Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention (Essentials of Psychological Assessment) [2 ed.] 1394229232, 9781394229239

Citation preview

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention

Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series Series Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman Essentials of 16 PF® Assessment by Heather E.-­P. Cattell and James M. Schuerger

Essentials of NEPSY ®-­II Assessment by Sally L. Kemp and Marit Korkman

Essentials of Assessment Report Writing by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Nancy Mather, Nadeen L. Kaufman, and Alan S. Kaufman

Essentials of Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Edition by Nancy Hebben and William Milberg

Essentials of Assessment with Brief Intelligence Tests by Susan R. Homack and Cecil R. Reynolds Essentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development–II Assessment by Maureen M. Black and Kathleen Matula Essentials of Behavioral Assessment by Michael C. Ramsay, Cecil R. Reynolds, and R. W. Kamphaus

Essentials of Nonverbal Assessment by Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, and John Wasserman Essentials of PAI® Assessment by Leslie C. Morey Essentials of Processing Assessment by Milton J. Dehn Essentials of Response to Intervention by Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Matthew K. Burns

Essentials of Career Interest Assessment by Jeffrey P. Prince and Lisa J. Heiser

Essentials of Rorschach® Assessment

Essentials of CAS Assessment by Jack A. Naglieri

Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment by Daniel C. Miller

Essentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAIT and Other Kaufman Measures by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Broadbooks, and

Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification by Dawn Flanagan and Vincent C. Alfonso

Alan S. Kaufman Essentials of Conners Behavior Assessments™ by Elizabeth P. Sparrow Essentials of Creativity Assessment by James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John Baer Essentials of Cross-­Battery Assessment, Second Edition by Dawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O. Ortiz, and Vincent C. Alfonso Essentials of DAS-­II® Assessment by Ron Dumont, John O. Willis, and Colin D. Elliot Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention by Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling Essentials of Evidence-­Based Academic Interventions by Barbara J. Wendling and Nancy Mather Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment, Second Edition by Marc J. Ackerman Essentials of IDEA for Assessment Professionals by Guy McBride, Ron Dumont, and John O. Willis Essentials of Individual Achievement Assessment by Douglas K. Smith Essentials of KABC-­II Assessment by Alan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elaine Fletcher-­Janzen, and Nadeen L. Kaufman

by Tara Rose, Nancy Kaser-­Boyd, and Michael P. Maloney

Essentials of Stanford-­Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assessment by Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew Barram Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Assessments, Second Edition by Hedwig Teglasi Essentials of Temperament Assessment by Diana Joyce Essentials of WAIS®-­IV Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman Essentials of WIAT®-­III and KTEA-­II Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Kristina C. Breaux Essentials of WISC®-­IV Assessment, Second Edition by Dawn P. Flanagan and Alan S. Kaufman Essentials of WJ III™ Cognitive Abilities Assessment, Second Edition by Fredrick A. Schrank, Daniel C. Miller, Barbara J. Wendling, and Richard W. Woodcock Essentials of WJ III™ Tests of Achievement Assessment by Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, and Richard W. Woodcock Essentials of WMS®-­IV Assessment by Lisa Whipple Drozdick, James A. Holdnack, and Robin C. Hilsabeck

Essentials of Millon™ Inventories Assessment, Third Edition

Essentials of WNV ™ Assessment by Kimberly A. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, and Steven

by Stephen Strack

T. Hardy-­Braz

Essentials of MMPI-­A™ Assessment by Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy

Essentials of WPPSI ™-­III Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman

Essentials of MMPI-­2® Assessment, Second Edition by David S. Nichols

Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL-­2 Assessment by Wayne Adams and Cecil R. Reynolds

Essentials of Myers-­Briggs Type Indicator® Assessment, Second Edition by Naomi Quenk

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention by Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention Second Edition

Nancy Mather Barbara J. Wendling

Copyright © 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-­copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-­8400, fax (978) 750-­4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-­6011, fax (201) 748-­6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission. Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-­2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-­3993 or fax (317) 572-­4002. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com. Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Mather, Nancy, author. | Wendling, Barbara J., author. Title: Essentials of dyslexia assessment and intervention /   Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling. Description: Second edition. | Hoboken, New Jersey : Wiley, [2024] |   Series: Essentials of psychological assessment series | Revised edition   of: Essentials of dyslexia assessment and intervention /Nancy Mather and   Barbara J. Wendling. c2012. | Includes bibliographical references and  index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023032749 (print) | LCCN 2023032750 (ebook) | ISBN   9781394229239 (paperback) | ISBN 9781394229253 (adobe pdf ) | ISBN   9781394229246 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Dyslexia. Classification: LCC RC394.W6 M38 2024 (print) | LCC RC394.W6 (ebook) |   DDC 616.85/53–dc23/eng/20231211 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023032749 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023032750 Cover Design: Wiley Cover Image: © Robert/Adobe Stock Photos Set in 10.5/13pt AdobeGaramondPro by Straive, Pondicherry, India

I dedicate this second edition of the book to my wonderful nieces and nephew: Kristin, Nancy, Charlie, Joanna, and Emily. You are still the best! —­Aunt Nancy In loving memory of my mother and father. —­Barbara

There are many poor readers among very bright children, who, because they are poor ­readers, are  ­considered less keen than their classmates.  This book should really be ­dedicated to the ­thousands of bright children thus misjudged. —­Stranger & Donohue, 1937, p. 43

CONTENTS

Series Preface

ix

Acknowledgments xi One Understanding Dyslexia

1

Two A Brief History of Dyslexia

13

Three The Brain and Dyslexia

29

Deborah Schneider, Fumiko Hoeft, Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, Sally Shaywitz*, and Bennett Shaywitz* Four Genetics and the Environment

41

Deborah Schneider, Nancy Mather, and Barbara J. Wendling Five Assessment of Cognitive and Linguistic Risk Factors

55

Six Assessment of Decoding, Encoding, and Reading Fluency

73

Seven Phonological Awareness and Early Reading and Spelling

93

Eight Orthography and Orthographic Mapping for Reading and Spelling

105

Nancy Redding, Nancy Mather, and Barbara J. Wendling Nine Teaching the Orthographic System by Integrating Morphology, Etymology,

and Phoneme– Grapheme Relationships 119 Sue Scibetta Hegland

Ten Instruction in Basic Reading Skills and Spelling

131

Eleven Instruction in Reading Fluency

157

Twelve Technology Applications for Students with Dyslexia

171

Kathleen Puckett Thirteen Dyslexia in Different Languages and English Learners

183

Martha Youman and Emily Mather vii

viii CONTENTS

Fourteen Dyslexia in the Schools

197

Appendix A Descriptions of Tests

213

Appendix B Descriptions of Evidence-Based Programs

279

Appendix C Mobile Apps and Websites to Support Reading and Writing Instruction

333

Elaine Cheesman

Glossary

337



References

345



Suggested Readings

373



About the Authors and Contributing Authors

377



Index

379

*The Shaywitzes contributed to Chapter 3 in the first edition of the book.

SERIES PREFACE

In the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, we have attempted to provide the reader with books that will deliver key practical information in the most efficient and accessible style. The series features instruments in a variety of domains, such as cognition, personality, education, and neuropsychology. For the experienced clinician, books in the series offer a concise yet thorough way to master use of the continuously evolving supply of new and revised instruments, as well as a convenient method for keeping up to date on the tried-­and-­true measures. The novice will find here a prioritized assembly of all the information and techniques that must be at one’s fingertips to begin the complicated process of individual psychological diagnosis. Whenever feasible, visual shortcuts to highlight key points are used alongside systematic, step-­by-­step guidelines. Chapters are focused and succinct. Topics are targeted for an easy understanding of the essentials of administration, scoring, interpretation, and clinical application. Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of each book, always to enhance clinical inference, never to sidetrack or overwhelm. We have long been advocates of “intelligent” testing—­the notion that a profile of test scores is meaningless unless it is brought to life by the clinical observations and astute detective work of knowledgeable examiners. Test profiles must be used to make a difference in the child’s or adult’s life, or why bother to test? We want this series to help our readers become the best intelligent testers they can be. Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition is designed for assessment professionals, educators, and parents who are interested in understanding, assessing, and helping individuals with dyslexia. This newly revised Essentials book, co-­authored by two internationally acclaimed experts in dyslexia, meets the demands of current educational reforms and incorporates input from many leading experts in the field of dyslexia. Instead of focusing on the use and interpretation of assessment instruments, the focus is squarely upon assessment and intervention for the most common type of learning disability, dyslexia. In order to diagnose a disability, one must first understand the characteristics of the disability. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling have created a readable resource that makes current research accessible to a variety of audiences. Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition demonstrates how a deep understanding of dyslexia can lead to accurate identification and the provision of appropriate interventions for individuals of any age who struggle to learn to read and spell. Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, and Nadeen L. Kaufman, EdD, Series Editors, Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are thankful for the help and support of all our wonderful contributing authors. We also want to thank Dr. Ron Hockman, C. Wilson Anderson, Jr., and Stephanie Bieberly for their contributions of informal assessment measures. We sincerely appreciate the willingness of all authors, publishers, and practitioners who wrote descriptions of assessments and evidence-­based interventions for Appendix A and Appendix B of this book and Dr. Elaine Cheesman for preparing Appendix C. We are thankful for the copy editors Aravind Kannankara and Rathi Aravind from John Wiley & Sons for their support during the production of this book. Dr. David Kilpatrick provided helpful feedback on Chapters 6 and 8, as did Dr. Linnea Ehri on Chapter 8. Emily Mather was helpful in the revision of many aspects of this book. We are grateful to Dr. Bennett Shaywitz and Dr. Sally Shaywitz for  their  contributions to the first edition of this book. Finally, we express our deepest gratitude to Dr. Alan Kaufman and Dr. Nadeen Kaufman for their leadership and vision that led to the creation of the Essentials series and for their continued interest in and s­ upport of this project. Nancy Mather Barbara J. Wendling

“The best way to advocate for a child with dyslexia is to be so well-­trained and informed that no one can (or wants to) argue with you.” —­Dr. Kelli Sandman-­Hurley

xi

Chapter One UNDERSTANDING DYSLEXIA

In the first half of this century, the story of dyslexia has been one of decline and fall; in the second half, it has culminated in a spectacular rise. From being a rather dubious term, dyslexia has blossomed into a glamorous topic; and rightly so, for with a prevalence of around 5%, the condition is remarkably common. —­Dr. Uta Frith, 1999, p. 192 A substantial number of well-­intentioned boys and girls—­including very bright ones—­experience significant difficulty in learning to read, through no fault of their own. This frustrating and persistent problem in ­learning to read is called dyslexia. —­Dr. Sally Shaywitz & Dr. Jonathan Shaywitz, 2020, p. 3 INTRODUCTION

Steven, a second-­grade student, knows only four letters of the alphabet. His teachers have tried to help him memorize letters and their sounds, but he always seems to forget what he has learned the next day. Lately, he has started to say that he is dumb, and that’s the reason he can’t learn to read and spell. Maria is in middle school. She is often confused by letters that have similar sounds, such as spelling every as efry. These subtle sound confusions are also apparent in her speech when she pronounces certain multisyllabic words, for example, saying “puh-­si-­fic” when she meant to say “specific.” She sometimes confuses words that have similar sounds. Even though she has a good vocabulary, she may say “that book really memorized me” when she really meant to say “mesmerized.” At times, she avoids saying certain words because she is unsure about their pronunciation. Jeff is a junior in high school. He recently took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and only finished half of each section. He said he knew how to do the rest of the questions, but he didn’t have enough time to attempt them. He wonders why his peers seem to always have plenty of time when reading takes him so long. Mr. Brogan has just attended his fifth-­grade son’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting at the local elementary school. His son, Matthew, is having great difficulty learning to read and spell. Even though he has an adapted spelling list, Matthew still forgets how to spell the words when the weekly spelling test is given. He spells words just the way they sound, not the way they look, such as spelling they as thay. When Mr. Brogan hears Matthew’s fifth-­grade teacher, the special education teacher, and the school psychologist describing his son’s severe reading and spelling difficulties, he immediately thinks: “That was just like me.” What do these individuals who struggle with certain aspects of literacy have in common? They all have dyslexia. Although this seems to be an accurate label to explain difficulty in learning to read and spell, confusion exists regarding what having dyslexia actually means. WHAT IS DYSLEXIA?

What is dyslexia? This simple question is asked every day by both parents and teachers as they struggle to understand why a child is not learning to read with ease. It is a question asked by Matthew who wonders why reading and spelling are so difficult for him. It is also a question asked by older students like Jeff as they attempt to determine why reading is so effortful and why they read so much more slowly than their peers. Although Mr. Brogan was well aware that he had always struggled with reading, when he hears the description of Matthew’s difficulties and that the school team thinks that Matthew has dyslexia, he realizes that he too has dyslexia that was never diagnosed. He now understands the reasons why he never reads for pleasure and why the stack of books that others have suggested he read sits undisturbed by his bedside.

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1

2  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Over the last century, researchers who are concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia have attempted to answer the following three questions (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010, p. 229): 1. What is it? 2. What causes it? 3. What can be done about it? The goal of this book is to attempt to answer these three questions in a straightforward way so that dyslexia can be easily understood by educational professionals and parents alike, as well as by individuals who have dyslexia. Although we still do not have conclusive answers to the abovementioned questions, fortunately, over the last century, researchers, medical professionals, and practitioners have learned a lot about dyslexia, as well as how this disorder affects reading and spelling development. The word dyslexia comes from the Greek words δυσ-­dys-­(“impaired”) and lexis (“word”). Although numerous definitions exist, dyslexia can be most simply defined as a neurobiological disorder that causes a marked impairment in the development of reading. More specifically, dyslexia is manifested in weaknesses in word-­level reading skills; it affects decoding (pronouncing printed words), reading rate and fluency, and encoding (spelling) (Pennington et al., 2019; Vellutino & Fletcher, 2007). Thus, dyslexia is a complex cognitive disorder of neurobiological origin that affects the development of literacy (Pennington et al., 2019; Shastry, 2007; Vellutino & Fletcher, 2007). For teachers and parents just learning about dyslexia, the book, Dyslexia: A Very Short Introduction, provides an accessible overview of research discussing history, the role of both genetic and environmental factors, brain scanning techniques, and effective interventions (Snowling, 2019). In addition, the University of Michigan has a comprehensive website that provides numerous resources for parents,  professionals, and individuals with dyslexia, including research, case studies, recommended books, apps, and success stories (http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/). Both parents and professionals are often confused regarding the difference between a specific learning disability (SLD) and dyslexia. They often wonder, if a student is diagnosed with an SLD in reading, does this mean that the student has dyslexia? The answer to this quesDyslexia is a neurobiological disorder that affects the develtion is: Maybe. Essentially, SLD is a broader category that encomopment of decoding (pronouncing written words), reading passes several different types of disorders, including dyslexia, the most rate and fluency, and encoding (spelling). common and carefully studied SLD (Shastry, 2007). In addition, the terms dyslexia, specific developmental dyslexia, specific learning disorder with an impairment in reading (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, DSM-­5-TR), specific reading disability, and reading disability are often used interchangeably to describe this neurodevelopmental disorder (DeFries et al., 1978; Pennington et al., 2019). DSM-5-TR clarifies that dyslexia is an alternative term that may be used to describe difficulties with accurate or fluent word recognition, decoding, and spelling (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). In some school districts, school psychologists and special and general educators do not use the word dyslexia when describing students with severe reading disabilities. In fact, the term dyslexia has fallen in and out of popularity since the early 1930s (Rooney, 1995). Many states have comprehensive laws that must be adhered to regarding both assessment and service delivery to school children with dyslexia. In fact, as of 2022, all 50 states of the United States of America have some type of dyslexia law. Rapid Reference 1.1 lists several websites that describe the dyslexia laws for each state.

