11

The Case for Using The Case for Using Responsiveness to Intervention to Responsiveness to Intervention to Identify Reading Disability: A Identify Reading Disability: A Brief Review of Relevant Brief Review of Relevant ResearchResearch

Frank R. VellutinoFrank R. Vellutino

Child Research and Study CenterChild Research and Study Center

University at Albany-SUNYUniversity at Albany-SUNY

22

Why do some children have difficulty Why do some children have difficulty learning to read ?learning to read ?

Two Broad PossibilitiesTwo Broad Possibilities

Basic deficits in reading related cognitive Basic deficits in reading related cognitive

abilities.abilities.

Experiential / Instructional deficitsExperiential / Instructional deficits..

The failure to make this distinction leads The failure to make this distinction leads

to a wide spread problem: Misdiagnosing to a wide spread problem: Misdiagnosing

Children as “Disabled Readers.”Children as “Disabled Readers.”

33

Psychometric ApproachPsychometric Approach

Definition by ExclusionDefinition by Exclusion IQ-Achievement discrepancy.IQ-Achievement discrepancy.

Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent

absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage

used as exclusionary criteria. used as exclusionary criteria.

““Neuropsychological” tests of reading-related cognitive Neuropsychological” tests of reading-related cognitive

abilities.abilities.

Estimates of incidence of reading disability range Estimates of incidence of reading disability range

from 10% to 20% using the above criteria.from 10% to 20% using the above criteria.

44

The Psychometric Exclusionary The Psychometric Exclusionary Definition of Reading Disability: A Definition of Reading Disability: A

Brief HistoryBrief History

55

Kirk and Bateman (1962, 1963): Kirk and Bateman (1962, 1963): Learning disabilities are caused by Learning disabilities are caused by

neurodevelopmental disorders affecting neurodevelopmental disorders affecting

academic learning in otherwise normal academic learning in otherwise normal

children.children. Specific learning disabilities are different Specific learning disabilities are different

from general learning difficulties caused from general learning difficulties caused

by low IQ, sensory, physical, or by low IQ, sensory, physical, or

emotional deficits, or socioeconomic emotional deficits, or socioeconomic

disadvantage. disadvantage.

66

Rutter and Yule (1975)—Isle of Wight StudyRutter and Yule (1975)—Isle of Wight Study Large Scale epidemiological study of reading Large Scale epidemiological study of reading

difficulties in U.K.difficulties in U.K. Percentage of children whose reading scores were Percentage of children whose reading scores were

significantly below those predicted by their ages and IQs was significantly below those predicted by their ages and IQs was

greater than expected (more than the 2.3% anticipated by a greater than expected (more than the 2.3% anticipated by a

normal curve model).normal curve model).

Rutter & Yule distinguished between “Specific Reading Rutter & Yule distinguished between “Specific Reading

Retardation” and “General Reading Backwardness” Retardation” and “General Reading Backwardness”

due to low intelligence.due to low intelligence.

77

Contraindications to IQ-Achievement Contraindications to IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Discrepancy Definitions of Reading

DisabilityDisability

88

Rutter and Yule’s (1975) Isle of Wight Rutter and Yule’s (1975) Isle of Wight

Study and Kirk and Bateman’s work Study and Kirk and Bateman’s work

became the basis for Public Law 94-142, became the basis for Public Law 94-142,

which mandated that learning disabilities which mandated that learning disabilities

be defined as achievement deficits in be defined as achievement deficits in

otherwise normal children who have at otherwise normal children who have at

least average intelligence.least average intelligence. P.L.- 94-142 led to the widespread use of P.L.- 94-142 led to the widespread use of

psychometric exclusionary definitions of psychometric exclusionary definitions of

LD having the IQ-achievement discrepancy LD having the IQ-achievement discrepancy

as its central defining criterion. as its central defining criterion.

