Predictors of Response to Intervention of Word Reading Fluency in Dutch

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the contribution of rapid digit naming, phonological memory, letter sound naming, and orthographic knowledge to the prediction of responsiveness to a school-based, individual intervention of word reading fluency problems of 122 Dutch second and third graders whose reading scores were below the 10th percentile in comparison with the normative group. Degree of responsiveness was determined by comparison of a pre- and posttest measure of word reading fluency with a 6-month interval. At posttest, 38% of the children had improved their reading scores above the 10th percentile. Maintenance scores revealed no significant growth on average, confirming that word reading fluency skills of poor readers are hard to remediate. Except rapid digit naming, none of the measures predicted responsiveness after controlling for the autoregressive effect of initial performance on fluency of word reading. A large part of the variance remained unexplained, supporting the advantage of a response-to-intervention approach above traditional psychometric testing to identify severe reading disabilities.

Improving word reading speed: individual differences interact with a training focus on successes or failures

“…Growth of decoding skills thereafter—in typical and poor readers—was found to be largely a matter of increased reading speed. Remediation has been shown to improve accuracy in Dutch poor readers, but reading speed tends to remain low compared to normally developing children (van der Leij & van Daal, 1989; see also Martens & de Jong, 2008; Scheltinga, van der Leij, & Struiksma, 2010; Yap & van der Leij, 1993). Torgesen, Rashotte and Alexander (2001) showed that a low reading speed in identifying single words is the most important factor accounting for individual differences in reading fluency (see also Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; Schwanenflugel, Meisinger, Wisenbaker, Kuhn, Strauss, & Morris, 2006; Vadasy & Sanders, 2009).…”

Does Training in Syllable Recognition Improve Reading Speed? A Computer-Based Trial With Poor Readers From Second and Third Grade

“…Finally, in several studies RAN has had an effect on the results of reading interventions: the response to a reading intervention has been smaller for children with slow naming speed compared to children with higher RAN scores (Berninger et al, 1999;2002;Bowers, 1993;Fletcher et al, 2011;Mathes et al, 2005;Vadasy, Sanders, & Abbott, 2008;Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003;for reviews, see Al Otaiba &Fuchs, 2002, andBowers, 2001). In their review, Nelson, Benner, and Gonzalez (2003) identified RAN as the factor that had most effect on treatment responsiveness; the same result has also been confirmed in a transparent language (Dutch: Scheltinga, van der Leij, & Struiksma, 2010, for a review, see also van der Leij, 2013). However, slow naming speed has not always had an effect on reading fluency training , especially if the initial reading level has been controlled for (Berends & Reitsma, 2006).…”

“…These predictors include letter knowledge (e.g., Georgiou, Torppa et al, 2012;Leppänen et al, 2008;Torppa et al, 2007;, phonological awareness (Al Oitaba & Fuchs, 2002;Mathes et al, 2005;Torppa et al, 2007;), vocabulary (Al Oitaba & Fuchs, 2006), verbal memory (Al Oitaba & Fuchs, 2006, autoregressor of reading (Hammil, 2004;Torppa et al, 2013) and RAN (Al Oitaba & Fuchs, 2002;Georgiou, Parrila & Papadopoulos, 2008;Lepola et al, 2005;Mathes et al, 2005;Scheltinga et al, 2010;Torppa et al, 2013); however, these predictors may be different for children with typically developing reading fluency and for those at risk for reading difficulties . According to several results from studies on transparent orthographies, RAN has emerged as the most effective predictor of reading fluency (Aarnoutse et al, 2005;Georgiou, Parrila, & Papadopoulos, 2008;Scheltinga et al, 2010;Torppa et al, 2007;. Despite the fact that RAN has been proven to be a strong predictor of development in reading fluency, the effect of RAN performance on fluency training has seldom been investigated in transparent languages (see Scheltinga et al, 2010 for exception), and has not been previously investigated in Finnish.…”

“…According to several results from studies on transparent orthographies, RAN has emerged as the most effective predictor of reading fluency (Aarnoutse et al, 2005;Georgiou, Parrila, & Papadopoulos, 2008;Scheltinga et al, 2010;Torppa et al, 2007;. Despite the fact that RAN has been proven to be a strong predictor of development in reading fluency, the effect of RAN performance on fluency training has seldom been investigated in transparent languages (see Scheltinga et al, 2010 for exception), and has not been previously investigated in Finnish. Addressing this gap was one of the goals of this research.…”

Predicting responsiveness to a sustained reading and spelling intervention in children with dyslexia

“…Tijms (), for example, found that rapid automatized naming and phonological memory showed a relatively consistent impact on the effectiveness of a Dutch dyslexia treatment. Scheltinga et al () demonstrated that pretest reading accounted for a modest part of the variance at posttest. Thus, the understanding of the role of precursor measures is important not only in identifying reading and spelling problems but also in relation to children's responsiveness to intervention (Beach & Rollanda, ; Denton et al, ; Elliott & Grigorenko, ; Fletcher et al, ; Otaiba & Fuchs, ; Wanzek & Vaughn, ).…”