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 1.1 Resources for Dyslexia Laws National Center on Improving Literacy State of Dyslexia: Explore dyslexia legislation and related initiatives in the United States of America. improvingliteracy.org/state-­of-­dyslexia Dyslegia: A Legislative Information Site Dyslegia.com tracks the progress of legislation specifically related to dyslexia throughout the United States. dyslegia.com Dyslexic Advantage Reviews dyslexia laws in the US. dyslexicadvantage.org/dyslexia-­laws-­2018/

UNDERSTANDING DYSLEXIA  3

In addition to increased awareness of dyslexia, in the coming years, we are likely to see the term “dyslexia” being used more often. One reason that the term is becoming more commonplace is the memo that was issued by the United States Office of Special Education Programs in May of 2015, encouraging schools to use the terms, dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. The memo states: “In implementing the IDEA requirements discussed above, OSERS encourages SEAs and LEAs to consider situations where it would be appropriate to use the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia to describe and address the child’s unique, identified needs through evaluation, eligibility, and IEP documents. OSERS further encourages states to review their policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that they do not prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in evaluations, eligibility, and IEP documents.” Note: IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; OSERS = Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; SEAs = State Education Agencies; and LEAs = Local Education Agencies. THE SIMPLE VIEW OF READING AND DYSLEXIA

Not all types of reading difficulties are considered to be dyslexia. Gough and Tunmer (1986) developed a model that they called the Simple View of Reading (SVR). This model has two major components, decoding (reading words) (D) and listening comprehension (LC), resulting in this simple equation: reading comprehension (RC) = D × LC. This equation suggests that reading performance is influenced by both decoding (D) and linguistic comprehension, or the ability to understand what is being read orally (LC). Hoover and Gough (1990) explained that the term linguistic comprehension refers to “. . .listening to language for the purpose of comprehension” (p. 157). Aaron et al. (2008) modified the formula slightly to RC = WR × LC, where RC is reading comprehension, WR = word recognition, and LC = listening comprehension. The only difference in this modification is that word recognition (WR) replaces decoding (D). These two components vary by grade level with word recognition having more influence in the earlier grades, and language comprehension in the later grades (Hoover & Tunmer, 2018). The SVR model is particularly applicable to a basic understanding of dyslexia. The model indicates that three different types of poor readers exist: (1) those who can understand the text when it is read aloud, but have trouble reading the words (dyslexia); (2) those who can read words accurately, but do not comprehend what they read (poor comprehenders); and (3) those who have trouble with both (mixed reading disability). Readers with mixed reading disability often have developmental language disorders or limited exposure to language and experiential opportunities during their preschool years (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010). Although readers with dyslexia do have impairments in reading comprehension, these difficulties are the result of significant decoding difficulties, whereas for readers with developmental language disorders, the difficulties result from poor language comprehension (Snowling et al., 2020a, 2020b). Thus, the term dyslexia is reserved for individuals who have trouble learning to decode, the print part of reading, but spoken-­language comprehension is within the age-­appropriate range (Seidenberg, 2017). More recently, several revisions to the SVR model have been proposed (e.g., Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Francis et al., 2018). For example, Duke and Cartwright described three key advances that have emerged in the scientific research since the original formulation of the SVR: (a) word recognition and language comprehension are not the only causes of reading difficulty; (b) considerable overlap exists between word recognition and language comprehension with bridging variables such as vocabulary, reading fluency, and morphological awareness influencing both; and (c) active self-­regulatory processes, including executive functioning skills, motivation, engagement, and strategy use, also play an important role in reading. They proposed an expansion of the SVR called the active view of reading. Within this model, active self-­regulation contributes to word recognition, bridging processes (e.g., vocabulary, reading fluency, morphological awareness), and language comprehension. Each element within the model can be improved through instruction. In examining the results of a meta-­analysis of 333 reading interventions, Burns et al. (2023) found moderate effects for interventions that focused on word recognition, language comprehension, self-­regulation, and bridging processes (reading fluency, motivation), and large effects on reading comprehension for interventions that focused on text structure, verbal reasoning, and vocabulary. Self-­regulation influences all aspects of reading and can be Although a subset of poor readers has adequate word reading skills improved through targeted instruction. but poor comprehension and requires interventions directed toward improving both oral language and reading, the focus of this book is on readers with dyslexia who often have listening comprehension and verbal abilities that are higher than their word reading and spelling skills. The SVR captures what reading is at the broadest level of analysis (Hoover & Tunmer, 2018). It captures the fact that when comDyslexia is not primarily a problem in reading comprehension, pared to other readers, readers with dyslexia have poor phonological but rather a problem in reading and spelling words. awareness that affects word reading skill (Sleeman et al., 2022).

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

4  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

CHARACTERISTICS OF DYSLEXIA

As with SLD, in order to understand dyslexia, a key aspect is explaining what it is not (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010). Although the clinical features of dyslexia can co-­occur with other disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and developmental language disorder (DLD), dyslexia is a distinct disorder that has specific characteristics. With dyslexia, the primary problem is with written language, not spoken language, and the core impairment is in reading accuracy, reading fluency, and spelling (Pennington et al., 2019). Rapid Reference 1.2 provides a list of conditions, that may be comorbid (coexist), but would not be considered defining features of dyslexia. Rapid Reference 1.3 provides an overview of the most common characteristics of dyslexia. Some of these characteristics are most likely to be present in young children (e.g., trouble rhyming words), whereas others are more apparent in secondary students and adults (e.g., a slow reading rate or poor spelling). The earliest warning signs of dyslexia are sometimes noted in the child’s spoken language, although sometimes oral language development is perfectly normal. As the individual ages, warning signs are noted in the slowness of reading and spelling development. In addition, students with deficient word reading skills often avoid reading, and as a result, they spend less time practicing reading (Tunmer & Greaney, 2010). Individuals with dyslexia are likely to have some of these symptoms and

Rapid Reference 1.2 What Dyslexia Is Not A pervasive oral language impairment A primary problem in attention A primary emotional or behavioral problem A primary problem in reading comprehension or written expression Low motivation or limited effort Poor vision or hearing Autism Related to ethnic background or family income A result of poor teaching A result of limited educational opportunities

Rapid Reference 1.3 What Dyslexia Is: Symptoms and Characteristics Difficulty learning to rhyme words Difficulty learning the sounds of letters Confusions of letters and words with similar visual appearance (e.g., b and d and was and saw) Confusions of letters with similar sounds (e.g., /f/ and /v/)* Reversals and transpositions of letters and words that persist past the age of 7 (e.g., p and q, and on and no) Trouble sequencing letters in the correct order when spelling Difficulty retaining the visual images of irregular words for reading and spelling (e.g., once) Spelling the same word in different ways on the same page (e.g., wuns, wunce, for once) Spelling words the way they sound rather than the way they look (e.g., sed for said) Mispronouncing some multisyllabic words (e.g., multiblication) Slow speed of word perception that affects reading fluency and rate Poor spelling into adulthood * Note when a letter is enclosed between two forward slashes / /, it refers to the letter sound, not the letter name.

UNDERSTANDING DYSLEXIA  5

characteristics. In addition, to learn more about dyslexia, the Sacramento County Office of Education has assembled free webinars by national experts that describe and explain many of the characteristics of dyslexia, as well as necessary interventions (https://www.scoe. net/divisions/ed_services/curriculum/cadyslexia/). In addition to these characteristics, some individuals with dyslexia have strengths in areas that are not affected by the disorder (e.g., math, science), and their oral language and listening comprehension abilities are often higher than their reading and spelling skills. The individual with dyslexia typically has adequate achievement in areas where reading skills are not of primary importance (Betts, 1936). One central concept of dyslexia is that it is unexpected in relationship to the person’s other abilities. Thus, dyslexia is often associated with underachievement in reading rather than low reading achievement per se. One would expect that the person would be reading at a higher level when considering other abilities or that the person has the intelligence to be a much better reader (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Although this concept of unexpected underachievement has been the central defining feature of dyslexia (B. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020; Tunmer & Greaney, 2010), Tønnessen (1997) points out that it is really our lack of knowledge that makes the CAUTION underachievement “unexpected” because we have not gained enough insight into the causes of dyslexia. In other words, if we had a better Individuals with dyslexia may show any combination of understanding of the underlying causes of dyslexia, then an individucharacteristics shown in Rapid Reference 1.3; however, most individuals will not exhibit all of these characteristics. al’s difficulties with reading and spelling would be expected. Research has indicated that intelligence tests do not predict reading for individuals with dyslexia even though they are a reasonable predictor for individuals without reading impairments (Ferrer et al., 2010). This is because some individuals with dyslexia have average or even superior intellectual abilities. Even so, individuals with any level of intelligence may have dyslexia. Thus, an intellectually gifted law student may have dyslexia that results in a compromised reading rate, as may an individual with a mild intellectual disability who struggles to learn to read even basic sight words. Because dyslexia is a neurobiological disorder, it can occur in an individual with any level of intelligence and often occurs with other disabilities, such as DLD and ADHD. Although some definitions have suggested that dyslexia only occurs in individuals with average or above intelligence, this assertion is not true. No one ever claims that attention, articulation, or motor problems can only occur in children with average or above intelligence because it is understood that most disabilities occur across the full range of intellectual functioning. In her classic book, Children Who Cannot Read, Monroe (1932) explained: “The reading defects may occur at any intellectual level from very superior to very inferior, as measured by intelligence tests” (p. 6). Even so, for children with severe intellectual disabilities, learning to read may be secondary to the goals of developing life skills, such as communication, self-­care, and community living skills, as these adaptive abilities are central to the individual obtaining independence and self-­sufficiency. Some children with dyslexia are identified in first grade, whereas other individuals are not diagnosed until they enter college, or even when entering an advanced graduate degree program. This is particularly true of students who have advanced verbal abilities. It is not unusual to find a medical student who navigated through high school and college with only mild difficulties, but then became overwhelmed and not able to manage the heavy reading demands of medical school (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020; Voeller, 2004). Some individuals with dyslexia are never identified at all, and as adults they attempt to negotiate their lives so that little reading and writing are involved. In some cases, one or both of the parents learn that they also have dyslexia after attending school conferences where their child’s reading and spelling problems are explained. It is not uncommon to hear a parent say: “That’s just like me!” or “that’s just like my dad.” Some students do not receive any early intervention, and their difficulties with reading and writing continue into their secondary years. Figure 1.1 presents a writing sample from David, a ninth-­grade student, along with a translation that attempts to preserve the intent of his message as he accidentally omitted several words when writing the passage. His assignment was straightforward. During the first week of school, David’s English teacher had asked the students to write something about themselves that they would like for her to know. David wrote the following paragraph regarding the impact a disability has had on his spelling development. Although he knows that he is not stupid, he is reluctant to tell his girlfriend about his disability. PREVALENCE OF DYSLEXIA

Estimates of the prevalence of dyslexia vary and are influenced by how dyslexia is defined and identified. Earlier in the century, Betts (1936) estimated that between 8% and 15% of children have varying degrees of reading disability, with about 4% of the school population being diagnosed with word blindness, an earlier term that was used to describe severe dyslexia. Estimates by researchers suggest, however, that 5% to 10% of the school-­age population is the most accurate estimate of the prevalence of individuals who have dyslexia (e.g., DeFries et al., 1978; Muter & Snowling, 2009; Sireteanu et al., 2005; Wagner et al., 2020). Some estimates, however, are higher, ranging from 5% to 20%

6  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Figure 1.1  David’s Note for His Ninth-­Grade English Teacher Translation: Like me, I have a disability. I’ve had it since third grade. I’m often quitting because of my disability. For example, I know how hard it is. I can’t spell right. I’ve been trying for all my life. I know I’m afraid to write a note to my girlfriend. She doesn’t know that I have it, but I don’t know how to tell her because I don’t know how she is going to act. I don’t know why I am telling you, but I know that I’m not stupid.

CAUTION Although early intervention is critical for individuals with dyslexia, it is important to keep in mind that intervention can still be effective at any age.

of the school-­ age population having dyslexia (Shaywitz, 2003; S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). In addition, nearly 80% of children who are in special education diagnosed with learning disabilities are there because of reading problems. As with any disorder, the symptoms can range from mild to severe, and the impact of the disorder is influenced by the environment and appropriate early intervention and treatment.

DEFINITIONS OF DYSLEXIA

Even though researchers have been studying dyslexia for over 100 years, there is still not a strong consensus regarding a clear, useful definition (Tønnessen, 1997). Although numerous professional organizations around the world have attempted to develop a definition of dyslexia, no universally accepted definition exists. The International Dyslexia Association (IDA; formerly called the Orton Dyslexia Society) Research Committee, a group composed of investigators and representatives from advocacy groups, proposed the following definition of dyslexia in Rapid Reference 1.4. The IDA Professional Standards and Practices Committee has provided a set of standards to guide the preparation, certification, and professional development of reading teachers. Rapid Reference 1.5 presents the explanation provided of dyslexia within these practice standards. Several researchers have noted the need to update the IDA definition. For example, Brady (2019) proposed that in addition to phonological awareness, the definition should acknowledge “the widely multifactorial nature of cognitive profiles as well” (p. 18). In fact, Pennington et al. (2012) noted that adhering to only poor phonological awareness as a criterion for dyslexia would result in missing about one half of the cases. Rapid Reference  1.6 provides several examples of other definitions or explanations of what dyslexia is from around the world. Although the emphasis is on phonological processing in the IDA definition and explanation, other cognitive and linguistic risk factors

UNDERSTANDING DYSLEXIA  7

Rapid Reference 1.4 IDA Definition of Dyslexia Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge (adopted by the IDA Board, November 2002) (Lyon et al., 2003).

Rapid Reference 1.5 Explanation of Dyslexia in the IDA 2010 Professional Standards Dyslexia is a language-­based disorder of learning to read and write originating from a core or basic problem with phonological processing intrinsic to the individual. Its primary symptoms are inaccurate and/or slow printed word recognition and poor spelling—­problems that in turn affect reading fluency and comprehension and written expression. Other types of reading disabilities include specific difficulties with reading comprehension and/or speed of processing (reading fluency). These problems may exist in relative isolation or may overlap extensively in individuals with reading difficulties (Moats et al., 2010, p. 3).

Rapid Reference 1.6 Examples of Definitions and Descriptions of Dyslexia from Around the World National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Dyslexia is a brain-­based type of learning disability that specifically impairs a person’s ability to read. These individuals typically read at levels significantly lower than expected despite having normal intelligence. Although the disorder varies from person to person, common characteristics among people with dyslexia are difficulty with spelling, phonological processing (the manipulation of sounds), and/or rapid visual–verbal responding. In adults, dyslexia usually occurs after a brain injury or in the context of dementia. It can also be inherited in some families, and recent studies have identified a number of genes that may predispose an individual to developing dyslexia. Mayo Clinic Dyslexia is a learning disorder that involves difficulty reading due to problems identifying speech sounds and learning how they relate to letters and words (decoding). Also called a reading disability, dyslexia is a result of individual differences in areas of the brain that process language. Dyslexia is not due to problems with intelligence, hearing, or vision. Most children with dyslexia can succeed in school with tutoring or a specialized education program. Emotional support also plays an important role. Though there’s no cure for dyslexia, early assessment and intervention result in the best outcome. Sometimes dyslexia goes undiagnosed for years and isn’t recognized until adulthood, but it’s never too late to seek help. First Step Act of 2019 Dyslexia means an unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader, most commonly caused by a difficulty in the phonological processing (the appreciation of the individual sounds of spoken language), which affects the ability of an individual to speak, read, and spell (Cassidy, 2019). British Dyslexia Association (BDA) The BDA adopted the Rose (2009) definition of dyslexia: Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory, and verbal processing speed. Dyslexia occurs across the range of intellectual abilities. It is best thought of as a continuum, not a distinct category, and there are no clear cutoff points. Co-­occurring difficulties may be seen in aspects of language, motor coordination, mental calculation, concentration, and personal organization, but these are not, by themselves, markers of dyslexia. A good indication of the severity and persistence of dyslexic difficulties can be gained by examining how the individual responds or has responded to well-­founded intervention. (continued )

8  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Dyslexia Association of Ireland Definition was updated in April 2022. Dyslexia is a learning difference that can cause difficulties with learning and work. It affects approximately 1 in 10. It occurs on a spectrum with some people mildly affected and others more severely. With the right understanding, accommodations, and support, people with dyslexia can achieve success in education, the workplace, and in wider society. Everyone with dyslexia is different, but there is a commonality of difficulties with reading, spelling, and writing, and related cognitive/processing difficulties. Dyslexia is not a general difficulty with learning, it impacts specific skill areas. The impact of dyslexia can change according to the environment (i.e., what a dyslexic person is being asked to do and under what circumstances). While people with dyslexia may develop strengths due to their dyslexia such as determination, problem-­solving, and resilience, dyslexia does not automatically bring specific gifts or talents. The Dyslexia Association of Ireland recognizes and respects the individual variation that all human beings display, including those with dyslexia. European Dyslexia Association Dyslexia is used as a term for a disorder that is mainly characterized by severe difficulties in acquiring reading, spelling, and writing skills. Based on the experience of more than 10 years of intensive research, three different disorders, a reading disorder, a spelling disorder, and a combined reading and spelling disorder, were differentiated. Many people used dyslexia as a synonym for the combined disorder. The prevalence rate of each of the three disorders is about 3–4%. Dyslexia is neurobiological in origin, its genetic factors have been identified, and the environmental factors can determine its impact. The most widely accepted theory is that it is caused by difficulties in phonological processing: verbal working memory, rapid naming, and sequencing skills are also affected. Across Europe, the diversity of languages and the multilingual demands may pose particular challenges for dyslexic children and adults given their language learning difficulties. There is no relationship between a person’s level of intelligence, individual effort or socio-­ economic position, and the presence of dyslexia. The cognitive difficulties that cause dyslexia and different learning disorders can also affect other aspects of verbal learning including arithmetic. Difficulties in organizational skills and motor coordination are frequently observed, but these are not core to the condition. Spanish Federation of Dyslexia Dyslexia is the best known of learning disorders and affects around 10% of the population, and 4% severely. Specific learning difficulties are a family of related conditions with considerable overlap between them. Collectively, they are believed to affect around 15% of the population to a greater or lesser extent. Contrary to popular misconception, dyslexia is not just about literacy, although weaknesses in literacy are often the most visible signs. Dyslexia affects the way information is processed, stored, and retrieved, with problems with memory, processing speed, organization, and sequencing. Dyslexia Association of Singapore Dyslexia is a specific learning difference that makes it difficult for people to read, write, and/or spell. It has nothing to do with a person’s intelligence. Often, weaknesses may be seen in areas such as language development, memory, and sequencing. Having dyslexia does not mean that your child’s ability to learn is below average. Dyslexia is a lifelong condition that usually runs in families. You are unable to determine that someone has dyslexia just by looking at them, and some start out fine in school, but gradually schoolwork can become a struggle for them, especially the transition from preschool to primary, then primary to secondary, or secondary to tertiary. Australian Dyslexia Association Dyslexia is best understood as a persistent difficulty with reading and spelling. Classroom and support teachers can be trained in effective teaching practices which will not only help the student with dyslexia learn but all students can benefit by direct, explicit, and systematic multisensory instruction. Understanding and meeting the needs of dyslexia and related reading difficulties demand thorough teaching methodologies in reading and spelling. An understanding of the development and acquisition of oral language and written language (reading, spelling, and writing) is required and many general classroom teachers would benefit from specialized language training. Maharashtra Dyslexia Association (Mumbai) Dyslexia literally means “difficulty with words” (from the Greek “dys” meaning problem and “lexis” meaning words or language). It is a specific learning difficulty which affects a person’s ability to read, spell, and understand language that he/she hears, or express himself/ herself clearly while speaking or in writing. Dyslexia is not a disease; it has no cure. Dyslexia is caused by abnormalities in the way information is processed in a brain which is often gifted and productive in many other areas. Dyslexia is not the result of low intelligence. People with dyslexia are unique, each having individual strengths and weaknesses. Many individuals with dyslexia are creative and have unusual talents in areas such as arts/graphics, sports, architecture, electronics/computing, drama, music, and mechanics/engineering. They often display special talents in areas that require high levels of visual, spatial, and motor integration. Their problems in language-­processing distinguish them as a group. This means that the person with dyslexia has problems translating language to thought (as in listening or reading) or thought to language (as in writing or speaking). Dyslexia Association of Hong Kong Dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty related to mastering and using written language. Dyslexic learners typically have difficulties in reading, writing, and spelling. Dyslexia may be caused by a combination of phonological, visual, and auditory processing deficits. It is often unexpected when compared with a child’s general ability and is not due to lack of intelligence or lack of opportunity to learn.