99

Several large scale studies have shown that:Several large scale studies have shown that:

IQ does not predict reading achievement with a IQ does not predict reading achievement with a

high degree of accuracy (Malmquist, 1960).high degree of accuracy (Malmquist, 1960). Many IQ tests include items that depend on language Many IQ tests include items that depend on language

and/or reading ability (e.g. vocabulary, general and/or reading ability (e.g. vocabulary, general

knowledge; Bond & Fay, 1950; Durrell, 1933).knowledge; Bond & Fay, 1950; Durrell, 1933).

Non-verbal IQ tests predict reading achievement Non-verbal IQ tests predict reading achievement

with very low accuracy (Vellutino et al, 1994; 1996; with very low accuracy (Vellutino et al, 1994; 1996;

2000). 2000).

1010

Rutter and Yule’s findings were not replicated Rutter and Yule’s findings were not replicated

in later research; their results were found to be in later research; their results were found to be

due to measurement problems on the reading due to measurement problems on the reading

tests they used (Rodgers, 1983; Share et al., tests they used (Rodgers, 1983; Share et al.,

1987).1987).

Other studies found that:Other studies found that: IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers were no IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers were no

different than non-discrepant poor readers on different than non-discrepant poor readers on

measures of reading-related cognitive abilities measures of reading-related cognitive abilities

(Fletcher et al., 1994; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994). (Fletcher et al., 1994; Stanovich and Siegel, 1994).

Also, that some good readers have IQ-achievement Also, that some good readers have IQ-achievement

discrepancies.discrepancies.

Therefore the IQ-achievement discrepancy is Therefore the IQ-achievement discrepancy is

not a very precise measure of reading not a very precise measure of reading

disability.disability.

1111

Two important questions emerged from Two important questions emerged from

these findings:these findings: To what degree can IQ set upper limits on To what degree can IQ set upper limits on

and/or predict ability to learn to read? and/or predict ability to learn to read?

To what degree can IQ scores predict To what degree can IQ scores predict

response to remediation in struggling response to remediation in struggling

readers?readers?

1212

Can low IQ children learn to Can low IQ children learn to read? read?

Siegel (1988) compared reading disabled Siegel (1988) compared reading disabled

(n=250) and non-reading disabled children (n=250) and non-reading disabled children

(n=719) on language and literacy skills (ages 7 (n=719) on language and literacy skills (ages 7

to 16) and stratified these children into four IQ to 16) and stratified these children into four IQ

subgroups: IQ< 80; 80 to 90; 91 to 109; >110. subgroups: IQ< 80; 80 to 90; 91 to 109; >110.

the non-disabled readers fell into the same IQ the non-disabled readers fell into the same IQ

ranges as the disabled readers.ranges as the disabled readers.

within each of the IQ ranges, the disabled within each of the IQ ranges, the disabled

readers performed below the non-disabled readers performed below the non-disabled

readers on language-based measures (e.g. readers on language-based measures (e.g.

phoneme awareness, verbal memory, etc.).phoneme awareness, verbal memory, etc.).

1313

Share et al. (1989) stratified 3 year olds Share et al. (1989) stratified 3 year olds

into different IQ subgroups and tracked into different IQ subgroups and tracked

reading growth in these children until age reading growth in these children until age

13. 13. Siegel’s results were essentially replicated: Siegel’s results were essentially replicated:

disabled and non-disabled readers were found disabled and non-disabled readers were found

in each IQ subgroup.in each IQ subgroup.

IQ did not predict rate of growth in reading.IQ did not predict rate of growth in reading.

All of these studies provided evidence that All of these studies provided evidence that

measures of language and language-based measures of language and language-based

skills are better predictors of reading skills are better predictors of reading

ability than are IQ scores.ability than are IQ scores.

1414

Siegel (1989) and others have also pointed out Siegel (1989) and others have also pointed out

that:that: Most intelligence tests currently in use evaluate Most intelligence tests currently in use evaluate

acquired knowledge or cognitive abilities that can acquired knowledge or cognitive abilities that can

either be adversely affected by reading ability or either be adversely affected by reading ability or

adversely affect this ability. adversely affect this ability.

