Adequate Versus Inadequate Response to Reading Intervention: An Event-Related Potentials Assessment

Molfese, Peter J.; Fletcher, Jack Μ.; Denton, Carolyn A.

doi:10.1080/87565641.2013.825260

Cited by 16 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These measures could assess highly related attributes, such as reading or writing, or could assess more distal attributes such as behavior, attention, or even subsequent intervention response. At this level, empirical studies suggest that classifications based on differential intervention response consistently separate groups on a number of theoretically related attributes, including academic level (Al Otaiba and Fuchs 2006;Nelson et al 2003;Vellutino et al 2006), cognitive characteristics Miciak et al 2014a), behavior (Al Otaiba and Fuchs 2006;Nelson et al 2003), and even brain activation patterns (Molfese et al 2013;Rezaie et al 2011).…”

Section: Validity Of Intervention Response As An Attribute Of Ldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and Validity of Methods for Identifying Learning Disabilities in a Response-to-Intervention Service Delivery Framework

Miciak

Fletcher

Stuebing

2015

Handbook of Response to Intervention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identification accuracy is a question of central importance in research and practice related to learning disabilities (LD) and other neurodevelopmental disorders. In research, any assessment of strengths and weaknesses in cognitive or neurological functions associated with LD or treatment outcomes depends on the validity of the criteria used to identify LD status. In practice, LD identification decisions have significant ethical and legal implications because LD status is related to intervention services, civil rights protections, and access to testing accommodations and modifications. A critical question is the reliability and validity of the criteria used to identify LD status. Despite the importance of reliable and valid identification decisions, finding agreement on the best methods for identifying LD status has proven elusive. This difficulty is not because of disagreement about the core attributes of LD, which most agree includes low, unexpected underachievement. LD status is exemplified by the person who seemingly has all the necessary attributes to learn to read, write, and do mathematics, but unexpectedly struggles to learn these skills (Fletcher et al. 2007). Exclusionary DefinitionsIn the early history of identifying LD, it was assumed that if known causes of low achievement could be eliminated, such as an intellectual disability, sensory problems, economic disadvantage, or language minority status, those underachievers who remained could be identified with LD. Yet there are many problems associated with identification by exclusion, including the difficulty of defining the relations of exclusionary criteria to achievement, the circular nature of such an approach to identification, and the heterogeneous group of low achievers remaining when presumably known causes of low achievement are identified (Ross 1976;Rutter 1982;Satz and Fletcher 1980). For example, Taylor et al. (1979) identified poor readers who met and did not meet a variety of exclusionary criteria. The researchers were not able to distinguish poor readers identified as LD based on the absence of exclusionary factors from those identified as not LD on a variety of external cognitive, achievement, and brain status measures. This study epitomizes the failure of definitional approaches to older, neurological conceptions of LD based solely on exclusionary criteria, such as minimal brain dysfunction. However, ensuring that other exclusionary criteria are not the primary cause of low achievement remains an important feature of virtually every definition of LD.

show abstract

Section: Validity Of Intervention Response As An Attribute Of Ldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and Validity of Methods for Identifying Learning Disabilities in a Response-to-Intervention Service Delivery Framework

Miciak

Fletcher

Stuebing

2015

Handbook of Response to Intervention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several prior studies have reported functional brain differences between individuals with RD who did or did not respond to intervention at either a single pre-intervention (Odegard et al 2008;Davis et al 2011;Farris et al 2011;Molfese et al 2013) or post-intervention time point (Rezaie et al 2011a(Rezaie et al , 2011b, although few have reported longitudinal neural changes. One study using magnetic source imaging (MSI) found that responders, but not non-responders, exhibited increased duration of activity and a shift in activation timing in a broad left temporoparietal region during a phonological decoding task, such that their neural profiles matched typical readers post-intervention (Simos et al 2007).…”

Section: Individual Differences In Intervention Response and Brain Plmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic Status and Reading Disability: Neuroanatomy and Plasticity in Response to Intervention