UNDERSTANDING DYSLEXIA  9

Health Council of the Netherlands—­Working Definition Dyslexia is present when the automatization of word identification (reading) and/or word spelling does not develop or does so very incompletely or with great difficulty. The term “automatization” refers to the establishment of an automatic process. A process of this kind is characterized by a high level of speed and accuracy. It is carried out unconsciously, makes minimal demands on attention, and is difficult to suppress, ignore, or influence. The working definition used means that dyslexia is characterized in practice by a severe retardation in reading and spelling which is persistent and resists the usual teaching methods and remedial efforts. Upon examination, it will be accompanied by very slow and/or inaccurate and easily disturbed word identification and/or word spelling. The committee has operationalized these characteristics further. This working definition allows for various causes and explanatory hypotheses, with both univariate and multivariate causes and for both single (dyslexia alone) and complex presentation forms. In all cases, a partial and sometimes principal role is played by a person-­bound factor. The committee believes that dyslexia can be seen as a disability (or an impairment) in the sense of the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH). Kuwait Dyslexia Association People with dyslexia have difficulty matching the letters they see on a page with the sounds those letters and letter combinations make. And when they have trouble with this step, all the other steps are more difficult. Children and adults with dyslexia struggle to read fluently, spell words correctly, and learn a second language, among other challenges. But these difficulties have nothing to do with its general information. In fact, dyslexia is an unexpected difficulty with reading in an individual who has the intelligence to be a much better reader. While people with dyslexia are slow readers, they are often, paradoxically, fast and very creative thinkers with strong reasoning abilities. Dyslexia is also very common; it affects 20% of the population and represents 80–90% of all people with learning disabilities. Scientific research shows differences in brain connectivity between children who struggle with reading and typical readers, providing a neural basis for why reading fluency is such a struggle for those with dyslexia.

are mentioned as well in other definitions (e.g., dyslexia associations from Britain and Ireland). Some of the terminology (e.g., phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming) may not be familiar to all readers at this point, but these terms are explained and discussed in more detail in later chapters and are also defined in the Glossary. Many of these definitions and descriptions of dyslexia contain similar components. Most describe dyslexia as a learning disability or neurological disorder that affects the development of word reading, reading rate, and spelling. Several of these definitions attempt to describe the two key symptoms of dyslexia: (1) poor reading and spelling ability that is unexpected in relationship to other abilities, and (2) a lack of automaticity and ease with reading and spelling words. Although problems in comprehension often result from poor decoding, dyslexia is not primarily a problem in reading comprehension. Several of the definitions attempt to specify contributing factors or CAUTION correlates of dyslexia, such as poor phonological awareness or slow In addition to describing the weaknesses in reading and rapid automatized naming, whereas a few describe a limited response spelling, current definitions of dyslexia should reflect the fact to treatment as a symptom. The definitions also vary regarding the that multiple linguistic risk factors, not just poor phonologiconcepts of unexpectedness, necessary levels of intelligence, existence cal awareness, have been associated with word-­level reading of special talents, and prevalence. We address these issues in the later problems (Brady, 2019; Pennington et al., 2019). chapters of this book. MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT DYSLEXIA

It is likely that the variations in definitions of dyslexia, as well as the use and misuse of the term, contribute to many of the existing misconceptions. One common misconception is that people with dyslexia cannot read at all. As with most disorders, dyslexia occurs on a continuum, and the severity level is a matter of degree—­from mild to severe. Most individuals with dyslexia can learn to read, but typically continue to have impairments in reading rate and fluency, as well as relatively poor spelling. It is critically important that educators, parents, and the individuals with dyslexia be aware of the common misconceptions about dyslexia so that they can understand the true nature of the disorder. Several of these misconceptions are presented in Rapid Reference 1.7 accompanied by a factual counterpoint. CONCLUSION

Although a universal definition of dyslexia has yet to be developed, researchers and scientists from around the world have reached an increasing consensus regarding the characteristics and symptoms of this disorder, as well as how dyslexia affects reading and spelling development. Despite the fact that dyslexia is a lifelong condition and certain accommodations may always be needed in educational and vocational settings, the prognosis is good for individuals who receive intensive, systematic reading and spelling interventions.

10  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 1.7 Common Misconceptions about Dyslexia • People with dyslexia cannot read. Most do learn to read at some level, although their reading rate is often slow. • Individuals with high intellectual ability cannot have dyslexia. Dyslexia can affect an individual of any level of intelligence. • Dyslexia is seeing things backwards. Dyslexia is much more complex than seeing letters and numbers backwards. • Dyslexia is a rare disorder. Dyslexia is common; approximately 5% to 8% of the population has mild to severe dyslexia. • Dyslexia cannot be diagnosed until at least third grade. At-­risk symptoms for dyslexia may be identified in children as young as 5 years of age. • Children will outgrow dyslexia. Dyslexia is a lifelong disorder, but intervention can reduce the impact. • More boys than girls have dyslexia. Present estimates indicate that the prevalence rate for boys is only slightly higher than for girls. • All struggling readers have dyslexia. Many other reasons than dyslexia may cause reading problems such as low intellectual ability, poor oral language, attentional problems, poor instruction, and lack of opportunity. • Young children who reverse letters (e.g., b for d) have dyslexia. Beginning writers often reverse letters, but most will master the formation of these letters with practice. In addition, while persistent letter reversals are often associated with dyslexia, not all individuals with dyslexia reverse letters. • The type of instruction employed can cause dyslexia. Whereas the quality of instruction makes a difference in how readily a child learns to read, the use of a certain reading approach does not cause dyslexia. Dyslexia is a neurobiological disorder that is not caused by ineffective instruction, but ineffective instruction affects progress in reading development.

Unless a parent or teacher has personally experienced the pain and academic stress caused by dyslexia, it is hard to understand the impact of this disorder on self-­esteem and school and vocational performance (Voeller, 2004). It is critical that both parents and educational professionals understand the plight of the child with dyslexia. Over a century ago, Hinshelwood (1917) observed: “It is a matter of the highest importance to recognise the cause and the true nature of this difficulty in learning to read which is experienced by these children, otherwise they may be harshly treated as imbeciles or incorrigibles, and either neglected or punished for a defect for which they are in no wise responsible. The recognition of the true character of the difficulty will lead the parents and teachers of these children to deal with them in the proper way, not by harsh and severe treatment, but by attempting to overcome the difficulty by patient and persistent training” (pp. 42–43). The purpose of this book is to increase understanding of dyslexia, both the causes and treatments. In the following chapters, we discuss historic influences; the role of the brain and genetics and the relationship of dyslexia to other disorders; the cognitive, linguistic, and literacy factors that should be part of an assessment for dyslexia; and descriptions of the most effective treatment approaches for reading and spelling, including advances in technology, dyslexia in English learners, and dyslexia in the schools. Appendix A provides examples of the tests that may be part of an assessment for dyslexia. Appendix B describes a variety of evidence-­based reading and spelling programs for intervention. Appendix C, by Dr. Elaine Cheesman, lists numerous apps and websites to support reading and writing instruction. The “Glossary” defines many of the terms that are used in this book.

UNDERSTANDING DYSLEXIA  11

  TEST YOURSELF 1. The terms dyslexia and specific reading disability are used to describe a neurodevelopmental disorder that primarily affects the development of:

a. b. c. d. e. f.

decoding (word reading). reading comprehension. encoding (spelling). written expression. all of the above. primarily a and c.

2. Although many definitions of dyslexia have been proposed, a universally accepted definition does not exist.True or false? 3. The focus of the most recent definition of dyslexia by IDA (2002) indicates that dyslexia usually results from a deficit in:

a. b. c. d.

attention. phonological awareness. rapid automatized naming. all of the above.

4. The concept of unexpected underachievement suggests that the person’s:

a. b. c. d.

academic areas are all high or low. other abilities are lower than predicted by the individual’s reading. other abilities are often higher than the individual’s reading skills. reading skills are lower than expected for the individual’s age or grade.

5. Some individuals are not diagnosed with dyslexia until reading demands become unmanageable.True or false? 6. Individuals with dyslexia can have any level of intelligence.True or false? 7. Gough and Tunmer’s (1986) Simple View of Reading suggests that reading comprehension (RC) is the product of:

a. b. c. d.

decoding × linguistic or listening comprehension (D × LC). decoding × reading comprehension (D × RC). phonological awareness × decoding (PA × D). listening comprehension × reading comprehension (LC × RC).

8. The effects of dyslexia can be reduced by:

a. b. c. d. e.

time—­children will outgrow it. systematic reading instruction. nothing—­it cannot be cured. early identification. both b and d.

9. Although prevalence ranges vary, about what percent of the school-­ age population is estimated by researchers to have dyslexia?

a. b. c. d.

Less than 1%. More than 25%. Between 5% and 10%. Over 40%.

10. Nearly all individuals who struggle with reading have dyslexia.True or false? Answers: 1. f; 2. True; 3. b; 4. c; 5. True; 6. True; 7. a; 8. e; 9. c; 10. False.

Chapter Two A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA

Every child would read if it were in his power to do so.

—­Dr. Emmett Betts, 1936, p. 5

INTRODUCTION

As noted by Betts in 1936, all children want to learn to read; for some children, however, learning to read is a daunting task that requires years of carefully crafted interventions. For well over a century, physicians and educators have attempted to understand why reading is so difficult for some individuals, and most importantly, what can be done to resolve these difficulties. Dyslexia is often described as the most common learning disability. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in the school year 2020–2021, ­specific learning disabilities comprised the largest reported percentage of students with disabilities, constituting 33% of all students who received special education services (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). Although some people think that “learning disability” is a relatively new disability category, the conceptual foundations of learning disability are nearly as long-­standing as many of the other disability categories, and its roots can be traced back to at least the early 1800s (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Wiederholt, 1974). In fact, the systematic investigation of learning disabilities began around 1800 with Gall’s examination of adults who had lost the ­capacity to speak (Hammill, 1993). Interestingly, many of the conclusions that were drawn in the late 1800s regarding the existence and persistence of this disorder are still relevant today. Initially, dyslexia was considered to be one of the aphasias, which included loss to some aspects of language, including reading and writing. It was first referred to as word blindness, a label selected to describe individuals who were not physically blind but seemed to have limited ability to recall the visual images of words necessary for reading and spelling. The individual could physically see the letters and words, but could not pronounce the words or interpret their meanings when reading. Over the next few decades of the 1920s and 1930s, the term word blindness would be replaced by dyslexia, developmental dyslexia, or specific reading disability. In the mid 1900s, descriptions of the brain-­injured child (Strauss & Lehtinen, 1947) and minimal brain dysfunction appeared (Clements & Peters, 1962) which included the characteristics of poor reading and spelling (B. A. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). In this chapter, we begin with a brief review of the earliest descriptions of dyslexia, and then we highlight the particular contributions of several of the early pioneers, including Dr. James Hinshelwood, Dr. Grace Fernald, Dr. Samuel Orton, Dr. Norman Geschwind, Dr. Albert Galaburda, Dr. Marion Monroe, Dr. Samuel Kirk, Dr. Helmer Myklebust, and Dr. Doris Johnson. Figure 2.1 presents a timeline of these contributions. EARLY CASE STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS BY PHYSICIANS

The first case studies of individuals who had lost the power to read—­usually because of a stroke or traumatic brain injury—­were adults. These patients were described by physicians from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States who attempted to identify the characteristics, etiology, and methods that would be most effective for treating these reading disorders (Anderson & Meier-­Hedde, 2001). Word blindness was described as being either acquired or congenital. Acquired word blindness resulted from trauma after the person had already learned to read, whereas congenital word blindness was present before the person had learned to read, that is, from birth (Pickle, 1998). EXAMPLES OF THE EARLIEST REPORTS

In 1872, Sir William Broadbent described the cortical damage present in an autopsy of an individual who had speech disturbances and reading disabilities. Five years later, Kussmaul, a German neurologist, described an adult patient with severe reading disabilities and noted that “. . . a complete text blindness may exist although the power of sight, the intellect, and the powers of speech are intact” (1877a, p.  595). Thus, the term word blindness was first applied to individuals with aphasia who had lost the ability to read Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 13

14  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Cortical damage noted in autopsy of individual with speech and reading difficulties (Broadbent)

1872

“Complete text blindness” observed in patient with severe reading difficulties (Kussmaul)

1877

Acquired word blindness described in article (Hinshelwood)

1895

1896

Visual memory of letters and words implicated in congenital word blindness case (Hinshelwood)

Concepts of “word blindness” and “word deafness” introduced (Kussmaul)

“Dyslexia”used in monograph about patients with reading difficulties (Berlin)

Two accounts published about cases of congenital word blindness (Kerr and Morgan)

1902

Multisensory (tactile-kinesthetic) method developed to teach nonreaders (Fernald and Keller)

1917

First report on word blindness appears in American medical literature (Orton)

1925

Gillingham and Stillman develop a multisensory method based on Orton’s principles

1932

Monograph “Congenital Word Blindness” published (Hinshelwood)

1921 Visual difficulties with reading and spelling described as strephosymbolia or “twisted symbols” (Orton)

Questioned validity of IQ scores for individuals with dyslexia (Orton)

Children Who Cannot Read is published and describes a synthetic phonics approach (Monroe)

Expectancy formula to help identify reading disabilities is developed (Monroe)

1935 Proper diagnosis leads to successful remediation (Monroe)

1936

1937

Book on multisensory Fernald method is published: Remedial Techniques in Basic School Subjects (Fernald)

1943

ITPA published, the term learning disabilities is introduced (Kirk)

1968

1967

1989

Remedial reading drills developed (Kirk)

Only left hemisphere of brain involved in language processes (Orton)

Connection between oral language and reading problems clarified (Johnson and Myklebust) Area in left hemisphere (left planum temporale) identified as unusually large in individuals with dyslexia (Geschwind)

Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices is published. Describes two types of dyslexia: visual and auditory (Johnson and Myklebust)

Area in right hemisphere (right planum temporale) identified as unusually large in individuals with dyslexia (Galaburda)

Figure 2.1  Timeline of Contributions by Highlighted Early Pioneers

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA  15

(Kussmaul,  1877b). By emphasizing the specificity of the reading disability, Kussmaul gave birth to the idea of dyslexia or specific reading disability (Hallahan & Mercer,  2002). Kussmaul (1877c) also Acquired word blindness resulted from some type of trauma introduced the term word deafness to describe individuals whose to the brain, whereas congenital word blindness was present hearing was perfect, but who had trouble understanding words that from birth. were heard. Kussmaul (1877c) believed that some of the cases that had been recorded as aphasia could be more aptly described as word blindness or word deafness as the patients were still able to express their thoughts in speaking or writing (p. 770). Although some online sources, such as Wikipedia, note that dyslexia was first described by Oswald Berkhan in 1885, it appears that the first physician to actually write using the term dyslexia was Rudolph Berlin, a German ophthalmologist, who used the word to describe reading problems that were a result of cerebral disease (Richardson, 1992; Wagner, 1973). Berlin described several of his patients who had difficulty reading printed words and complained of headaches when reading. In postmortem dissections of six cases, Berlin found anatomical lesions in the cerebral left hemisphere (Wagner, 1973). In 1884, Berlin wrote a monograph on dyslexia that described this condition as belonging to a group of aphasias and being related to Kussmaul’s word blindness, although not as severe and with a higher prevalence rate. Although the term dyslexia had been introduced, the term word blindness was used more frequently during this time period. In 1896, two more accounts of congenital word blindness were published. James Kerr, a health officer, wrote the first account in which he described a boy of average intelligence who suffered from word blindness despite being able to spell the separate letters (cited in Critchley, 1964). W. Pringle Morgan (1896) wrote the second article that described the characteristics of an intelligent 14-­year-­old boy (Percy) with “congenital word blindness” who excelled in arithmetic but could not read. In other words, Percy had a measurable gap between his capacity to read and his other attributes (Kirby et al., 2020). Morgan provided the following description:

DON’T FORGET

His greatest difficulty has been—­and is now—­his inability to learn to read. This inability is so remarkable, and so pronounced, that I have no doubt it is due to some congenital defect . . . The following is the result of an examination I made a short time since. He knows all his letters and can write them and read them. In writing from dictation, he comes to grief over any but the simplest words. For instance, I dictated the following sentence: “Now, you watch me while I spin it.” He wrote, “Now you word me wale I spin it,” and again, “Carefully winding the string round the peg” was written “culfuly winder the sturng rond the pag.” In writing his own name, he made a mistake, putting “Precy” for “Percy,” and he did not notice the mistake until his attention was called to it more than once . . . I then asked him to read me a sentence out of an easy child’s book without spelling the words. The result was curious. He did not read a single word correctly, with the exception of “and,” “the,” “of,” “that,” etc.; the other words seemed to be quite unknown to him, and he could not even make an attempt to pronounce them . . . He seems to have no power of preserving and storing up the visual impression produced by words—­hence the words, though seen, have no significance for him. His visual memory for words is defective or absent, which is equivalent to saying that he is what Kussmaul has termed “word blind.” I may add that the boy is bright and of average intelligence in conversation . . . his eyesight is good. The schoolmaster who has taught him for some years says that he would be the smartest lad in the school if the instruction were entirely oral (1896, p. 94). Both W. Pringle Morgan and James Hinshelwood extended the work on acquired word blindness in adults to congenital word blindness in children (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002). DR. JAMES HINSHELWOOD

In early 1900s, James Hinshelwood, an ophthalmologist and surgeon at the Glasgow Eye Infirmary, wrote several articles that described word blindness. In one, he provided a detailed description of a case of congenital word blindness where the reading problem was attributed to a defect in the visual memory of letters and words (Hinshelwood, 1902a). A 10-­year-­old boy with adequate visual acuity could not learn words by sight but instead spelled out the words letter by letter. Hinshelwood observed that since this boy had trouble learning to read by sight alone, he would benefit from a multisensory teaching method. In addition, Hinshelwood also described four adults with acquired word blindness (Hinshelwood, 1902b). He noted that the diagnosis of word blindness is easy to make because the features of the disorder are as clear-­cut as any diagnosis in medicine. Over a century later, Shaywitz (2003) concurred that the diagnosis of dyslexia is as precise and accurate as any known medical condition. In 1917, Hinshelwood reviewed the articles that were written by Kerr and Morgan in his seminal monograph entitled Congenital Word-­Blindness. Within this monograph, Hinshelwood attempted to clarify a distinction between word blindness and more generalized developmental delays by summarizing:

16  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 2.1 Hinshelwood’s Conclusions Regarding Word Blindness Particular areas of the brain are involved. The children often have average or above intelligence and good memory in other respects. The problem with reading is localized, not generalized to all areas of performance. The children do not learn to read with the same ease as other children. The children require individualized instruction. The earlier the problem is identified, the better—­so as not to waste valuable time. The children must be taught by special methods to help them overcome their difficulties. The sense of touch helps children retain the visual impressions of letters and words. Persistent and persevering attempts will help these children improve their reading.

