Early Identification and Remediation of Phonological-Processing Deficits in First-Grade Children at Risk for Reading Disabilities

Abstract

The present study assessed 486 first-quarter first graders on their reading and phonological-processing skills and intelligence. Based on this assessment, and using the classification data from Hurford et al.'s (1993) study, 99 children were identified as being at risk for reading difficulties: 53 children at risk for reading disabilities (RD) and 46 children at risk for becoming "garden-variety" poor readers (GV). Half of the RD and GV groups received the phonological-processing intervention. Posttraining assessment indicated that the training procedure not only was effective in increasing the phonological-processing skills of the trained participants, but also increased their reading ability. Both of the RD and GV trained groups benefited from the training. Analyses also indicated that the initial screening device was somewhat less accurate in the present study in identifying at-risk children than in our previous studies (85% vs. approximately 98%, respectively). The results of the present study indicate that it is possible to identify children at risk for reading difficulties and to significantly improve their phonological-processing and reading abilities.

Reliability and prevalence of an atypical development of phonological skills in French-speaking dyslexics

“…The intensive training outside the domain of reading does not seem to have had a strong effect on their phonological reading abilities however, since in the most difficult phonological reading task -the one involving long pseudowords -all of these dyslexics exhibited a deviant profile. These results suggest that it is difficult to compensate for phonological reading deficits (Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denckla, 1996) and, that training in phonological tasks not based on reading might improve dyslexic's ability to perform other similar phonological tasks but does not systematically improve reading (Hurford, Johnston, Nepote, Hampton, Moore, Neal, Mueller, McGeorge, Huff, Awad, Tatro, Juliano, & Huffman, 1994).…”

Intervention after Grade 1: Serving Increased Numbers of Struggling Readers Effectively

“…An emphasis on first-grade intervention stems from evidence that students who do not experience reading success in first grade are likely to continue as poor readers (Bruck, 1992;Juel, 1988;Stanovich, 1986). Further impetus comes from studies showing that children at risk for reading difficulties can be identified before formal instruction begins (Hurford et al, 1994). Empirical evaluations of first-grade interventions have shown that one-to-one tutoring can help at-risk first-grade readers get off to a more successful start than control group peers who receive more conventional small-group instruction (see Pinnell et al, 1994;Santa & Hoien, 1999).…”

Language Basis of Reading Disabilities and Implications for Early Identification and Remediation

“…Research has shown that single tests of language abilities are predictive of subsequent reading achievement, but a combination of tests tapping several domains is the most reliable form of assessment (Scarborough, 1998). Studies using multiple measures of language ability (in combination with other indices) have been quite successful in predicting reading outcomes in young children (Badian, 1994;Butler, Marsh, Sheppard, & Sheppard, 1985;Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2001;Hurford et al, 1994). For example, in a recent study (Catts et al, 2001), we found that a battery of tests in kindergarten could predict reading status in 2nd grade with approximately 90% accuracy.…”