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SES AND NEUROANATOMY IN READING DISABILITY 2Although reading disability (RD) and socioeconomic status (SES) are independently associated with variation in reading ability and brain structure/function, the joint influence of SES and RD on neuroanatomy and/or response to intervention is unknown. Sixty-five children with RD (ages 6 to 9) with diverse SES were assigned to an intensive, 6-week summer reading intervention (n = 40) or to a waiting-list control group (n = 25). Before and after, all children completed standardized reading assessments and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure cortical thickness. At baseline, higher SES correlated with greater vocabulary and greater cortical thickness in bilateral perisylvian and supramarginal regions-especially in left pars opercularis.Within the intervention group, lower SES was associated with both greater reading improvement and greater cortical thickening across broad, bilateral occipitotemporal and temporoparietal regions following the intervention. Additionally, treatment responders (n = 20), compared to treatment non-responders (n = 19), exhibited significantly greater cortical thickening within similar regions. The waiting control and non-responder groups exhibited developmentallytypical, non-significant cortical thinning during this time period. These findings indicate that effective summer reading intervention is coupled with cortical growth, and is especially beneficial for children with RD who come from lower-SES home environments. (Word count: 197)

show abstract

“…And studies comparing IMP and NIMP only after intervention (Odegard et al, 2008; Davis et al, 2011; Farris et al, 2011; Molfese et al, 2013) are limited as it cannot be resolved whether group differences between treatment IMP and NIMP is a cause or the result of improvement. An advantage of the present study is that we have assessed electrophysiological correlates before and after treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What does the brain of children with developmental dyslexia tell us about reading improvement? ERP evidence from an intervention study

Hasko

Groth

Bruder

et al. 2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intervention is key to managing developmental dyslexia (DD), but not all children with DD benefit from treatment. Some children improve (improvers, IMP), whereas others do not improve (non-improvers, NIMP). Neurobiological differences between IMP and NIMP have been suggested, but studies comparing IMP and NIMP in childhood are missing. The present study examined whether ERP patterns change with treatment and differ between IMP and NIMP. We investigated the ERPs of 28 children with DD and 25 control children (CON) while performing a phonological lexical decision (PLD) task before and after a 6-month intervention. After intervention children with DD were divided into IMP (n = 11) and NIMP (n = 17). In the PLD–task children were visually presented with words, pseudohomophones, pseudowords, and false fonts and had to decide whether the presented stimulus sounded like an existing German word or not. Prior to intervention IMP showed higher N300 amplitudes over fronto-temporal electrodes compared to NIMP and CON and N400 amplitudes were attenuated in both IMP and NIMP compared to CON. After intervention N300 amplitudes of IMP were comparable to those of CON and NIMP. This suggests that the N300, which has been related to phonological access of orthographic stimuli and integration of orthographic and phonological representations, might index a compensatory mechanism or precursor that facilitates reading improvement. The N400, which is thought to reflect grapheme-phoneme conversion or the access to the orthographic lexicon increased in IMP from pre to post and was comparable to CON after intervention. Correlations between N300 amplitudes pre, growth in reading ability and N400 amplitudes post indicated that higher N300 amplitudes might be important for reading improvement and increase in N400 amplitudes. The results suggest that children with DD, showing the same cognitive profile might differ regarding their neuronal profile which could further influence reading improvement.

show abstract

Adequate Versus Inadequate Response to Reading Intervention: An Event-Related Potentials Assessment

Cited by 16 publications

References 40 publications

Accuracy and Validity of Methods for Identifying Learning Disabilities in a Response-to-Intervention Service Delivery Framework

Accuracy and Validity of Methods for Identifying Learning Disabilities in a Response-to-Intervention Service Delivery Framework

Socioeconomic Status and Reading Disability: Neuroanatomy and Plasticity in Response to Intervention

What does the brain of children with developmental dyslexia tell us about reading improvement? ERP evidence from an intervention study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About