When I see it stated that congenital word-­blindness may be combined with any amount of other mental defects from mere dullness to low-­grade mental defects, imbecility, or idiocy, I can understand how confusion has arisen from the loose application of the term congenital word-­blindness to all conditions in which there is defective development of the visual memory center, quite independently of any consideration as to whether it is a strict local defect or only a symptom of a general cerebral degeneration. It is a great injustice to the children affected with the pure type of congenital word-­blindness, a strict local affection [sic], to be placed in the same category as others suffering from generalized cerebral defects, as the former can be successfully dealt with, while the latter are practically irremediable (1917, pp. 93–94). Because Hinshelwood believed that word blindness was caused by a defect in the part of the brain that stored the visual images of words, he speculated that the cause of the problem could be found in the angular and supramarginal gyri of the left or dominant side of the brain, specifically the left angular gyrus. Hinshelwood concluded that the deficit was confined to the visual memory center in an otherwise normal and healthy brain (Hinshelwood, 1917). He also attempted to develop specific procedures for teaching children with word blindness. He believed that “. . . the child must have personal instruction and be taught alone” (p. 99). Rapid Reference 2.1 provides a summary of Hinshelwood’s major conclusions, many of which are still relevant today. Although Hinshelwood noted that many of his cases were highly intelligent, with the advent of intelligence tests, Samuel Orton was able to provide a certain degree of objectivity to support this notion (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002). DR. SAMUEL ORTON

Dr. Samuel Orton, a psychiatrist and neuropathologist, is credited with the first report on word blindness that appeared in the American medical literature. Orton agreed with Hinshelwood that word blindness: (a) was not related to intellectual impairments, (b) ranged from mild to severe, and (c) was caused by differences within the brain. Orton surmised that the left hemisphere was the only side of the brain that was involved in language processes and described the right side of the brain “. . . as either useless or unused” (Orton, 1937, Orton was the first to suggest that word blindness may be p. 13). Of course, we now know that this is not the case. Orton also due to brain differences rather than brain damage. questioned the validity of intelligence test scores for children with word blindness. Because these tests often measured aspects of the disability, Orton (1925) surmised that “. . . it seems probable that psychometric tests as ordinarily employed give an entirely erroneous and unfair estimate of the intellectual capacity of these children” (p. 582). One specific characteristic that Orton observed in the children he studied was the poor recall of both the orientation and sequencing or ordering of the letters when reading and spelling. To describe this phenomenon, Orton coined the term strephosymbolia, which means “twisted symbols” (J. Orton, 1966; Orton, 1925, 1937). Orton hypothesized that the reversal errors that were common in children with reading disabilities could be attributed to a lack of cerebral dominance in the left hemisphere. Essentially, he speculated that the images recorded in the dominant left hemisphere of the brain (e.g., on) were stored as mirror images in the nondominant right hemisphere (e.g., no). For individuals with dominant left hemispheres, this mirror image would be suppressed, but for children with mixed dominance, the image would not be suppressed and would, therefore, contribute to the reversals of letters and transpositions of

DON’T FORGET

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA  17

words (e.g., was for saw). Although the theory regarding mixed ­cerebral dominance as Orton described it is unsupported today, some CAUTION evidence suggests that children with dyslexia do, in fact, activate some Early case studies and theories of dyslexia focused on how right hemisphere portions of the brain to compensate for deficiencies letters and words were visually processed, which led to the in the left hemisphere. Specifically, as children with dyslexia learn to pervasive fallacy that individuals with dyslexia see letters and read, they fail to make good sound–symbol associations in the left words backwards (Odegard, 2019). hemisphere of the brain; therefore, they rely on memorization of words, a function that takes place in the right hemisphere (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Regardless of the inaccuracy of his theory, Orton had an enduring impact on the development and use of interventions through his observation that systematic phonics instruction is essential for students with dyslexia. Orton (1925) addressed the type of remedial instruction that would be most beneficial for these children, stating: “. . . the logical training for these children would be that of extremely thorough repetitive drill on the fundamentals of phonic associations with letter forms, both visually presented and produced in writing, until the correct associations were built up and the permanent elision of the reversed images and reversals in direction were assured. The flash method would seem from this point of view not only to be inadequate to correct early mistakes in orientation, but also to put these children under an unnecessary and unjust handicap, at least until they had acquired the fundamentals in readily available form. The child has no opportunity to puzzle out whether a symbol means p or q by the flash method, and many such errors might well be perpetuated” (p. 614). Orton also developed an educational approach for teaching children with reading disabilities. Between 1932 and 1936, he directed the Language Research Project of the Neurological Institute of New York. One of his associates was Anna Gillingham, a psychologist, who with the assistance of Bessie Stillman, an educator, organized Orton’s principles into a remedial, multisensory approach to alphabetic phonics that was designed to teach the English language structure, including phonemes, morphemes, and spelling rules. This became known as the Orton–Gillingham approach when June Orton, in 1966, used the term in a book chapter. Today, the Orton– Gillingham approach is the basis for many of the current remedial reading approaches, including the Wilson Reading System®. Orton was also one of the first pioneers to recognize the importance of sound blending to the application of phonics. He observed: “It is this process of synthesizing the word as a spoken unit from its component sounds that often makes much more difficulty for the strephosymbolic child than do the static reversals and letter confusions” (Orton, 1937, p. 162). He also believed that tracing could help build up the associations between letters and sounds and eliminate the tendency of children to reverse and transpose letter sequences when reading and spelling. Thus, the alphabetic methodology that Orton and Gillingham developed is referred to as multisensory in nature; it is a visual–auditory–kinesthetic–tactile (VAKT) approach, as many senses are employed when teaching the structure of written English. Emphasis is placed on how a letter looks, sounds, and feels (J. Orton, 1966). Within this approach, the teacher provides training in both reading and spelling. The teacher shows a letter, the child produces the sound, the teacher says the sound, and the child names and writes the letter. Today, these approaches are referred to under the umbrella term of Structured Literacy™ coined by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA, 2019). IDA explained that this term refers to approaches that focus on important literacy skills and concepts and are explicit, systematic, and sequential to ensure student success. The term refers to both the content and principles of instruction. Rapid Reference 2.2 summarizes the major principles underlying the Orton–Gillingham methodology. Rapid Reference 2.3 summaOrton (1925) indicated that a sight word (or look–say) rizes the step-­ by-­ step progression that is recommended in the approach to reading would not be beneficial for children Orton–Gillingham approach. Nearly a century later, the need for with dyslexia. Instead, these children required a multisensory, this type of intensive, systematic approach continues to be noted structured phonics approach. (Duff & Clarke, 2010; Moats, 2019; National Reading Panel, 2000;

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 2.2 Major Principles Underlying the Orton–Gillingham Approach It is adapted to meet individual needs It provides carefully structured and sequenced instruction in both reading and spelling It focuses on establishing connections between sounds and letters, and how to blend the sounds together to form a whole word It provides instruction in how to organize individual letters and sounds into larger units It emphasizes the use of multisensory procedures

18  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 2.3 Orton–Gillingham Approach (J. Orton, 1966) 1. The child is shown a letter and repeats its name after the teacher. 2. The teacher demonstrates how to form the letter, and the child traces over the model. The child then copies the letter, and then writes the letter from memory. 3. Each phonic unit is presented on individual cards with consonant letters on white cards and vowel letters on salmon-­colored cards. The sound is introduced with a key word. The student repeats the key word before providing the sound. 4. The letter sounds are taught in groups as rapidly as they can be learned. The first letters introduced with their corresponding sounds are a (short sound as in cat), b, f, h, j, k, m, p, and t. 5. After the names and sounds are learned, blending is introduced. A consonant, vowel, and consonant are presented, and the child provides the sounds rapidly until the whole word is produced. 6. The teacher pronounces a word slowly and separates the sounds. The teacher then asks the child to repeat the word, name the letters, write the word while naming each letter, and then read back the word. 7. Once mastery is assured, additional letters and corresponding sounds are introduced. The manual provides the following sequence of letter introduction: g (as in get), o, initial r and l, n, th (as in this), u, ch, e, s, sh, d, w, wh, y, v, and z. 8. Consonant blends are introduced, and then the following letters and blends with their corresponding sounds are presented: qu, x, y, ph, and s (as /z/). 9. The long sounds of all vowels are introduced in addition to the vowel consonant –e spelling pattern (e.g., a-­e , safe). 10. The student reads material with a controlled vocabulary (decodable text) to practice this alphabetic approach to words.

Odegard, 2020; S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Understanding the fundamental principles of Orton–Gillingham methodology can help educators understand foundational elements of literacy instrucIndividuals with dyslexia most often require Structured Littion and deepen their understanding of the structure of language eracy™ approaches to learn to read and spell. (Sayeski et al., 2019). The importance of Orton’s many contributions to the understanding and treatment of dyslexia was recognized by the establishment of the Orton Dyslexia Society in 1949, which, in 1997, became known as the International Dyslexia Association.

DON’T FORGET

DR. NORMAN GESCHWIND AND DR. ALBERT GALABURDA

Although many pioneers in the field of dyslexia had suggested an anatomical basis for reading disorders, Geschwind began an extensive study of brain anatomy to pinpoint the specific parts of the brain that caused these difficulties. In 1968, along with his research team, Geschwind was finally able to demonstrate conclusively that an area of the left planum temporale, a triangular area in the left hemisphere responsible for auditory processing, was unusually larger in individuals with dyslexia (Geschwind & Levitsky,  1968). His findings supported the brain lateralization hypothesis proposed by Orton, but During initial studies of brain anatomy in individuals with further localized brain abnormalities to major areas associated with dyslexia, neurologists found abnormalities in the left planum temporale, a specific area in the left hemisphere responsible reading. Thus, unlike Orton, who proposed that dyslexia occurred as for auditory processing. a result of interference of the right hemisphere in reading tasks, Geschwind suggested that dyslexia occurred because a specific area of the left hemisphere needed for reading was abnormal. In the 1980s, Galaburda continued the investigation of Geschwind’s original hypothesis related to planum temporale abnormalities that caused distortions in reading. However, his investigations, unlike Geschwind’s, revealed right planum temporale abnormalities that resulted in a more symmetric pattern of the left and right hemispheres of individuals with dyslexia (Galaburda, 1989). Today, neurologists continue to search for anatomical markers for dyslexia that follow Geschwind’s and Galaburda’s original hypotheses (e.g., Leonard & Eckert, 2008; Rumsey et al., 1997). In particular, Leonard and Eckert (2008) proposed that an asymmetrical brain with a leftward planar asymmetry is considered normal and is expected to result in accurate and efficient reading and writing. In other words, in normal brains, the left hemisphere is larger than the right hemisphere. On the other hand, individuals with exaggerated leftward planar asymmetry (larger than normal) are likely

DON’T FORGET

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA  19

Right Planum Temporale

Left Planum Temporale

(a) Typical brain profile

(b) Brain profile of individuals with dyslexia

Profiles of individuals with dyslexia (b) Asymmetrical profile based on enlarged left planum temporale Symmetrical profile based on enlarged right planum temporale Exaggerated leftward asymmetry from enlarged left planum temporale

Figure 2.2  Differences in Plana Temporale This figure illustrates the theory derived from Geschwind and Galaburda’s planum temporale abnormalities. Three dissimilar planum temporale profiles are possible. Leftward asymmetry as shown in panel (a) is expected and considered to be the norm. Symmetry is seen in some individuals with dyslexia (gray), which is expected to result in multiple language deficiencies. (b) Exaggerated leftward asymmetry (dotted) is found in other individuals with dyslexia and often results in deficiencies in phonological awareness.

to show decreased phonological decoding abilities. Finally, children with relative structural symmetry, resulting from enlarged right planum temporale, demonstrate multiple language deficits. Figure 2.2 provides a visual representation of the possible profiles resulting from symmetry and asymmetry. Geschwind and Galaburda began the neurological investigation of dyslexia, but today, technology provides more insight into the neurological markers of dyslexia. Chapter 3 provides more information on our knowledge today of the brain and dyslexia. PSYCHOLOGISTS AND EDUCATORS EXPLORING DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT

Although medical doctors were the first to identify and address dyslexia, various psychologists and educators also made significant contributions to our understanding of dyslexia in the 1920s through the 1960s. Many of these psychologists were somehow connected to or influenced by Orton’s work. DR. MARION MONROE

Dr. Marion Monroe, a research psychologist who served as Orton’s associate in Iowa, continued development of his diagnostic procedures and remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In her classic book, Children Who Cannot Read (Monroe, 1932), she described a synthetic phonics approach where the teacher provides instruction in consonants and vowels and then shows the child how to blend the sounds together to pronounce words. Synthetic phonics approaches start with single sounds and letters to show the child how to blend sounds together to pronounce simple words (blending) and how to break the sounds apart (segmentation) to spell those words. In Synthetic phonics approaches start with single sounds and the 1930s, Monroe described (a) the characteristics of poor readers, letters that are then blended into whole words. (b) the appropriate remedial methods, and (c) the use of an expectancy formula for predicting the level of reading skill. Characteristics of poor readers. Similar to the findings of Orton, Monroe and Backus (1937) noted that children with poor reading tended to show the following characteristics: (a) excessive reversals, (b) line and word skipping, (c) slow reading rate, (d) errors on words with similar spelling configurations (e.g., bread and beard), and (e) complaints of eyestrain when reading. Monroe and Backus also described another group of children with word deafness. Although children with this condition had adequate hearing, they had difficulties recalling the auditory patterns of spoken words and lacked proper discrimination of speech sounds. They noted that these children exhibited some of the following characteristics when reading: (a) errors in vowel and consonant sounds, (b) additions and

DON’T FORGET

20  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 2.4 Types of Oral Reading Errors Described by Monroe Faulty vowels (e.g., bag as big). Faulty consonants (e.g., sent as send). Reversals of letters (e.g., b and d) or the sequence of letters (e.g., was and saw). Addition of sounds (e.g., tack read as track). Omission of sounds (e.g., blind read as bind). Substitutions of words (e.g., house read as home). Repetitions of words and phrases. Addition of words. Omission of words. Aided words (supplied by another).

omissions of sounds, (c) confusion of words that sound alike, and (d) poor understanding of oral directions. Monroe drew attention to the importance of analyzing a child’s reading errors prior to developing an instructional plan. Rapid Reference 2.4 provides a list of the types of oral reading errors she described (1932, 1935). Remedial methods. Monroe (1932) also observed that the remedial methods used for children with reading disabilities differ from those that are used with the majority of children. She noted: “The problem of remedial instruction in reading is to find a possible method of learning for those children who have not been able to learn by methods adapted to the group. The methods found helpful for reading-­defect cases may not be necessary or advisable in ordinary CAUTION instruction” (p. 113). In addition, the remedial work was modified Unfortunately, many children with dyslexia today are still to meet the needs of each individual. In applying remedial techbeing given books to read that are far beyond their present niques, Monroe and Backus (1937) observed: “. . . each child received reading levels. Developing readers must be provided with apcareful individual diagnostic study and each remedial teacher propriate books that are matched to their instructional level attempted first to understand the child and then to adapt instruction of reading skill. to his needs” (p. 112). Monroe also noted that the careful selection of books and reading materials was an important part of the remedial program; the selected materials should be at each child’s level of reading achievement, not at his or her grade level. Monroe and Backus (1937) observed that reading disabilities were often “. . . aggravated by inappropriate reading material” (p. 29). Classroom teachers often had reading books for only one grade level, so teachers could not adjust the reading difficulty level to address individual needs. Monroe (1935) found that with proper diagnosis, the remedial work was usually highly successful. The foundation of this remedial success includes “. . . careful observation of the pupil, with thorough diagnostic analysis, careful tabulation and study of his errors, and ingenuity in applying specific treatment” (p. 228). The teacher was then to design exercises to correct the specific difficulties and errors (Monroe & Backus,  1937). The remedial work should continue until the child’s reading was in Case studies from history remind us that children with the line with the student’s other capacities. Not all children, however, most severe reading disabilities require intensive, systematic made adequate progress. Although the remedial work was effecinstruction to learn to read. tive in 95% of the cases, Monroe and Backus (1937) found that: “The remedial work was unsuccessful in about 4 or 5 percent of the cases, in that this percentage of cases did not show improved scores on the retests” (p.  151). These children with the most severe reading disabilities would require increased individualized As noted by Monroe, the reading methods used for remedial services from a highly trained reading specialist. Rapid instruction are not necessary for children who learn to read Reference 2.5 summarizes Monroe’s findings regarding the rate of with ease. student progress under remedial instruction.