Children who suffer from long-standing reading Children who suffer from long-standing reading

difficulties eventually become below average difficulties eventually become below average

performers in areas such as vocabulary and syntactic performers in areas such as vocabulary and syntactic

knowledge, due to their limited ability to profit from knowledge, due to their limited ability to profit from

reading (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino et al., 1995).reading (Stanovich, 1986; Vellutino et al., 1995).

1515

Problems with the Psychometric Problems with the Psychometric ApproachApproach

No control for pre-school experiences and instructionNo control for pre-school experiences and instruction Low diagnostic validity of most testsLow diagnostic validity of most tests Rely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancyRely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancy Too many children classified as “disabled readers” Too many children classified as “disabled readers”

(10%-20%)(10%-20%) Low expectations for achievementLow expectations for achievement No direction for instructionNo direction for instruction Little or no attention given to the quality and/or Little or no attention given to the quality and/or

characteristics of instructioncharacteristics of instruction

1616

Major ObjectivesMajor Objectives

To distinguish between biologically-based To distinguish between biologically-based

cognitive causes and experiential/instructional cognitive causes and experiential/instructional

causes of reading difficulties.causes of reading difficulties.

To compare responsiveness to intervention To compare responsiveness to intervention

(RTI) vs. psychometric approaches to (RTI) vs. psychometric approaches to

diagnosing reading disability.diagnosing reading disability.

To develop benchmarks for early identification To develop benchmarks for early identification

of children at-risk for reading difficulties.of children at-risk for reading difficulties.

First Grade Intervention StudyFirst Grade Intervention Study (Vellutino et al., 1996) (Vellutino et al., 1996)

1717

Major Components of the StudyMajor Components of the Study

Testing at the beginning of kindergarten to Testing at the beginning of kindergarten to

evaluate emergent literacy skills and reading-evaluate emergent literacy skills and reading-

related cognitive abilities (n = 1407).related cognitive abilities (n = 1407).

Periodic observation of language arts instruction Periodic observation of language arts instruction

in all kindergarten classrooms. in all kindergarten classrooms. 

Selection of poor and normal readers in mid-first Selection of poor and normal readers in mid-first

grade, using psychometric and exclusionary grade, using psychometric and exclusionary

criteria like those used in public schools.criteria like those used in public schools.

1818

Major Components of the Study (Cont’)Major Components of the Study (Cont’)

Daily one-to-one tutoring for most of the poor Daily one-to-one tutoring for most of the poor

readers (n=76); school-based remediation readers (n=76); school-based remediation

provided for the rest of them (n = 42).provided for the rest of them (n = 42).

Tutoring was highly individualized and Tutoring was highly individualized and

comprehensive.comprehensive.

First and third grade cognitive testing for all First and third grade cognitive testing for all

target children. target children.

Progress in acquiring major reading skills was Progress in acquiring major reading skills was

systematically evaluated from kindergarten systematically evaluated from kindergarten

through the end of fourth grade.through the end of fourth grade.

1919

Approach to Instruction: Interactive Strategies Approach to Instruction: Interactive Strategies

Components of Daily Tutoring Components of Daily Tutoring

Re-reading texts for fluency Re-reading texts for fluency

Phonological skills Phonological skills

Reading new texts Reading new texts

Sight word practice Sight word practice

Writing Writing

Instruction designed to promote interactive use of Instruction designed to promote interactive use of

text-based and code-based strategies in text text-based and code-based strategies in text

reading reading

2020

Major FindingsMajor Findings

Struggling readers in first grade performed below Struggling readers in first grade performed below

average on kindergarten measures of emergent average on kindergarten measures of emergent

literacy skills.literacy skills.

