In the present study, we compared the extent to which linguistic comprehension (vocabulary and listening comprehension) and word reading explain reading comprehension differentially for English learners (ELs) and non-ELs with reading difficulties, and we investigated whether different mechanisms of reading comprehension failure exist for each group. Using the simple view of reading as our framework, we tested a model in which vocabulary exerts a direct effect on reading comprehension and indirect effects through listening comprehension and word reading. Results from a multigroup structural equation model with a sample of 446 struggling fourth-grade readers (n = 229 for ELs; n = 211 for non-ELs) demonstrated both similarities and differences in the sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties for ELs and non-ELs with reading problems. Word reading was an important source of reading comprehension difficulty for both groups. For non-ELs, the effect of word reading was larger than the effects of linguistic comprehension (vocabulary and listening comprehension combined); however, for ELs, the effects of linguistic comprehension were greater than the effect of word reading. Vocabulary had indirect effects via both listening comprehension and word reading for ELs, but it demonstrated a direct effect on reading comprehension for non-ELs. These results suggest that developing a range of linguistic comprehension skills (e.g., word-level and sentence-level language skills) may be important for ELs with reading comprehension difficulties in the upper-elementary grades.

We examined cognitive attributes, attention, and self-efficacy of fourth grade struggling readers who were identified as adequate responders (n = 27), inadequate responders with comprehension only deficits (n = 46), and inadequate responders with comprehension and word reading deficits (n = 52) after receiving a multicomponent reading intervention. We also included typical readers (n = 40). These four groups were compared on measures of nonverbal reasoning, working memory, verbal knowledge, listening comprehension, phonological awareness, and rapid naming as well as on teacher ratings of attention problems and self-reported self-efficacy. The two inadequate responder groups demonstrated difficulties primarily with verbal knowledge and listening comprehension compared to typical readers and adequate responders. Phonological awareness and rapid naming differentiated the two inadequate responder groups. In addition, both inadequate responder groups showed more attention problems and low self-efficacy compared to typical readers.

This randomized control trial examined the efficacy of an intervention aimed at improving multisyllabic word reading (MWR) skills among fourth- and fifth-grade struggling readers ( n = 109, 48.6% male), as well as the relative effects of an embedded motivational beliefs training component. This study was a closely aligned replication of our earlier work. The intervention was replicated with a three-condition design: MWR only, MWR with a motivational beliefs component, and business-as-usual control. Students were tutored in small groups for 40 lessons (four 40-min lessons each week). When we combined performance of students in both MWR conditions, intervention students significantly outperformed controls on proximal measures of affix reading and MWR, as well as standardized measures of decoding, spelling, and text comprehension. Furthermore, there was a noted interaction between English learner status and treatment on spelling performance. There were no statistically significant main effects between the MWR groups on proximal or standardized measures of interest. Findings are discussed in terms of their relevance to MWR instruction for students with persistent reading difficulties and considerations for future research related to the malleability of motivation.

This meta-analysis included experimental or quasi-experimental intervention studies conducted between 1980 and 2020 that aimed to improve reading outcomes for Grade K-5 students with or at risk for dyslexia (i.e., students with or at risk for word reading difficulties, defined as scoring at or below normreferenced screening or mean baseline performance thresholds articulated in our inclusion criteria). In all, 53 studies reported in 52 publications met inclusion criteria (m = 351; total student N = 6,053). We employed robust variance estimation to address dependent effect sizes arising from multiple outcomes and comparisons within studies. Results indicated a statistically significant main effect of instruction on norm-referenced reading outcomes (g = 0.33; p < .001). Because there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies (p < .01), we used meta-regression to identify the degree to which student characteristics (i.e., grade level), intervention characteristics (i.e., dosage, instructional components, multisensory nature, instructional group size), reading outcome domain (i.e., phonological awareness, word reading/ spelling, passage reading, or reading comprehension), or research methods (i.e., sample size, study design) influenced intervention effects. Dosage and reading outcome domain were the only variables that significantly moderated intervention effects (p = .040 and p = .024, respectively), with higher dosage studies associated with larger effects (b = 0.002) and reading comprehension outcomes associated with smaller effects than word reading/spelling outcomes (b = −0.080).

No abstract