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA  21

Rapid Reference 2.5 Monroe’s Findings Regarding the Factors Affecting the Rate of Student Progress under Remedial Instruction The child’s level of intelligence How early the problem was identified Number of hours spent in training Number of months during which training was continued The severity of the reading disability The extent of personality and behavior difficulties The closeness of supervision of the remedial techniques The experience of the teacher in providing remedial instruction

The use of an expectancy formula. Monroe (1932) can also be credited with the first attempts to create an expectancy formula to help identify a reading disability. The purpose of this type of discrepThe conceptual origins of the ability–achievement discrepancy ancy was to predict individuals’ “aptitude” or potential for reading, for SLD identification can be traced back to Monroe (1932). based upon their other characteristics. In order to determine a reading disability, as well as the severity, Monroe created an expectancy formula to see if reading achievement was in harmony with their other achievements. To determine the expectation of the reading level, three factors were considered: chronological age, mental age (based on the Stanford–Binet intelligence test), and level of arithmetic computation. These factors were then used to predict the present level of reading skill. Essentially, this formula was an attempt to operationalize the concept of unexpected underachievement. This type of discrepancy formula is still in use today in many schools. Prior to IDEA (2004), to be eligible for specific learning disabilities (SLD) services, students had to show a discrepancy between their intelligence test score (predicted achievement) and their reading achievement score (actual achievement). Although a discrepancy is no longer required under IDEA 2004, many districts still use an ability–achievement discrepancy formula for learning disability eligibility decisions. Several definitions also include unexpectedness Under the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities as a criterion and the unexpected nature became the hallmark of Education Act (IDEA, 2004), a discrepancy between IQ and learning disabilities (B. A. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). The quesachievement is not a requirement for diagnosing children tion of whether or not dyslexia is best explained as “unexpected” and with a reading disability. as a “discrepancy” between intellectual ability and reading, however, is still debated today (Kirby et al., 2020). Level of intelligence. Monroe (1932) also recognized that individuals with any level of intelligence, including those with superior intelligence, could struggle to learn to read. She noted: “It seems that we are measuring a discrepancy between reading and other accomplishments which may occur in either direction at any intellectual level” (p. 17). She was particularly fascinated by the cases of intellectually gifted children who struggled to learn to read, noting: “The children of superior mental capacity who fail to learn to read are, of course, spectacular examples of specific reading difficulty since they have such obvious abilities in other fields” (p. 23). She provided the following description of a bright young girl who was struggling to learn to read:

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

Betty represents a case of reading retardation in a very bright little girl. She was completing the second year in school without having been able to learn to read. When examined she was seven years and four months of age, with a mental age of ten years, I.Q. 135. Arithmetic measured high second grade. Reading and spelling measured very low first grade. . .. She had a most engaging manner and had learned many ways of diverting attention from the fact that she could not read. When the reading tests were presented she pushed them aside and said, “Let’s don’t do any reading. I know some arithmetic games that are lots of fun. Please teach me some third-­grade arithmetic problems.” When finally persuaded to attempt the tests she showed considerable emotional tension, clearing her voice, saying “ah” several times before attempting each word, and flushing over her obvious errors (p. 10). Rapid Reference 2.6 provides a summary of Monroe’s major conclusions.

22  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 2.6 Major Conclusions from Monroe (1932, 1935) and Monroe and Backus (1937) Different factors affect performance in different children. Profiles on tests can be used to show patterns of strength and weakness. Poor sound blending is often a cause of reading disability. Reading errors should be analyzed to understand instructional needs. Children require intensive remedial training. The training should continue until reading is in harmony with the child’s other capacities and achievement. Books and reading materials should be adapted to the child’s level of reading achievement. Methods must be modified to meet the needs of each individual. Problems arise in behavior and personality, but disappear as reading skill improves. Children of all levels of intelligence can struggle to learn to read.

DR. GRACE FERNALD

Similar to Orton and Monroe, Grace Fernald developed a multisensory technique called the Fernald Method which she summarized in her book Remedial Techniques in Basic School Subjects (1943). In the 1920s, Fernald, who had a hearing impairment, worked with Helen Keller, who was both blind and deaf, to promote the use of tactile–kinesthetic methodologies for teaching word recognition skills to nonreaders (Fernald & Keller, 1921). Unlike the Orton–Gillingham approach, Fernald de-­emphasized phonics, and instead, emphasized a whole-­word approach to word learning (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002). Fernald stressed the importance of providing children with meaningful reading and writing activities, so the methodology is used first with writing stories, and then, as skill improves, reading stories. She observed: “The child is much more interested in writing and reading fairly difficult material that is on the level of his understanding than simpler material which is below his mental age level” (1943, p. 44). The Fernald method has been used to teach struggling readers of all ages. Because the method involves tracing, it can help children increase their abilities to pay attention to the details in words and visualize the sequence of letters within words. This method consists of four stages through which a student progresses as skill increases. Before starting, the teacher explains to the student that they will practice a new way to learn words that has been successful with other learners. Rapid Reference 2.7 provides an overview of the four stages of this method. DR. SAMUEL A. KIRK

From early in his career, Dr. Samuel Kirk was fascinated by the enigma of children with specific reading disabilities. Kirk (1974) recognized that: “Disabilities in reading, writing, and spelling have been of interest to neurologists, ophthalmologists, psychologists, and educators since and before the beginning of this century” (p. 1). As part of his early training, he worked as a resident instructor at the Institute for Juvenile Research under the tutelage of Dr. Marion Monroe. Kirk et al. (1984) explained how Monroe’s book, Children Who Cannot Read, was his bible for a while, and how her system of diagnosing reading errors and profiling abilities and disabilities continued to influence his work in later years. While looking through the files at the institute, Kirk noted that one of the young boys had been diagnosed as word blind, a term he had never heard before. After studying the writings of Hinshelwood, Monroe, and Fernald, Kirk arranged to tutor the boy. After seven months, the boy was reading at third-­grade level and was returned to public school (Kirk, 1976, pp. 242–243). Kirk stressed that the diagnosis of children was for the purpose of remediation, not for classification or The central reason for diagnosing dyslexia is to provide categorization. In this regard, Kirk and Johnson (1951) stated: “The ­appropriate intervention. purpose of any diagnosis, or the determination of etiology, is to assist in structuring the most adequate rehabilitation procedures” (p. 109). As were the other early pioneers, Kirk was concerned about finding the most efficacious ways to instruct children who were struggling to learn to read. His master’s thesis (Kirk, 1933) compared two methods for teaching reading, the look–say approach and the Fernald kinesthetic approach. In his analysis, Kirk found that retention for word learning was improved when tracing was

DON’T FORGET

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA  23

Rapid Reference 2.7 Four Stages of the Fernald Method First stage. In the first stage, the student selects a word that she cannot read but would like to learn. The teacher and student discuss the meaning of the word using the following steps: 1. Write the word. The teacher sits beside the student and asks the student to watch and listen while the teacher (1) says the word, (2) uses a crayon to write the word in large print in manuscript or cursive (depending on which writing style the child uses) on an index card, and (3) says the word again while running a finger underneath the word. 2. Model word tracing. The teacher says, “Watch what I do and listen to what I say.” The teacher then (1) says the word; (2) traces the word using one or two fingers, saying each part of the word while tracing it; and (3) says the word again while running a finger underneath the word. The student then practices tracing the word using these steps. 3. Practice tracing. The student continues tracing the word until the word can be written from memory. The student says each part of the word while tracing it. 4. Write from memory. The student attempts to write the word from memory. When the student feels ready, the teacher removes the model and asks the student to write the word from memory. The student says the word while writing. If at any point the student makes an error, the teacher stops the student immediately, covers the error, and models the tracing procedure again before proceeding. 5. The word is filed. After the student writes the word correctly three times without the model, the student files the word in a word bank alphabetically to practice again on a later date. Second stage. By the second stage, the student no longer needs to trace words and can learn a word by looking at the word after the teacher writes it, saying the word, and then writing it. Third stage. By the third stage, the student is able to learn new words directly from printed words without having them written. When reading with the student, the teacher tells the student any unknown words. After reading, the student reviews and writes the unknown words. Fourth stage. By the fourth stage, the student begins to notice similarities between unknown and known words and can recognize many new words without being told what they are.

added to the teaching procedure. In fact, he found that writing letters, words, and sentences from memory was an aid in the removal of reversal errors. With Thorleif Hegge, Kirk went on to Tracing letters and words, saying them, and then writing them develop the Hegge, Kirk, and Kirk Remedial Reading Drills from memory can reduce reversal errors and help with word (Hegge et  al.,  1936), which evolved from his study of children retention. with reading disabilities, as well as influences from the earlier works of Orton, Monroe, and Fernald. Rapid Reference 2.8 summarizes the major instructional strategies that were incorporated into these drills. These original drills have been revised as the Phonics Reading Lessons: Skills and Practice (described in Appendix Individuals with dyslexia often have marked intraindividual B), and are still in use with individuals with dyslexia today (Kirk variations, strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes an et al., 2007; Roberts & Mather, 2007). ability–achievement discrepancy with their basic reading and Kirk was also interested in developing an assessment instrument spelling skills being lower than their other abilities or overall that would document strengths and weaknesses within an individability. ual, or what is referred to as intraindividual variations. In order to identify specific disabilities, Kirk and colleagues developed the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA; Kirk et al., 1968). The ITPA was historically important for two reasons: (1) it measured intraindividual differences, and (2) it articulated the principle of using assessment to guide instruction. Although Monroe (1932) had described both of these ideas previously, they gained widespread popularity with the use of the ITPA (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002). Kirk is also credited for being the first to use the term “learning disabilities” to describe children with disorders in language, speech, and reading (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; Kirk, 1963). In defining SLD, Kirk noted the relevance of both intraindividual variations and an ability–achievement discrepancy. In an interview, Kirk explained: “I like to define a learning disability as a psychological or neurological impediment to development of adequate perceptual or communicative behavior, which first is manifested in discrepancies among specific behaviors or between overall performance and academic achievement. . ..” (Arena, 1978, p. 617).

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

24  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 2.8 Instructional Strategies Used in the Hegge, Kirk, and Kirk Remedial Reading Drills • One response to one symbol. • Minimal change (only initial or final consonant changes in the first and second sections). • Lessons progress from easy to hard. • Frequent repetition and review. • Verbal mediation (see and say). • Multisensory learning (see, say, and trace).

DR. DORIS JOHNSON AND DR. HELMER MYKLEBUST

Dr. Doris Johnson and Dr. Helmer Myklebust helped to clarify the relationships between oral language and reading problems as well as the symptoms and subtypes of dyslexia. They noted that difficulty learning spoken language interferes with learning to read (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967), and that learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, result from altered processes, not from a generalized incapacity to learn (p. 8). Essentially, there is “a deficit in learning in the presence of basic integrity” (p. 25). They emphasized the importance of careful diagnostic study in planning intervention programs for children, and stated: “The single most important factor in planning for a child with a learning disability is an intensive diagnostic study” (p. 50). Although Myklebust’s original work was in the area of deafness, he found that many of the children who were referred to his clinic had normal hearing acuity, but trouble in understanding what they heard (Hallahan & Mercer, 2002). Myklebust (1954) stated: “It is apparent that there is a need to view the problem of auditory disorders in children as one requiring differential diagnosis” (p. 8). In 1967, Johnson and Myklebust wrote a book entitled: Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices. Within this book, they described two types of dyslexia: visual and auditory. Rapid Reference 2.9 summarizes the major characteristics of these two types of dyslexia. In regard to treatment, they noted that individuals with visual dyslexia need to be taught a systematic approach to attacking words. As with the Orton–Gillingham approach, reading instruction begins with single letters that can be blended into words. The teacher selects a short vowel and two or three consonants that are different in appearance and sound (e.g., m, t, s) and then teaches the child how to blend these sounds into meaningful units (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967). They recommended that individuals with auditory dyslexia often respond best to a whole-­word approach during the initial stages of reading acquisition. Once they have developed a basic sight vocabulary, these children do, however, require specific training with substantial practice in how to blend together letters and their sounds. They first should learn to blend syllables into words, and then

Rapid Reference 2.9 Characteristics of Visual and Auditory Dyslexia Visual Dyslexia • Confuses letters and words with similar appearance. • Difficulty developing a sight vocabulary. • Slow rate of word perception. • Reversals (e.g., b for d), inversions (e.g., u for n), and transpositions (e.g., was for saw) in reading and writing. • Difficulty retaining visual sequences and reproducing a visual sequence of letters from memory when spelling. Auditory Dyslexia • Difficulty hearing the differences among speech sounds. • Trouble remembering the sounds of letters. • Difficulty discriminating short vowel sounds. • Difficulty with blending and segmentation. • May be able to read silently better than orally.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA  25

they should learn how to combine individual sounds into words (Myklebust & Johnson, 1962). Johnson and Myklebust (1967) also discussed the importance of To read, a child must be able to distinguish similarities and difclinical teaching when working with individual children with learnferences in sounds, perceive sounds within words, synthesize ing disabilities as “. . . these children present a challenge diagnostisounds into words, and divide them into syllables (Johnson & cally and educationally” and “it is incumbent upon the community Myklebust, 1967, p. 173). of specialists involved to meet this challenge” (p. 25). They describe the clinical teaching approach as “. . . broad, inclusive, and dynamic” (p. 65). The teacher must meet the child at several levels. They noted that: “A ten-­year-­old may be functioning at his age level in comprehension of the spoken word but at the six-­year-­old level in reading. Without an understanding of these discrepancies, it is impossible to plan an adequate educational program” (p. 53). Thus, clinical teaching requires the teacher to be fully aware of the child’s strengths and weaknesses prior to beginning an intervention program. Rapid Reference 2.10 summarizes the main principles of clinical teaching.

DON’T FORGET

SUBTYPES OF POOR READERS

As noted by Johnson and Myklebust (1967), throughout the century varying subtypes of dyslexia have been described. In the 1930s, Orton described both word blindness (trouble remembering word images) and word deafness (trouble with word sounds; Orton, 1937). Other subtypes of dyslexia identified by research include phonological, surface, and deep. Other terms used to describe dyslexia subtypes include auditory (dysphonetic) and visual (dyseidetic; Boder, 1971; Johnson & Myklebust, 1967), which are similar to phonological and surface dyslexia, respectively. In the 1970s, the theory of a dual-­route model of reading was proposed. This theory specified that two interactive, yet distinctive, pathways exist: a direct, lexical route for automatic recognition of high-­frequency words, and an indirect, sublexical route (phonological decoding) for pronunciation of unfamiliar words (Coltheart, 1978, 2007). A weakness in either pathway could affect the development of reading skills and result in two different subtypes of dyslexia: phonological dyslexia (i.e., difficulty with nonsense word reading) and surface dyslexia (i.e., difficulty with irregular word reading; Castles & Coltheart, 1993; Coltheart, 2007). An individual with phonological dyslexia experiences trouble with phonological awareness tasks and applying phonics, whereas an individual with surface dyslexia is able to read phonetically regular nonsense words, but experiences greater difficulty with exception words or words with an irregular element that do not have regular, predictable phoneme–grapheme correspondences (e.g., once). The two critical indicators of surface dyslexia are the (1) regularization of the spellings of words with irregular elements (e.g., “they” as “thay”) and (2) poorer performance reading irregular words than phonetically regular words. Although a difference between nonsense word reading and irregular word reading and spelling is insufficient to identify different subtypes, these differences in performance may be indicative of different etiologies of dyslexia, that is a weakness in phonology versus a weakness in orthography (recall of spelling patterns). Impairments in nonsense word reading can range from mild to a complete inability to read nonsense words. Deep dyslexia is a term that has been used to describe a severe impairment in nonsense word reading. Deep dyslexia is accompanied by other types of word ­reading errors, including: semantic errors (e.g., gate is read as fence), visual errors (e.g., house is read as horse), and derivational errors (e.g., mountain is read as mountainous; Coltheart et al., 1980). Deep dyslexia is often described as an acquired reading disorder due to stroke or other brain injury. These individuals have difficulty using phonics to decode words. They have difficulty reading function words (e.g., as, the, so), infrequent words, and nonsense words, and make semantic substitutions and morphological errors (Rastle et al., 2006).

Rapid Reference 2.10 Principles of Clinical Teaching The teacher is aware of the student’s strengths and weaknesses. Through direct observation, approaches are adjusted to adapt to the student’s particular strengths and weaknesses. Instruction focuses on increasing strengths and resolving weaknesses. Different methodologies are applied with different children. The intent of remediation is to modify behavior and increase learning. All facets of behavior are addressed (e.g., reading and emotional adjustment).

26  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Individuals with phonological dyslexia often exhibit symptoms of deep dyslexia, leading some researchers to state that both types of dyslexia are simply different points on a continuum of severity (Crisp et al., 2011; Crisp & Lambon Ralph, 2006; Freidman, 1996). Much of what we know about dyslexia today was discovered and discussed throughout the last century. Rapid References 2.11 and 2.12 provide a summary of relevant insights from history regarding the characteristics of dyslexia, as well as insights regarding both assessment and intervention. CONCLUSION

This chapter provided a brief summary of the history of dyslexia as well as descriptions of the contributions made by a few of the early pioneers. Many other psychologists and educators have made significant contributions to our understanding of dyslexia, including Alfred Strauss, Laura Lehtinen, Newell Kephart, Marianne Frostig, William Cruickshank, June Orton, Raymond Barsch, Margaret Rawson, Roger Saunders, Renee Herman, and Romalda Spalding. Today we have many dedicated professionals, such as Virginia Berninger, Hugh Catts, Donald Compton, Martha Denckla, George Georgiou, Margie Gillis, Jan Hasbrouck, Marcia Henry, Fumiko Hoeft, Charles Hulme, David Kilpatrick, Louisa Moats, Richard Olson, Bennett and Sally Shaywitz, Linda Siegel, Margaret Snowling, Richard Wagner, Barbara Wilson, and Maryanne Wolf, who continue to expand and refine our understanding of dyslexia. The emergence

Rapid Reference 2.11 Insights from History Regarding the Characteristics of Dyslexia Dyslexia runs in families. Certain parts of the brain are involved. Difficulties are apparent with word reading and spelling. Confusions are noted with speech sounds. Reversals of letters and transpositions of letters may be apparent. Reading is slow and laborious. Adults with dyslexia often have a slow reading rate and poor spelling. Dyslexia does not affect all domains of functioning; strengths are often present. Difficulty learning to read has a profound effect on motivation and self-­esteem. The treatment plan must also address affective factors. Problems in behavior and motivation decrease as reading skill improves.