The kindergarten language arts program was an The kindergarten language arts program was an

influential determinant of first grade reading influential determinant of first grade reading

achievement. achievement.

The majority of tutored children (67%) scored in The majority of tutored children (67%) scored in

the average range after 15 weeks of daily one-one the average range after 15 weeks of daily one-one

tutoring (50% for comparison group). tutoring (50% for comparison group).

Only 15.8% scored below 15th percentile (1.5% of the Only 15.8% scored below 15th percentile (1.5% of the

population) population)

2121

Figure 1. Growth Curves for Mean Raw Scores on the WRMT-R Word Identification Subtest for Normal and

Tutored Poor Readers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

VLG (n = 19)

LG (n = 15)

GG (n = 17)

VGG (n = 18)

AvIQNorm (n = 21)

AbAvIQNorm (n = 30)

Kindergarten Grade 1Winter

Grade 1Spring

Grade 2Fall

Grade 2Winter

Grade 2Spring

Grade 3Spring

Grade 4Spring

Time Intervals Between Tests in Months

Wo

rd Id

en

tifi

ca

tio

n R

aw

Sc

ore

s o

n W

RM

T-R

VLG = Very Limited Grow thLG = Limited Grow thGG = Good Grow thVGG = Very Good Grow thWRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised

2222

Figure 2. Growth Curves for Mean Raw Scores on the WRMT-R Word Attack

Subtest for Normal and Tutored Poor Readers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Time Intervals Between Tests (Months)

Wo

rd A

tta

ck

Ra

w S

co

re o

n W

MR

T-R

VLG (n=19)

LG (n=15)

GG (n=17)

VGG (n=18)

AvIQNorm(n=21)

AbAVIQNorm (n=30)

Grade 1 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 2 Grade 2 Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring

Kindergarten Grade 3 Grade 4 Spring Spring

VLG = Very Limited Grow thLG = Limited Grow thGG = Good Grow thVGG = Very Good Grow thWRMT = Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Revised

2323

Major Findings (cont’)Major Findings (cont’)

IQ scores did not:IQ scores did not: reliably differentiate struggling and normal reliably differentiate struggling and normal

readers. readers.

predict response to intervention. predict response to intervention.

predict reading growth in normal readers.predict reading growth in normal readers.

Language-based measures, especially Language-based measures, especially phonological measures did:phonological measures did:

reliably differentiate struggling and normal reliably differentiate struggling and normal readers.readers.

reliably differentiate difficult to remediate reliably differentiate difficult to remediate and readily remediated tutored children.and readily remediated tutored children.

2424

Kindergarten and First Grade Kindergarten and First Grade Intervention StudyIntervention Study

(Spring 1997-Spring 2002)(Spring 1997-Spring 2002)

Major ObjectivesMajor Objectives

Evaluate the utility of remedial intervention for Evaluate the utility of remedial intervention for

“at risk” kindergarteners.“at risk” kindergarteners.

Further evaluate the RTI approach to identifying Further evaluate the RTI approach to identifying

children at-risk for early and long-term reading children at-risk for early and long-term reading

difficulties. difficulties.

2525

At-Risk Children

Continued Risk

Intervention

(n=232)

Comparison

(n=230)

Kin

der

gar

ten

Fir

st g

rad

e

No-Longer

at-Risk

Normal

Readers

Not-at-Risk

Children

(n=898)

Th

ird

g

rad

e

Difficult to

Remediate

Less Difficult

to Remediate

No-Longer

at-Risk

First Grade

Intervention

Above

Average IQ

K-intervention

Average

IQ

2626

Kindergarten ScreeningN=1373letter identification (initial screening)letter identification (initial screening)phonological awareness (rhyme and alliteration)phonological awareness (rhyme and alliteration)RAN object namingRAN object namingnumber identificationnumber identificationcounting by 1’scounting by 1’s

