schools most often relied on published reading assessments; a weekly progress monitoring schedule was most prevalent. The variability between local school practices is discussed with regard to efficiency, equity, and viability of RTI.