Rapid Reference 2.12 Insights from History Regarding Assessment and Intervention Comprehensive evaluations are needed to diagnose dyslexia. Specific weaknesses exist in cognitive or linguistic risk factors that affect reading and spelling development. Intraindividual variations are often present with oral language, reasoning, and mathematical abilities being more advanced than reading and writing skills. Attempts have been made to quantify the concept of unexpected reading failure through the use of various discrepancy procedures. Dyslexia can affect an individual of any level of intelligence. Dyslexia is lifelong, but interventions are effective. Early intervention is critical. One-­to-­one or small group instruction is essential. Multisensory instruction may help improve visual memory of letter forms and words. Structured, explicit, systematic phonics programs are needed for mastery of sound–symbol relationships. Teachers must receive adequate training and supervision in implementation of these methodologies.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DYSLEXIA  27

of neuroimaging technology, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and single-­ photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), has also advanced the study of dyslexia, allowing the brain to be viewed while the individual performs reading tasks. (See Chapter 3.) Although much was known about the causes and treatments for dyslexia over a century ago, research and new technologies have continued to enhance our knowledge. In consideration of the future, Kirby et al. (2020) state: “Above all, just as Pringle Morgan did, we employ these case histories to consider the question of what should be done in the future: a future in which it is increasingly recognised that all childhood learning difficulties are multifaceted, they co-­occur in complex ways and require well-­honed, evidence-­based intervention” (p. 412).

  TEST YOURSELF 1. Physicians provided many of the earliest reports of individuals with dyslexia or word blindness who had lost the ability to read because of injury or stroke.True or false? 2. The terms word blindness and word deafness were used in the past to describe the observed characteristics of individuals with dyslexia.True or false? 3. Orton believed that a sight word approach would be particularly helpful for children with word blindness.True or false? 4. Orton felt that intelligence tests provided an unfair estimate of the intellectual capacity of children with word blindness.True or false? 5. The Orton–Gillingham approach:

a. b. c. d. e.

proceeds in a step-­by-­step progression. is multisensory. teaches reading and spelling words together. can be adapted to meet individual needs. all of the above.

6. Both the Orton–Gillingham (O–G) and Fernald methodologies are multisensory in nature, but only O–G provides direct, systematic phonics instruction.True or false? 7. Monroe found that all children made adequate progress when provided with remedial reading programs.True or false? 8. An individual of superior intelligence can have dyslexia.True or false? 9. Monroe’s reading index was a discrepancy procedure designed to compare a child’s actual reading level to the expected reading level (based on chronological age, mental age, and arithmetic performance).True or false? 10. The concept of intraindividual variations, such as measured by the ITPA, refers to the strengths and weaknesses among one’s abilities.True or false? Answers: 1. True; 2. True; 3. False; 4. True; 5. e; 6. True; 7. False; 8. True; 9. True; 10. True.

Chapter Three THE BRAIN AND DYSLEXIA

Deborah Schneider, Fumiko Hoeft, Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, Sally Shaywitz*, and Bennett Shaywitz* Most of us have spent some time wondering how our brain works. Brain scientists spend their entire lives ­pondering it, looking for a way to begin asking the question, “How does the brain generate mind?” The brain, after all, is so complex an organ and can be approached from so many different directions using so many ­different techniques and experimental animals that studying it is a little like entering a blizzard, the Casbah, a dense forest. It’s easy enough to find a way in—­an interesting phenomenon to study—­but also very easy to get lost. —­Allport, 1986, pp. 17–18 Dyslexia is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects an individual’s ability to read, write, and spell. While the contributors to dyslexia are multifactorial, including genetic, epigenetic (modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself ), and environmental factors (Theodoridou et al., 2021), a large body of evidence confirms that dyslexia has a neurobiological basis, which means that the underlying causes of the condition are located within the brain (Hoeft et  al.,  2006; Hudson et  al.,  2007; Norton et al., 2015). In this chapter, we explore the early history of research into the neurobiological basis of dyslexia, as well as new insights into brain anatomy and function involved in reading and dyslexia using brain imaging techniques, primarily using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). HISTORICAL STUDIES RELATING BRAIN FUNCTION TO LANGUAGE AND READING DIFFICULTIES

As discussed in Chapter 2, the study of the neurobiological basis of dyslexia can be traced back to the late 19th century, when physicians and other scientists began to investigate the effects of brain injury on language function. In 1861, Paul Broca, a French physician, identified a region in the left hemisphere of the brain, now known as Broca’s area, which is involved in expressive language. He made this discovery when studying a patient with expressive aphasia, a condition in which the afflicted person has difficulty producing ­language, despite intact language comprehension. Several years later, Carl Wernicke (1874), a German neurologist, described a different type of aphasia, known as receptive aphasia, in which a person has difficulty understanding language, despite being able to speak fluently. Wernicke localized the area responsible for this type of language function in the left temporo-­parietal region of the brain, which is now referred to as Wernicke’s area (Sousa, 2005). Later in the 19th century, Jules Dejerine, a French neurologist, identified a group of individuals in their 60s who had suddenly lost their ability to read, a condition now known as acquired alexia (Dejerine, 1891, 1892). Dejerine provided compelling evidence that damage to a specific area of the brain in the left inferior parietal lobe, near the angular gyrus (also known as Brodmann’s area 39), could result in significant impairments in reading and writing abilities while leaving oral language relatively intact (Henderson, 2014). These early findings from Broca, Wernicke, and Dejerine have been instrumental in s­haping our modern understanding of the neural basis of language and reading. The first clinical case reports of developmental dyslexia, then known as congenital word blindness, appeared toward the end of the 19th century (Morgan, 1896). Over the following decades, physicians continued to document cases of children with the condition. James Hinshelwood, a Scottish ophthalmologist, provided some of the most detailed descriptions. Hinshelwood linked dyslexia to a

*Contributed to the first edition of this chapter. Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 29

30  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

defect in the visual memory of letters and words, suggesting that it was caused by brain dysfunction (Hinshelwood, 1902a, 1902b). Other researchers, such as Samuel Orton in 1925, similarly hypothesized that dyslexia was caused by physiological deficits in the brain. With the advent of modern neuroimaging techniques, we have gained new insights into the neural systems involved in dyslexia. Research has shown that dyslexia is related to abnormality in the structure and function of specific brain regions, including those responsible for phonological and orthographic processing (Hoeft et al., 2007; Maisog et al., 2008). These findings have deepened our understanding of the condition and provided new avenues for developing effective interventions for individuals with dyslexia. More detailed descriptions of the early history of dyslexia can be found in Chapter 2 of this book, as well as in S. Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2020). NEUROANATOMY 101

Understanding the brain and its functions is key to grasping the neurobiological underpinnings of dyslexia. Whether you are a seasoned expert in neuroscience or a newcomer to the field, this section provides an overview of the basics. Figure 3.1 and Rapid Reference 3.1 summarize the major components and features of the brain, providing a foundation for the more detailed discussion of the neurobiological bases of reading and dyslexia that follows. The brain is a complex organ comprising three major structures: the cerebrum, the cerebellum, and the brain stem. The ­cerebrum contains 80% of the brain’s volume. The cerebrum is divided into four lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital. Together, these lobes are responsible for a wide range of cognitive processes, including perception, memory, attention, and ­language, and they include the aforementioned Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas that have consistently been linked to language and reading (see Figure 3.1). The cerebellum, located at the back of the brain, plays a crucial role in controlling posture, balance, and coordination. Although it accounts for only 10% of the brain’s total volume, the cerebellum contains more than half of its neurons (Silver, 2018). Recent research has suggested that the cerebellum may also play a role in higher-­level cognitive functions including decision-­making (Rosenbloom et al., 2012), emotional regulation (Adamaszek et al., 2017), and language (Mariën & Borgatti, 2018). Finally, the brain stem in the lower part of the brain serves as the bridge between the brain and the spinal cord, controlling many of the body’s essential survival functions, such as breathing and heartbeat. Despite its relatively small size, the brain stem is a critical part of the nervous system, as it provides the foundation for the basic functions upon which the rest of the brain and body rely. The brain’s structure is composed of both gross (larger scale) anatomical features and fine (microscopic scale) structures. The gross anatomical features include the ridges (gyri) and furrows or grooves (sulci). The fine structure of the brain comprises neurons (the gray matter) and glial cells, which are non-­neuronal cells that provide support and protection for neurons. The brain’s complex cognitive, emotional, motor, and language functions rely on an intricate pattern of connections between neurons. These connections occur via white matter pathways that connect the diverse regions of the cerebral cortex, cerebellum, brain stem, and spinal cord. The white matter of the brain consists of myelinated nerve fibers formed by axons projecting from nerve cells. One significant white matter structure, the corpus callosum, facilitates the exchange of information between neurons in the right and left cerebral hemispheres, acting as a ­connective bridge between the two.

Wernicke’s area Frontal lobe

Parietal lobe

Broca’s area Occipital lobe

Temporal lobe Cerebellum Brain stem

Figure 3.1  Left Hemisphere of the Brain This figure shows a picture of the left hemisphere of the brain with key neuroanatomical structures labeled.

THE BRAIN AND DYSLEXIA  31

Rapid Reference 3.1 Functions of the Major Areas of the Brain Cerebrum: This is the brain’s largest and most complex structure, consisting of two hemispheres (left and right) that control all bodily functions and behaviors. Both hemispheres are divided into frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital lobes, each with unique functions. The cerebral cortex is the outer layer of the cerebrum. Gyrus (Plural Gyri) and Sulcus (Plural Sulci): These are the ridges (gyri) and depressions (sulci) on the brain’s surface that give it a crumpled appearance. They play an important role in increasing the surface area of the cerebral cortex, allowing for more neurons and connections to be formed. Large sulci are called fissures and separate the lobes of the brain. Cerebral White Matter (CWM): This is the brain’s wiring, made up of axons that connect neurons within and between different brain regions and within and between the brain, the brain stem, and the spinal cord. The CWM is essential for communication and information processing. Frontal Lobe: This is the brain’s command center, responsible for complex cognitive processes such as planning, decision-­making, attention, and personality. It is also involved in emotional regulation and motivation. The most anterior (frontal) portion of this lobe is called the prefrontal cortex. Most purposeful behaviors are initiated in this area. The posterior (back) portion of this lobe consists of the premotor and motor areas, called the motor cortex. The frontal lobes are well-­connected to the limbic system, a complex series of neurons related to emotions. Parietal Lobe: The parietal lobes, situated just behind the frontal lobes at the top of the brain, play a crucial role in our sense of touch and bodily awareness. The primary sensory cortex, located within the parietal lobes, receives information from the skin via the thalamus, a network of neurons deep within the brain; this information includes sensations such as temperature, pressure, and pain, as well as our body’s position in space. The sensory cortex then sends this information to the primary motor area in the frontal lobes, where it is used to guide our movements and actions. Temporal Lobe: Located inferior to (below) the frontal and parietal lobes, this lobe plays an important role in hearing, language comprehension, and memory. It contains the hippocampi, seahorse-­shaped structures crucial for forming and recalling memories, and the primary auditory cortex, responsible for processing sound. The right lobe is mainly involved in visual memory, while the left lobe is mainly involved in verbal memory. Occipital Lobe: Located in the back of the brain, this visual processing center, also called the visual cortex, is responsible for interpreting and making sense of visual information taken from the eyes. It is the largest and most neuron-­dense area of the cerebral cortex. Nerve impulses from the retina travel via the thalamus to the occipital lobes. Corpus Callosum: Composed of white matter, this area acts as the bridge between the left and right hemispheres, allowing them to communicate and coordinate their functions. It enables us to perform complex tasks that require the integration of information from both sides of the brain. Cerebellum: This little brain, tucked just under the cerebral hemispheres at the back of the brain stem, is responsible for coordinating movement, balance, and posture. It is also believed to play a role in automating learned motor skills. Brain stem: This ancient structure is the most primitive part of the brain, connecting the spinal cord to the rest of the brain. It is responsible for controlling essential automatic body functions necessary for survival, including breathing, heart rate, and digestion, as well as regulating arousal and alertness.

FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS UNDERLYING READING AND DYSLEXIA

As previously noted, our understanding of the neural systems essential to reading first emerged more than a century ago in case studies of adults who suddenly lost the ability to read, often due to a stroke. These studies, pioneered by Dejerine in the 1890s, indicated that specific regions of the left hemisphere of the brain are critical for reading, including the occipito-­temporal area and temporo-­parietal area (that includes the angular and supramarginal gyri in the inferior parietal lobule, as well as the posterior aspect of the superior temporal gyrus inclusive of the Wernicke’s area). However, it wasn’t until the development of functional brain imaging, in particular functional MRI (fMRI), now over three decades ago, that researchers were able to more precisely map the neural systems implicated in reading and identify unique patterns of brain activation in readers with dyslexia. fMRI is a noninvasive (i.e., it does not involve any intrusion on the body and is generally safe) and well-­established technology that can be used repeatedly, making it an ideal tool for studying brain activity in human beings, especially children. By detecting changes in the blood-­oxygen-­level-­dependent (BOLD) response in the brain, fMRI can produce images that show which regions of the brain are activated, or which regions are well-­connected during different tasks or stimuli. During cognitive tasks, these changes in BOLD signal are typically in the order of 1%, and variability in activation patterns is the rule rather than the exception. Artifacts can cause signal change that is much larger, of around 10%. Therefore, fMRI data have historically been analyzed at the group level. This is changing, however, as advances in brain imaging and analytical approaches have demonstrated the capacity of machine learning algorithms to accurately distinguish between individuals with and without dyslexia and predict long-­term outcomes of those with dyslexia in over

32  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

80% of the cases (Hoeft et al., 2011; Tomaz Da Silva, 2021). While this technology is still in its nascent stages and is not yet used in routine practice, imaging techniques may someday be used to diagnose dyslexia at the individual level. Rapid Reference 3.2 provides examples of the types of reading-­related tasks that children and adults have been asked to do during fMRI studies. Three functional neural systems are particularly important for reading (see Figure 3.2): two left hemisphere posterior systems, one around the temporo-­parietal region (which encompasses Wernicke’s area) and another in the left occipito-­temporal region, and an anterior Much of the language-­related processing takes place within system around the precentral and inferior frontal gyri (which encomthe left hemisphere of the brain, but the right hemisphere passes Broca’s area). Research using fMRI has provided compelling also plays an important role in language, such as in prosody. evidence for the specific role these systems play in reading and dysAlso, some individuals, in particular left-­handed individuals, lexia (Brambati et al., 2006; Hoeft et al., 2006; Hoeft et al., 2007; have right hemisphere dominance in language processes. Paulesu et al., 2001; Zhang & Peng, 2022). Some compensatory mechanisms in dyslexia may also take The first of these is the left temporo-­parietal system (B. Shaywitz place in the right hemisphere. et  al.,  2006; B. Shaywitz et  al., 2002), which plays a pivotal role in language processing, including reading and phonological processing ­ (Price, 2012). This region encompasses portions of the angular gyrus and the supramarginal gyrus, as well as portions of the posterior aspect (rear part) of the middle and superior temporal gyri (Vigneau et al., 2006). At the heart of this system lies the supramarginal gyrus, a region nestled within the inferior (lower) parietal lobule (Hartwigsen et al., 2010). This area is responsible for breaking down and m ­ anipulating phonemes, the smallest individual speech sounds, thereby contributing significantly to phonological processing (Hickok & Poeppel, 2007).

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 3.2 Types of Reading-­Related Tasks Used During fMRI • Letter identification: are N and M the same letter? • Single letter rhyming: do /b/ and /d/ rhyme? • Nonword rhyming: do jupe and doop rhyme? • Homophone or rhyming judgment: do steak and rake rhyme? • Real word identification: is feak a real word? • Vocabulary: are apple and pear in the same semantic category? • Sentence verification: you can sit on a chair (true or false?).

Broca’s area Inferior frontal gyrus (articulation/word analysis)

Parietal/temporal (word analysis)

Occipital/temporal (word form)

Figure 3.2  The Neural Systems for Reading and Dyslexia This figure illustrates three major neural systems for reading on the surface of the left hemisphere: an anterior system in the region of the inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area) believed to be involved in articulatory and semantic processing; and two posterior systems, one in the temporo-­parietal region believed to serve phonological processing and decoding, and a second in the occipito-­temporal region (where part of the area is often called the visual word-­form area) believed to serve for the rapid and automatic identification of words. These regions and networks that connect between them have been shown to be atypical in those with dyslexia, with the posterior systems typically showing reduced activation and the anterior articulatory system showing increased activation (Hancock et al., 2017).