Kindergarten InterventionN= 462Intervention n= 232Intervention n= 232Small groups, 2-3 days, weekly, 30min sessionsSmall groups, 2-3 days, weekly, 30min sessions

Comparison n=230Comparison n=230Small group instruction in some but not all schoolsSmall group instruction in some but not all schools

Intervention and comparison groups were equivalent on all screening measures

30%

Phoneme Awareness

Letter ID

Letter-Sound Association

Alphabetic Principle

Print Awareness

Print Conventions

Whole Word Identification

Text Reading

Ran

do

miz

ed D

esig

n

2727

Third grade Cognitive MeasuresThird grade Cognitive Measures

Rapid Naming (letter and objects)Rapid Naming (letter and objects)

Confrontational Naming Confrontational Naming

Verbal MemoryVerbal Memory

VocabularyVocabulary

Language ComprehensionLanguage Comprehension

Verbal and Non-verbal IntelligenceVerbal and Non-verbal Intelligence

First Grade InterventionFirst Grade Intervention

One-to-one Daily TutoringOne-to-one Daily Tutoring

Interactive Strategies ApproachInteractive Strategies Approach

2828

ResultsResults

2929

Kindergarten InterventionKindergarten Intervention

Project Treatment group performed Project Treatment group performed

significantly better than School-Based significantly better than School-Based

Comparison group on almost all emergent Comparison group on almost all emergent

literacy measures at the end of literacy measures at the end of

kindergartenkindergarten

Effect sizes consistently larger in schools Effect sizes consistently larger in schools

that provided no supplemental remedial that provided no supplemental remedial

services in kindergartenservices in kindergarten

3030

Table. 1Table. 1Effect sizes for intervention/comparison groups (end of Effect sizes for intervention/comparison groups (end of Kindergarten, no school-based remediation)Kindergarten, no school-based remediation)

3131

First Grade InterventionFirst Grade Intervention

First Grade RTI GroupsFirst Grade RTI Groups Children who received both kindergarten and first grade Children who received both kindergarten and first grade

intervention. intervention. Difficult to Remediate (DR): < SS 90 on WRMT-R Basic Skills Difficult to Remediate (DR): < SS 90 on WRMT-R Basic Skills

Cluster (BSC) at the end of third gradeCluster (BSC) at the end of third grade Less Difficult to Remediate (LDR): Less Difficult to Remediate (LDR): SS 90 on WRMT-R BSC at the SS 90 on WRMT-R BSC at the

end of third gradeend of third grade

Comparison GroupsComparison Groups Children who received only kindergarten intervention Children who received only kindergarten intervention

and were no longer at risk (NLAR)and were no longer at risk (NLAR) Normal reader controls (AvIQNorm, AbAvIQNorm)Normal reader controls (AvIQNorm, AbAvIQNorm)

3232

Performance on Achievement Performance on Achievement MeasuresMeasures

NLAR and LDR groups performed within the average range NLAR and LDR groups performed within the average range

and above the DR group on all literacy measures at the and above the DR group on all literacy measures at the

end of first, second and third grade (see handouts).end of first, second and third grade (see handouts).

LDR group performed at levels comparable to NLAR group LDR group performed at levels comparable to NLAR group

on all literacy measures at the end of first, second, and on all literacy measures at the end of first, second, and

third grade. third grade.

DR group performed within the average or low average DR group performed within the average or low average

ranges on all literacy measures at the end of first grade, ranges on all literacy measures at the end of first grade,

but fell below average on all measures over second and but fell below average on all measures over second and

third grade. third grade.

3333

3434

84% of the at risk children became at least average level readers after 84% of the at risk children became at least average level readers after receiving only kindergarten intervention or both kindergarten and first grade receiving only kindergarten intervention or both kindergarten and first grade intervention. intervention.

Of those who became average level readers, 73% (72/98) received only Of those who became average level readers, 73% (72/98) received only kindergarten intervention.kindergarten intervention.

