Readiness or Impairment: Cognitive and Linguistic Differences Between Children Who Learn to Read and Those Who Exhibit Difficulties With Reading in Kindergarten Compared to Their Achievements at the End of First Grade

Many studies have attempted to identify measures that predict reading abilities. The results of these studies may be inclined to over-identification of children considered at risk in kindergarten but who achieve parity in reading by the end of first grade. Therefore, the current study sought to analyze the specific cognitive and linguistic predictors of reading accuracy and reading speed separately. Additionally, the study examined if it is possible to use empirically validated measures to distinguish between children who are not ready to learn how to read in kindergarten but manage to acquire reading skills by the end of first grade, and those who continue to exhibit difficulties. The study followed 98 kindergarteners (43 boys and 55 girls) aged 4 years 10 months to six years from three different schools, who were taught how to read in kindergarten. Multiple measures of general cognitive skills, linguistic abilities, and reading abilities were measured at three different points in time: the beginning of kindergarten, the end of kindergarten, and the end of first grade. The study found that most of the children with good literacy and cognitive abilities learned how to read by the end of kindergarten. The analysis revealed a significant difference in cognitive abilities, such as executive functions and memory, which distinguished between the ability to acquire fluent reading and accurate reading. The study was able to successfully distinguish between “children with difficulties” and “un-ready” children. These results have various implications, especially in regard to the identification of and intervention with kindergarten children at risk for reading disabilities.

Assessing Early Literacy Skills with the Mountain Shadows Phonemic Awareness Scale (MS-PAS)

Considerable evidence suggests that phonemic awareness is associated with the development of skilled reading. Consequently, it is recommended that beginning readers be assessed to ensure adequate development of phonemic awareness skills. When choosing an assessment method, reliability and validity, ease of administration and scoring, and cost-effectiveness should be considered. To meet these standards, a new phonemic awareness assessment measure, the Mountain Shadows Phonemic Awareness Scale (MS-PAS), was presented. This 20-item sound categorization task takes 20 minutes for an entire first-grade classroom. Reliability and validity data were good to excellent. It was recommended that the MS-PAS be used to identify students in need of explicit phonological awareness instruction or those who require more extensive individualized assessment.

Predictive validity of the get ready to read! Screener: concurrent and long-term relations with reading-related skills

This study examined concurrent and longitudinal relations for the Get Ready to Read! (GRTR) emergent literacy screener. This measure, within a battery of oral language, letter knowledge, decoding, and phonological awareness tests, was administered to 204 preschool children (mean age = 53.6, SD = 5.78; 55% male) from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Subgroups were reassessed at 6 months and 16 and 37 months later. Results indicate strong relations between the GRTR and the literacy and language assessments. Long-term follow-up indicated that the screener was significantly related to some reading-related measures, including decoding skills. These results support the utility of the GRTR as a brief, valid measure of children's emergent literacy skills. The GRTR holds promise as a tool useful for educators, parents, and others in regular contact with preschool children to help determine those who may be at risk for later reading difficulties and could benefit from intervention and focused instruction in emergent literacy.

Grammatical sensitivity: its origins and potential contribution to early word reading skill

A three-phase longitudinal study examined the origins of grammatical sensitivity and its usefulness as a predictor of early word-level reading. At about 4 years of age, children were given a range of language and cognitive tests. One year later, the children were given a further series of language and cognitive tests, this time including grammatical sensitivity, phonological sensitivity, and nonword repetition. Another year later, word-level reading achievement was assessed. Overall, grammatical sensitivity and phonological sensitivity were more firmly grounded in earlier language ability than in cognitive ability. Phonological sensitivity and nonword repetition showed reliable predictive associations with subsequent word reading skills. Grammatical sensitivity did not.

Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a longitudinal study

The authors present the results of a 2-year longitudinal study of 90 British children beginning at school entry when they were 4 years 9 months old (range = 4 years 2 months to 5 years 2 months). The relationships among early phonological skills, letter knowledge, grammatical skills, and vocabulary knowledge were investigated as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension. Word recognition skills were consistently predicted by earlier measures of letter knowledge and phoneme sensitivity (but not by vocabulary knowledge, rhyme skills, or grammatical skills). In contrast, reading comprehension was predicted by prior word recognition skills, vocabulary knowledge, and grammatical skills. The results are related to current theories about the role of phonological, grammatical, and vocabulary skills in the development of early reading skills.

Predicting Improvement After First-Grade Reading Difficulties: The Effects of Oral Language, Emergent Literacy, and Behavior Skills

This study investigated the role of early literacy and behavioral skills in predicting the improvement of children who have experienced reading difficulties in 1st grade. The progress of 146 low-income children whose reading scores in 1st grade were below the 30th percentile was examined to determine (a) how the poorest readers in 1st grade progressed in reading achievement through 4th grade and (b) which emergent literacy and behavioral skills measured in kindergarten predicted differential 4th grade outcomes. Results indicated that the divergence between children who improved and those who did not was established by the end of 2nd grade. Further, individual linguistic skills and behavioral attributes measured in kindergarten contributed substantively to this difference. Implications for intervention timing and educational policy are discussed.

The utility of kindergarten teacher ratings for predicting low academic achievement in first grade

The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive value of kindergarten teachers' ratings of pupils for later first-grade academic achievement. Kindergarten students were rated by their teachers on a variety of variables, including math and reading performance, teacher concerns, and amount of learning relative to peers. These variables were then analyzed with respect to outcome measures for math and reading ability administered in the first grade. The teachers' ratings of academic performance were significantly correlated with scores on the outcome measures. Analyses were also carried out to determine sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the different teacher ratings. The results indicated high overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value for the ratings. Positive predictive value tended to be lower. A recommendation to follow from these results is that teacher ratings of this sort be used to determine which children should receive cognitive screening measures to further enhance identification of children at risk for learning disability. However, this recommendation is limited by the lack of empirically supported screening measures for math disability versus well-supported screening tools for reading disability.