THE BRAIN AND DYSLEXIA  33

Another key component of the left temporo-­parietal system is the angular gyrus, which is located just posterior to (behind) the supramarginal gyrus (Seghier, 2013). The angular gyrus has been associated with various language-­related tasks, such as semantic processing, reading comprehension, and the integration of visual and auditory information (Binder et al., 2009). Wernicke’s area, located in the posterior aspect (rear part) of the superior temporal gyrus, also forms a crucial part of the left temporo-­parietal region (Hickok & Poeppel, 2007). This region contributes to the processing of phonemes and facilitates the integration of phonetic information with visual information (Binder et al., 2000). Finally, the posterior middle temporal gyrus is involved in lexical-­semantic processing, or the recognition and understanding of words and their meanings (Turken & Dronkers, 2011). Research has shown that some individuals with dyslexia may have reduced ­activation in the left temporo-­parietal region, which may contribute to their difficulties in phonological processing (Hoeft et al., 2006; Richlan et al., 2010; B. Shaywitz et al., 2002). The second posterior reading system is known as the left occipito-­temporal region, more specifically, the visual word-­form area (VWFA; Brem et al., 2020; Cohen et al., 2000; Conant et al., 2020; Dehaene et al., 2005; Vinckier et al., 2007). This region is highly specialized for processing written language (Dehaene & Cohen, 2011). Research suggests that the VWFA responds selectively to words and is less active in response to other types of visual stimuli, such as faces or objects (Price & Devlin, 2011). The VWFA is responsible for the rapid and fluent identification of words (Dehaene & Cohen, 2011; S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020), and is believed to integrate both phonology and orthography, although its precise functioning remains unclear (Price & Devlin, 2011). While research in this area is advancing rapidly, some studies suggest that attention (Vogel et al., 2012), visual familiarity (Yoncheva et al., 2010), phonological processing (Price & Devlin, 2011), and semantic processing (Vogel et al., 2012) all contribute to the activation of the VWFA. In fact, the more skilled the reader, the more this region is activated, making the system critical for developing reading fluency (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz,  2020). In individuals with dyslexia, the VWFA may function suboptimally, leading to difficulties in quickly processing ­written words (Richlan, 2012). Research has shown that, compared to typically developing readers, individuals with dyslexia may have reduced activation in the VWFA when reading (Richlan et al., 2010). The third reading-­related neural circuit is an anterior system in the left precentral and inferior frontal gyri (Broca’s area), which has long been associated with articulation and plays an important role in word analysis (Fiez & Peterson, 1998; Frackowiak et al., 2004). Studies have found that Broca’s area is activated when individuals are presented with written words and tasked with determining the meaning of those words (Heim et al., 2009). This suggests that this region is involved not only in producing speech but also in processing the sounds of speech and translating them into words. Additionally, fMRI research has shown that individuals with dyslexia often have reduced activation in Broca’s area compared to typically developing readers when performing reading tasks (Paz-­Alonso et al., 2018; Richards et al., 2015). This reduced activation may contribute to difficulties in phonological processing and word analysis that are commonly observed in individuals with dyslexia. Paradoxically, however, this region (in particular, the left precentral region together with a more medial/subcortical region, which has been associated with articulatory processing) has also been associated with compensatory increases in activation in individuals with reading difficulties (Hancock et al., 2017). Comparable results have been reported in studies conducted in children who speak languages other than English. In fact, one meta-­ analysis found a distinct pattern of brain activation in individuals with dyslexia in 28 different orthographic systems, including languages with deep (phonetically irregular) and shallow (phonetically regular) alphabetic writing systems (Li & Bi,  2022; Martin et  al.,  2016; Richlan, 2020; Yan et al., 2021). These cross-­linguistic studies indicated a common dysfunction in the left frontal region and the engagement of compensatory mechanisms, while the left posterior brain abnormalities were only observed in dyslexia in alphabetic languages. Abnormalities in the three regions discussed throughout this section have sometimes been described as the neural signature of dyslexia (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). This signature includes inefficient functioning of the left posterior reading systems when reading real words and pseudowords, as well as compensatory over-­activation in the left fronto-­striatal (frontal and medial/subcortical) regions as well as other parts of the reading system (but note that the inferior frontal region has also shown reduced activation). Figure 3.3 and Rapid Reference 3.3 summarize the findings related to the neural signature of dyslexia. It is important to emphasize that dyslexia is characterized not only by abnormality in the function of the regions that form the brain’s reading network but also by atypical patterns of network connectivity among these regions (Bailey et  al.,  2018; Finn et al., 2014), which may be measured while individuals perform a reading-­related task or are at a resting state (Cao et al., 2016; Koyama et al., 2010). These neural networks connect key areas responsible for phonological processing, including the left inferior frontal gyrus The neural systems used for reading differ for typical readers (Broca’s area; Finn et  al.,  2014), left posterior parieto-­ temporo-­ and readers with dyslexia, and this is not only for under-­ activation or impaired activation. Individuals with dyslexia occipital areas (VFWA, inferior temporal gyrus, middle temporal overall may use a more anterior and medial system (Hancock gyrus, superior temporal gyrus), and the left inferior frontal gyrus et al., 2017). Furthermore, they may also use right hemi(Richlan, 2012; Schurz et al., 2015). As previously mentioned, each sphere systems to compensate for their difficulty, although of these regions plays a critical role in reading, including word recogconsistent evidence is still sparse. nition (fusiform   gyrus, middle temporal gyrus) and phonological

DON’T FORGET

34  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Nonimpaired

Dyslexic

Figure 3.3  Neural Signature for Dyslexia This figure depicts the left hemisphere brain systems in both nonimpaired readers (left) and readers with dyslexia (right). In readers with dyslexia, the anterior system is slightly over-­activated compared with systems of nonimpaired readers; in contrast, the two posterior systems are under-­activated. This pattern of under-­activation in left posterior reading systems, and sometimes the frontal over-­activation, is referred to as the neural signature for dyslexia. The right hemisphere, while not shown, is also implicated in dyslexia, both in terms of under-­activation and over-­activation.

Rapid Reference 3.3 Neurological Characteristics of Individuals with Dyslexia • Most often (but not always, as there are large individual differences), there is less activation in the left posterior reading systems, including the temporo-­parietal and occipito-­temporal regions. • Often, there is more activation in the left frontal and medial regions (fronto-­striatal network), and sometimes in the right hemisphere. • Reliance on brain regions that indicate memorization of words. • Reliance on brain regions that indicate the use of compensatory strategies.

processing (Broca’s area and the superior temporal gyrus); therefore, reduced, dysfunctional, or poorly synchronized connectivity may lead to weakness in various aspects of reading, including difficulty associating letters with sounds or impairments in word analysis, lexical retrieval, or reading fluency (Black et al., 2017). Thus, a comprehensive understanding of the neural basis of dyslexia requires not only knowledge of the function of specific brain regions, but also of the functional networks crucial to their communication. It is important to emphasize that neurobiology is not destiny, and the brains of individuals with dyslexia can and do change with time and instruction. Emerging evidence demonstrates how high-­quality reading interventions may lead to normalization (the development of more typical brain structures and activity) as well as compensation Extensive research demonstrates that individuals with dyslexia (the use of alternative brain regions or networks), impacting interacrely on memorization of words rather than phonetic decodtions among distributed cognitive, linguistic, and sensory systems of ing and, therefore, have difficulty decoding pseudowords and the abnormal reading networks in dyslexia (Braid & Richlan, 2022; unfamiliar words. Perdue et al., 2022).

DON’T FORGET

STRUCTURAL NETWORKS UNDERLYING READING AND DYSLEXIA

fMRI studies focus on neurofunction (brain activity), functional connectivity, and brain networks related to reading and dyslexia, whereas structural imaging techniques examine the correlates of reading and dyslexia within the fine and gross anatomical structures of the brain in the gray and white matter. T1-­weighted MRI is a structural MRI technique commonly used to measure gray matter cortical thickness, surface area, local gyrification index (LGI; a measure of cortical folding), and white matter volume. Diffusion-­weighted imaging (DWI) is a structural MRI technique used to map the microstructural properties of neural tissue, particularly the white matter tracts in the brain (but sometimes the gray matter), through the diffusion of water. These MRI techniques have been used to examine the underlying neurobiological mechanisms of reading and dyslexia.

THE BRAIN AND DYSLEXIA  35

T1  MRI has been used extensively to investigate morphological differences in dyslexic brains, revealing numerous structural a­ lterations in the gray matter of some regions, including the left hemisphere temporo-­parietal cortex, the inferior frontal gyrus, and occipito-­temporal regions; regions demonstrating structural alterations in gray matter often correspond to regions that are functionally atypical (Hoeft et al., 2007; Richlan et al., 2009; Richlan et al., 2013). These regions are known to play crucial roles in language processing and reading, and abnormalities within them could potentially contribute to the phonological and orthographic processing difficulties that characterize dyslexia. Some have noted that abnormalities in gray matter are more typically seen in cortical surface area over thickness, suggestive of the prenatal rather than postnatal origin of the abnormalities (Black et al., 2012; Frye et al., 2010). Further, gray matter (and functional) abnormalities in these regions have also been shown in early readers at risk for developing dyslexia (Vandermosten et al., 2016). Another important finding of T1-­weighted research is a link between dyslexia and abnormality of the corpus callosum, the largest white matter structure in the brain, which facilitates interhemispheric communication. Researchers have reported that individuals with dyslexia tend to have structural differences in major anatomical features of the corpus callosum compared (Casanova et al., 2010; Elnakib et al., 2010) to those without the disorder, implying impaired communication between the brain’s hemispheres. When reading, each of functional systems implicated in reading must communicate with one another through an intricate network of white matter pathways, which form the highways over which the information necessary to decode text and extract meaning travels. Extensive research has been conducted in identifying white matter pathways important for reading (Ben-­Shachar et al., 2007; Caffarra et al., 2021). One of the key white matter pathways implicated in reading is the arcuate fasciculus (AF), a fiber tract that primarily connects Broca’s area in the frontal lobe, which is responsible for language production and articulation, with Wernicke’s area in the temporal lobe, which is associated with language comprehension (Yeatman et al., 2011). The AF facilitates the transfer of information between these two critical language areas, enabling the conversion of written words into spoken language and the comprehension of written text. The AF is also believed to be involved in phonological processing (Ivanova et al., 2021). Damage to this pathway has been linked to reading impairments including dyslexia (Rauschecker et al., 2009). In addition to the AF, the inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF) and inferior fronto-­occipital fasciculus (IFOF) also form critical links in the reading network. The ILF aids in the recognition and processing of words and letters (Herbet et al., 2018) by transmitting information from the occipital lobe, where visual input is initially processed, to the temporal lobe, which is involved in higher-­order visual processing and semantic comprehension (Shin et al., 2019). The IFOF, by contrast, connects the occipital lobe, which is responsible for processing visual information, with the frontal lobe, which is associated with language comprehension, working memory, and cognitive control (De Benedictis et al., 2021). The IFOF facilitates the transfer of information between these two brain regions, allowing for the efficient processing of visual information and the interpretation of the meaning behind the text (Rollans et al., 2017). Research has shown that dyslexia is associated with abnormalities in the white matter pathways between functional and anatomical regions implicated in reading and dyslexia (Vandermosten et al., 2012). Compared to typically developing readers, individuals with dyslexia have been found to exhibit reduced structural integrity in the AF, ILF, and IFOF (Klingberg et al., 2000; Yeatman et al., 2012). Prior studies have also found that integrity and coherence of major white matter tracts in the left temporo-­ parietal region are associated with poor ­performance on measures of spelling, reading, rapid naming (Deutsch et al., 2005), and phonological awareness (Saygin et al., 2013), and are Structural imaging techniques allow researchers to study the a predictor of reading acquisition (Myers et al., 2014). Other studies neuroanatomical basis of reading and dyslexia. T1-­weighted have identified more widespread correlations between measures of scans reveal the shape and volume of various structures of the gray and white matter. DWI imaging methods highlight the DWI, such as fractional anisotropy and reading ability, than previously white matter pathways that act as the brain’s connective tissue. detected, suggesting that an extensive bihemispheric (i.e., involving both cerebral hemispheres) network of brain regions is involved in reading processes in individuals with dyslexia (Lebel et  al.,  2010). It is important to note, however, that consensus around the role of white CAUTION matter integrity in dyslexia is lacking. As an example, results from a Although brain images that use T1 and DWI technologies recent meta-­analysis reported no evidence of white matter abnormality provide strong evidence of structural differences in individuin individuals with dyslexia on voxel-­ based measures of fractional als with dyslexia, variability remains in findings, highlighting the ­anisotropy (Moreau et al., 2018) (a voxel is a cube-­shaped unit of measneed for further research. urement in a 3D scan, analogous to a pixel in a 2D image).

DON’T FORGET

STATISTICAL ISSUES IN BRAIN IMAGING

As brain imaging techniques advance, researchers are increasingly aware of potential concerns relating to the analysis of neuroimaging data. One of the main issues is the problem of multiple comparisons in statistical analysis, which arises due to the large number of data points generated using brain imaging techniques. The number of voxels generated from whole-­brain imaging can vary depending on

36  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

the specific imaging technique used and the resolution of the scan. For example, a standard fMRI scan may have a resolution of 2–3 mm per voxel resulting in a map of roughly 50,000–100,000 voxels for the entire brain; however, newer techniques such as ultrahigh field MRI can achieve resolutions as fine as 0.5 mm per voxel, resulting in millions of voxels for the whole brain. Creating a matrix of a million voxels by a million voxels for the purpose of statistical analysis would result in one trillion comparisons. When analyzing such a large number of voxels, some of them may appear to be activated purely by chance rather than as a result of the task or condition being studied. The detection of such a chance activation is characterized as a false positive or a Type I error. The traditional method for correcting for false positives in statistical analyses is called a Bonferroni correction. This involves dividing the magnitude of the effect detected by the number of comparisons made; however, this method alone is not effective for controlling false positives in such large data matrices. To address this problem, other methods have been developed to control for the rate of false positives in fMRI research. Such methods include controlling for family-­wise errors (FWE: Nandy & Cordes,  2007; Nichols & Hayasaka, 2003) and controlling for false discovery rate (FDR; Genovese et al., 2002; Heller et al., 2006). FWE is a conservative correction method that controls for the probability of detecting false positives across the entire volume of data. This method is based on the idea that if a certain probability threshold (alpha level) is used to determine the significance of each individual test, then the probability of at least one false positive occurring in the entire data volume should be kept below a certain level (typically 5%). FDR is a less conservative correction method that controls the proportion of false positives among all significant results. This method is founded on the premise that some false positives may be acceptable as long as their proportion is kept below a certain level (again, most often 5%). While FDR is currently the most adopted approach in neuroimaging research, how to appropriately correct for multiple comparisons of often correlated voxels remains a topic of discussion among researchers (Lieberman & Cunningham, 2009). Other key issues in neuroimaging research include bias in reporting, or the failure to report nonsignificant findings or findings that contradict the widely held beliefs concerning the regions or networks involved in reading as well as a lack of research replicating existing CAUTION studies. See Kelly and Hoptman (2022) for more details. It is Findings from brain imaging studies may be subject to both ­important to consider these issues when interpreting the results of Type I and Type II errors as well as selection and reporting functional brain imaging studies. bias due to statistical issues in the methodologies used to To help readers understand this complex issue, Rapid Reference 3.4 design the study and analyze the data. provides a simplified explanation of the key statistical issues.

Rapid Reference 3.4 Simplified Explanation of Key Statistical Issues Multiple Comparisons: Multiple comparisons refer to the statistical issue of conducting numerous tests within a single data set, increasing the probability of obtaining a significant result by chance. The more comparisons made within a sample, the greater the likelihood of detecting a significant difference or relationship. However, this can lead to false positives (also known as Type I errors), where a significant finding is obtained by chance and does not generalize to an independent sample. Multiple comparisons can also lead to false negatives, where a true effect is missed due to a lack of statistical power. False Positive (Type I Error): A false positive (Type I error) occurs when a researcher concludes that there is a significant relationship or difference between two variables when, in reality, there is not. A more relatable example could be a fire alarm sounding even though there is no actual fire present, leading people to evacuate the building unnecessarily. In the medical field, a false positive could occur when a diagnostic test indicates the presence of a disease or condition that the patient does not actually have, leading to unnecessary treatments and interventions. False Negative (Type II Error): A false negative (Type II error) occurs when a researcher concludes that there is no significant relationship or difference between two variables when, in reality, there is. A more relatable example could be a fire alarm failing to sound when there is a fire in a building, leading to a delayed evacuation. In the medical field, a false negative could occur when a diagnostic test fails to detect the presence of a disease or condition that the patient actually has, leading to a delay in treatments and intervention. Nonindependence Error: A nonindependence error occurs when data collected in a study are not independent, meaning that they are related in some way that is not accounted for in the statistical analysis. This can lead to biased results and incorrect conclusions. One common type of nonindependence error arises from selection bias in sampling. For example, if a study only recruits participants from a specific demographic or geographic region, then the sample may not be representative of the whole population. If researchers then generalize their conclusions to the entire population based on results from this nonrepresentative sample, then they will have produced a nonindependence error.

THE BRAIN AND DYSLEXIA  37

IMPLICATIONS OF BRAIN IMAGING STUDIES FOR PRACTICE

For over a century, dyslexia was considered an invisible disability, its neurobiological antecedents cached within a black box. Thanks to functional and structural brain imaging, we can now see the effects of dyslexia on the brain and better understand the neural structures and mechanisms underlying this condition. The evidence from brain imaging has, in effect, made visible what was previously hidden (S. Shaywitz, 2003). By identifying specific brain regions and systems involved in reading and dyslexia, researchers can develop more targeted interventions to improve reading outcomes for individuals with dyslexia. Our increased understanding of the brain and dyslexia represents an important step in this direction, shedding light on a hidden disability and opening up new possibilities for research and treatment. The neurobiological basis of dyslexia is supported by a growing body of evidence from neuroimaging studies conducted in numerous countries and languages. Dyslexia has been found to affect not only readers of English but also those of Italian, French, German, and other alphabetic languages, with many of the core neural substrates being common across writing systems, especially alphabetic systems (Devoto et al., 2022). Moreover, studies of logographic languages, such as Chinese, have produced analogous findings (Yan et al., 2021). The disruption of neural systems for reading is observed not only in younger but also in older readers, indicating that reading difficulties can persist throughout life. Moreover, the neurobiological correlates of dyslexia can be detected in early childhood, possibly even infancy (Ozernov-­Palchik & Gaab, 2016), demonstrating that the neural signature of dyslexia predicates poor reading, rather than the inverse. Evidence of dyslexia’s linguistic universality, neurobiological determinants, and lifelong impact underscores the need for effective interventions and accommodations to improve reading outcomes for individuals with dyslexia. Evidence of the neurobiological reality of dyslexia also has ­important practical implications for individuals with specific reading disorders, particularly regarding the provision of appropriate accommodations. Inefficient functioning of the occipito-­temporal system Whereas behavioral testing provides ample evidence of dysfluency in acts as the neurobiological explanation for the slow readers with dyslexia, neuroimaging research has confirmed that this reading in individuals with dyslexia system (S. Shaywitz & dysfluency is underpinned by differences in the structure and functionShaywitz, 2020). ing of the brain, underlining the biological basis of the disability. To compensate for the deficits in reading rate and accuracy caused by this neurobiological disability, individuals with dyslexia require accommodations, such as additional time and assistive technologies, when completing assignments and tests. This is particularly important in the case of high-­stakes testing, which may have considerable implications for an individual’s academic or professional trajectory. Moreover, if an accurate diagnosis of dyslexia was made or ­confirmed during high school or the early years of post-­secondary school, then there should be no need for further assessment to reconfirm the diagnosis or to justify the need for accommodations. Accommodations are necessary to ensure that individuals with dyslexia can access educational and career opportunities on an equal footing with their peers.

