Cognitive Attributes, Attention, and Self‐Efficacy of Adequate and Inadequate Responders in a Fourth Grade Reading Intervention

Abstract

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.

A mobile game as a support tool for children with severe difficulties in reading and spelling

“…Children with high self-efficacy benefited from the intervention more than the control group in word reading fluency, whereas children with low selfefficacy benefited from the intervention less than the control group in spelling. The first finding is in accordance with the previous studies which suggest that high self-efficacy is related to better reading skills (Carroll & Fox, 2017;Lee & Zentall, 2012;Peura et al, 2019) and can positively predict children's response to a reading intervention (Cho et al, 2015). However, it was somewhat unexpected that GL Reading players with poor self-efficacy developed less than the control group in spelling.…”

“…Self-efficacy may also affect how children respond to reading interventions, possibly because children with high self-efficacy are more persistent and willing to try than children with low self-efficacy (Cho, Roberts, Capin, & Roberts, 2015).…”

A Century of Progress

“…This is especially true for students who do not respond adequately to reading interventions. Research aimed at understanding the cognitive attributes of these low responders (e.g., Cho et al, 2015; Miciak et al, 2014) and determining how best to address their severe and seemingly unyielding reading difficulties (e.g., Pyle & Vaughn, 2012) is currently on the frontier of reading intervention research. More individualized interventions, like those tested in earlier decades, might hold clues for contemporary researchers seeking to understand how to help students who benefit little from a standardized approach.…”

Strengthening the Reader Self-Efficacies of Reluctant and Struggling Readers Through Literature Circles

“…Thus, self-efficacy can influence a struggling reader's application of learned reading skills and strategies. Upon receiving reading intervention, Cho et al (2015) found the reading outcomes of students with low reading comprehension yet higher self-efficacies were more likely to improve than students with lower self-efficacies.…”

“…Instruction in reading subskills is merited and supported by research (Scammaca, Roberts, Vaughn & Stuebing, 2015;Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2010) yet too often is the predominant form of reading instruction received by struggling readers (Allington, 1983). Struggling readers with low self-efficacy often doubt their reading skills can be improved (Cho et al, 2015. ) Thus, struggling readers require a more balanced approach to literacy instruction to develop, hone, and successfully apply their reading skills within the context of authentic literacy.…”