Growth in kindergarten literacy skills predicted continued risk status at the Growth in kindergarten literacy skills predicted continued risk status at the beginning of first grade with 90% accuracy and no-longer-at risk status with beginning of first grade with 90% accuracy and no-longer-at risk status with 87% accuracy.87% accuracy.

Adding a measure of change over the summer increased predictive accuracy Adding a measure of change over the summer increased predictive accuracy to 95% for continued risk status and 96% for no-longer-at-risk status. to 95% for continued risk status and 96% for no-longer-at-risk status.

3535

Results (contd’)Results (contd’)

IQ tests did not predict end of second and third IQ tests did not predict end of second and third

grade reading achievement following first grade grade reading achievement following first grade

intervention, but measures of growth in reading intervention, but measures of growth in reading

did do so.did do so.

IQ tests did not reliably differentiate continued risk, IQ tests did not reliably differentiate continued risk,

no-longer-at risk, and typical readers in first grade; no-longer-at risk, and typical readers in first grade;

verbal IQ did differentiate these groups in third verbal IQ did differentiate these groups in third

grade, but non-verbal IQ did not reliably do so.grade, but non-verbal IQ did not reliably do so.

The continued risk children generally performed The continued risk children generally performed

below the no-longer-at-risk and typical readers on below the no-longer-at-risk and typical readers on

measures of language-based skills. measures of language-based skills.

3636

Implications and ConclusionsImplications and Conclusions

Early and long-term literacy difficulties can be Early and long-term literacy difficulties can be

prevented in most at risk children if they are:prevented in most at risk children if they are:

identified early in kindergarten. identified early in kindergarten.

provided with appropriate intervention to institute provided with appropriate intervention to institute

foundational literacy skills at the outset. foundational literacy skills at the outset.

Most at-risk children can profit from supplemental Most at-risk children can profit from supplemental

remediation in kindergarten and become at least remediation in kindergarten and become at least

average level readers in first grade and beyond.average level readers in first grade and beyond.

Some will need intensive remedial intervention Some will need intensive remedial intervention

beyond kindergarten or first grade in order to close beyond kindergarten or first grade in order to close

the gap. A very small number will continue to need the gap. A very small number will continue to need

support; such children may be classified as support; such children may be classified as

“reading disabled”. “reading disabled”.

3737

Continued use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to Continued use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to

diagnose reading disability is unwarranted; in two diagnose reading disability is unwarranted; in two

separate intervention studies we conducted, IQ tests: separate intervention studies we conducted, IQ tests:

did not reliably differentiate continued risk, no-longer-at did not reliably differentiate continued risk, no-longer-at

risk, and typically achieving readers.risk, and typically achieving readers.

did not differentiate difficult to remediate and less difficult did not differentiate difficult to remediate and less difficult

to remediate readers.to remediate readers.

did not predict long term reading achievement following did not predict long term reading achievement following

intensive intervention, whereas initial response to such intensive intervention, whereas initial response to such

intervention did do so. intervention did do so.

therefore, RTI may be a more effective approach to therefore, RTI may be a more effective approach to

identifying reading disability than is the IQ-achievement identifying reading disability than is the IQ-achievement

discrepancy. discrepancy.

3838

Impact of Initial RTI StudiesImpact of Initial RTI Studies

Stimulated subsequent RTI research. Stimulated subsequent RTI research.

Led to an RTI summit for researchers and Led to an RTI summit for researchers and

stakeholders in which the pros and cons of RTI vs stakeholders in which the pros and cons of RTI vs

the IQ-achievement discrepancy were debated the IQ-achievement discrepancy were debated

(August, 2001).(August, 2001).

Federal Funds for more RTI research became Federal Funds for more RTI research became

available (e.g Vanderbilt/Kansas NCLD).available (e.g Vanderbilt/Kansas NCLD).

Re-authorization of IDEA (July, 2004). Re-authorization of IDEA (July, 2004).

3939

Thank you!Thank you!