DON’T FORGET

CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored historical research on the neurobiological basis of dyslexia and provided an overview of the findings and implications of contemporary neuroimaging studies in the field. These studies provide compelling evidence for the existence of dyslexia as a neurobiological disorder as well as the neurofunctional and neurostructural differences that contribute to reading difficulties. The findings from this research highlight the importance of understanding how the brain structures and functions of individuals with ­dyslexia differ from those of typical readers and how these differences impact their performance in the classroom. Gaining a deeper understanding of the neurobiological basis of dyslexia may support researchers, educators, and other professionals in developing interventions that are tailored to the specific needs of individuals with the disorder. Ultimately, the goal of such interventions is to help children with dyslexia overcome their reading difficulties and reach their full potential. By leveraging the insights gained from brain imaging studies, we can develop more effective strategies for identifying and supporting individuals with dyslexia, both inside and outside of the ­classroom (Katzir & Pare-­Blagoev, 2006).

38  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

  TEST YOURSELF 1. Historically, which term was used to describe developmental dyslexia?

a. b. c. d.

Acquired dyslexia. Congenital word blindness. Acquired alexia. Broca’s aphasia.

2. The main function of cerebral white matter is to

a. b. c. d.

separate lobes within the cerebral cortex. generate responses to environmental conditions. connect portions of the cerebral cortex, cerebellum, brain stem, and spinal cord. process language-­related information.

3. The visual word-­form area (VWFA) is located in the

a. b. c. d.

angular gyrus in the parietal lobe. occipito-­temporal area. temporal lobe. anterior system in the inferior frontal gyrus.

4. The corpus callosum is a white matter structure that connects

a. b. c. d.

the cerebral cortex and the cerebellum. the frontal lobe with the occipital lobe. the left and right cerebral hemispheres. the brain stem with the cerebrum.

5. Studies in children with dyslexia using fMRI show a failure of predominantly the right hemisphere posterior brain systems to function properly during reading.True or false? 6. Most language-­related tasks are processed in the

a. b. c. d.

cerebellum. brain stem. right hemisphere. left hemisphere.

7. The visual cortex is located in the

a. b. c. d.

frontal lobe. parietal lobe. temporal lobe. occipital lobe.

8. The primary auditory cortex is located in the

a. b. c. d.

frontal lobe. parietal lobe. temporal lobe. occipital lobe.

9. Expressive aphasia may result from damage to

a. b. c. d.

Broca’s area. Wernicke’s area. Gerner’s area. the cerebellum.

10. Readers with dyslexia tend to rely on the memorization of words.True or false? 11. Readers with dyslexia use the same neural systems as nonimpaired readers, but they are less fluent.True or false? 12. The folds in the cerebral cortex create the appearance of smooth areas or ridges and furrows or grooves in the brain. The smooth areas or ridges on the cerebral cortex are called _____________, and the furrows or grooves are called _____________. 13. Brain structure differences in dyslexia persist into adulthood, affecting development of reading fluency and spelling.True or false?

THE BRAIN AND DYSLEXIA  39

14. fMRI has been useful in determining which particular regions of brain are used in performing a task, because fMRI measures

a. b. c. d. e.

the electrical stimulation in the brain. the amount of blood in the brain. the blood-­oxygenation-­level-­dependent response. all of the above. none of the above.

15. Little variability exists between brain structures in individuals with dyslexia. Brain imaging techniques can be used without ­additional testing to diagnose dyslexia.True or false? Answers: 1. b; 2. c; 3. b; 4. c; 5. False; 6. d; 7. d; 8. c; 9. a; 10. True; 11. False; 12. gyri, sulci; 13. True; 14. c; 15. False.

Chapter Four GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Deborah Schneider, Nancy Mather, and Barbara J. Wendling The route through childhood is shaped by many forces, and it differs for each of us. Our biological inheritance, the temperament with which we are born, the care we receive, our family relationships, the place where we grow up, the schools we attend, the culture in which we participate, and the historical period in which we live—­all these affect the paths we take through childhood and condition the remainder of our lives. —­Dr. Robert Wozniak, 1991 As has been discussed, dyslexia is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder (Fletcher et al., 2018). Although the exact causes of dyslexia are still under investigation, it is widely acknowledged that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in its etiology (i.e., underlying causes; Pennington, McGrath, et al., 2009). In recent years, there has been increasing interest in understanding the relative genetic (G) and environmental (E) contributions to dyslexia, as well as the effects of interactions between the two (G × E; Hulme & Snowling, 2009). In this chapter, we explore contemporary research on genetic and environmental contributors to dyslexia, including the latest findings on specific genes associated with dyslexia and the effects of later environmental contributors such as early childhood enrichment, education, and print exposure. GENETICS

Converging evidence indicates that between 50% and 70% variance in risk for dyslexia may be attributable to genetic factors (Doust et al., 2022; Paracchini, 2022; Peterson & Pennington, 2015). Children’s genetic makeup is inherited from their parents, and in individuals with dyslexia, that makeup includes genes linked to an increased likelihood of developing dyslexia (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). The role of genetics in the development of reading and spelling skills has been established through extensive Family history can help predict risk for dyslexia so that early, research (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Grigorenko, 2004; Muter & intensive environmental interventions can be prescribed to Snowling, 2009; Paracchini, 2022; Pennington & Olson, 2007), reduce the risk of reading failure (Olson, 2006; S. Shaywitz & including early studies demonstrating familial transmission of Shaywitz, 2020). dyslexia (e.g., Bakwin, 1973; DeFries et al., 1978; Hallgren, 1950) as well as contemporary research that has identified specific genes linked to increased susceptibility to the disorder (Becker et al., 2014; Gialluisi et al., 2019). As previously discussed, dysCAUTION lexia is a specific neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning that it When a child has poor reading and is referred for a reading has antecedents in the early development of the brain rather than evaluation, it is important to attempt to determine whether a condition acquired in childhood or adulthood. Reading disora family history of such problems exists. If it does, informing ders developed later in life (e.g., as a result of a stroke or trauparents of the genetic influences of dyslexia alerts them to matic brain injury) are not characterized as developmental the possible at-­risk status of other children in their family dyslexia but instead are referred to as acquired dyslexia or alexia (Muter & Snowling, 2009). (total loss of reading).

DON’T FORGET

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 41

42  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

GENES AND CHROMOSOMES

Molecular genetics is a field of study that investigates how genes are passed down from generation to generation, including the study of genes that may contribute to the risk of developmental disorders. The human genome can be characterized as an instruction manual containing all of the biological information necessary to build a living person. While the codes in this manual are not yet fully understood by medical science, research in molecular and behavioral genetics has provided valuable insights into the functions and interactions of genes, as well as how genetic variation can influence susceptibility to neurodevelopmental disorders such as dyslexia. By studying the genetic mechanisms underlying neurodevelopmental disorders, researchers hope to identify new diagnostic tools and therapies that can improve the lives of children with dyslexia and their families. The information in our genetic instruction manual is encoded in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a long, complex molecule that carries the genetic code responsible for guiding the growth, development, functioning, and reproduction of each person. It comprises four chemical building blocks called nucleotides. These nucleotides are arranged in specific sequences along the DNA strand, and the sequence of nucleotides determines the genetic information that is encoded in the DNA. This information includes instructions that govern the characteristics and traits of each person, and changes, or mutations, in a DNA sequence, can cause alterations in traits or even increase the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders. A chromosome is a structure within a cell that carries genetic material. Chromosomes are composed of long strands of DNA that are coiled around proteins called histones to form a structure known as chromatin. The chromatin is then further coiled and compacted to form the characteristic shape of a chromosome, which consists of two identical chromatids connected at the centromere. These chromatids, varying in length but each carrying an identical strand of DNA, are characterized as arms. The shorter arm is called the p arm, and the longer arm is called the q arm (see Figure 4.1). Genes are arranged along the length of the chromosome, each providing the information needed to produce a specific protein or perform a particular function within the cell. The human genome is estimated to contain between 20,000 and 25,000 genes, each of which plays a specific role in the structure and function of the body. Chromosomes are arranged in pairs within the nucleus of the cells that make up the human body. Human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes that determine various traits, such as eye color and biological sex. For example, the 23rd chromosome pair, also known as the sex chromosome, determines the biological sex of a child. If a child inherits two X chromosomes, then she will be biologically female, while a child inheriting one X and one Y chromosome will be biologically male. The mother always contributes an X chromosome, while the father may contribute either an X or a Y chromosome, thereby determining the sex of the child. As each parent contributes half of their chromosomes to their child, children inherit traits from both their mother and father. Over the last several decades, researchers have focused on identifying specific genes that influence individual susceptibility to dyslexia. This has proven a challenging task because reading is a relatively recent cultural invention, so there are no genes that have specifically evolved to guide the development of the reading brain. Rather, the human brain has evolved various structures for other purposes, such as language production and comprehension, visual and auditory memory, and the interpretation of visual information, which are recruited and used while reading. The neural structures involved in reading are therefore multifaceted and widely distributed throughout the brain, making the task of identifying specific genetic factors that influence dyslexia challenging (Pennington & Olson, 2007). This is analogous to trying to determine the composition of a constellation by viewing a single star. The constellation is created by the combination of many stars, just as many genes contribute to dyslexia. Thus, dyslexia has a complex genetic architecture that is influenced by many genes (Georgitsi et al., 2021). p

q

Figure 4.1  Example of a Human Chromosome

GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT  43

RESEARCH INTO THE GENETIC BASIS OF DYSLEXIA

In the 1980s, geneticists began to investigate the role of heredity in dyslexia, motivated in part by observations that dyslexia tends to run in families. Early studies of twins (Pennington, 1989) and families suggested that there was a genetic component to the disorder (Pennington, 1990; Scerri & Schulte-­Körne, 2010), but given the rudimentary nature of genetic technology at the time, researchers were unable to localize specific genetic contributors to the disorder. In the 1990s, advances in genetic technology allowed researchers to begin conducting genome-­wide association studies (GWAS) to identify genes associated with dyslexia; however, initial GWAS studies failed to detect candidate genes (Pennington & Smith, 1997). It wasn’t until the early 2000s that researchers began to identify specific genes associated with dyslexia. One of the first genes to be linked to dyslexia was DYX1C1, which was identified in a study of a large British family with a high incidence of the disorder (Taipale et  al.,  2003). Subsequent studies have identified other genes associated with dyslexia, including DCDC2 and KIAA0319 (Cope et al., 2005; Schumacher et al., 2006). In recent years, advances in genetic technology have allowed researchers to conduct more nuanced studies of the genetic basis of dyslexia. As an example, an extremely large study (involving over one million participants, over 50,000 of whom attested to being diagnosed with dyslexia) reported over 40 genetic variants significantly associated with risk for dyslexia at the genome-­wide level and over 60 more with suggestive associations (Doust et al., 2022). Several of the genes found to be significantly associated with dyslexia are known contributors to other neurodevelopmental disorders, and the authors reported moderate genetic correlations between dyslexia and attention-­deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), suggesting that the disorders might have overlapping genetic risk factors. Unsurprisingly, each of the genetic variants was found to contribute only a very small amount to the overall risk for dyslexia, highlighting the numerous genetic factors that contribute to the etiology of the disorder. Prior to this study, only a handful of studies reported robust associations between specific genetic variants and risk for dyslexia at the genome-­wide level. This is likely because most studies were not large enough to establish statistically significant links between the disorder and the numerous genes that likely contribute to variation in risk. Of those few that did achieve this level of significance, two (Gialluisi et al., 2019; Truong et al., 2019) identified statistically significant genome-­wide associations between specific genetic variants and a cognitive ability foundational to reading achievement (specifically, rapid automatized naming [RAN] ability). The authors of the latter replicated their results in a second cohort, providing confirmatory evidence of the finding. These results suggest that genetic risk for dyslexia is mediated by genes that influence the development of related cognitive abilities, such as visual processing, phonological processing, and lexical retrieval fluency, all of which contribute to RAN ability. As behavioral genetic research into dyslexia advances, the true complexity of its genetic antecedents becomes even more apparent. Instead of specific genes coding for individual skills underpinning reading, researchers have discovered that the genetic blueprint for dyslexia is highly polygenic (meaning many genes), involving numerous genes that each contribute small effects to the overall phenotype (behavioral presentation) of the disorder. These genes interact with each other and environmental factors to influence a wide range of cognitive and neural processes that, in turn, contribute to the development of reading skills (Paracchini et al., 2007; Plomin & Kovas, 2005). As S. Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2020) observed, “With the remarkable progress in genetics, the initial hope that dyslexia would be explained by one gene or just a few genes has not been fulfilled” (p. 117). The concept of heritability is complex. Here we paraphrase (Wang, 2011, pp. 13–14) to provide a concise explanation of one of its basic principles: Many studies in behavioral genetics aim to understand the relative impact of genetic factors and environmental factors on various traits and conditions. To measure the proportion of variability in a given trait or condition attributable to genetics, researchers use heritability (h2), a numerical value ranging from 0 to 1. As an example, studies on ADHD estimate its heritability to be between 0.60 and 0.90. This means that between 60% and 90% of the variability in risk for ADHD within a population can be explained by genetic factors. It is important to note that h2 is a statistical concept that describes the proportion of variance in a particular variable attributable to genetics within groups, not within individuals. For instance, if the heritability of dyslexia is 0.75, that doesn’t mean that a child with two parents with dyslexia will be 75% dyslexic, or even that the child will develop a reading disorder at all. Heritability only indicates the portion of the statistical variation in a trait or condition that can be attributed to genetics at the group level. SPECIFIC GENES LINKED TO DYSLEXIA RISK

Genes associated with dyslexia are involved in various aspects of brain development and function, including neuronal migration (the positioning of nerve cells during development), synaptogenesis (formation of the junction that allows nerve cells to communicate), axon guidance (the process that allows the tips of nerve axons to reach their targets), and neural circuit formation (the development of communicating networks of nerves; Mascheretti et al., 2017). This complexity implies that the genetic basis of dyslexia cannot be reduced to a single gene or a small set of genes responsible for specific reading-­related skills. Instead, the genetic underpinnings of

44  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

dyslexia involve a broad network of genes that impact numerous cognitive processes, including phonological awareness, orthographic processing, working memory, and attention (Peterson & Pennington, 2015). Early investigations into the genetic blueprint of dyslexia implicated genes on chromosomal regions 1p, 2p, 6p, 15q, and 18p, with additional evidence suggesting the involvement of 6q, 3p, 11p, and Xq (Williams & O’Donovan, 2006). The 6p chromosomal region, in particular, has emerged as the most important and consistently replicated predictor of risk for dyslexia (Hulme & Snowling, 2009; Olson, 2006; Pennington & Olson, 2007). Several genes within the 6p chromosomal region have been identified as significant predictors of dyslexia, including KIAA0319 and DCDC2. These genes have various roles in early brain development. For example, KIAA0319 is involved in neuronal migration, a critical developmental process in which neurons move to their appropriate positions to form the brain’s structure and establish functional neural circuits (Paniagua et al., 2022; Paracchini et al., 2006, 2008). Disruptions in neuronal migration have been associated with dyslexia and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Similarly, the DCDC2 gene, also located on chromosome 6p22, plays a role in the formation of neuronal circuits, which are essential for effective communication between different brain regions (Meng et al., 2005). Alterations in the functioning of DCDC2 have been linked to dyslexia in multiple studies (Carrion-­ Castillo et al., 2013; Scerri et al., 2011). In addition to the genes located within 6p chromosomal region, researchers have identified several other genes associated with dyslexia. Notable among these is DYX1C1, which is located on chromosome 15q21. This gene was among the first to be linked to dyslexia. Research has shown that DYX1C1 is involved in neuronal migration during brain development, a critical process that, when disrupted, may contribute to the development of dyslexia (Taipale et al., 2003). Another gene of interest is ROBO1, found on chromosome 3p12. This gene encodes for a protein that plays a significant role in the development of the nervous system, particularly in the formation and guidance of axonal connections between neurons. Studies have suggested that variations in the ROBO1 gene may affect the development of language-­related neural pathways, thus contributing to risk for dyslexia (Hannula-­ Jouppi et al., 2005). Likewise, the FOXP2 gene on chromosome 7q31 has been implicated in susceptibility to dyslexia. FOXP2 is a transcription factor (a protein regulating gene expression) involved in the development of speech and language, and mutations in this gene have been linked to developmental disorders implicating language, including reading difficulties (Kaminen et al., 2003; Wilcke et al., 2012). Whereas the genes we’ve just discussed are among those most commonly associated with dyslexia, no single gene has been confirmed by all of the studies (Grigorenko, 2005; Raskind, 2001), and the best available evidence suggests that the genetic contributions to dyslexia are polygenic and extremely complex (Doust et al., 2022). The authors of one genome-­wide association study concluded, “The finding of more general significance is that no associations greater than 0.5% were detected even though the sample of 4000 provided 99% power to detect them” (Meaburn et al., 2008, p. 736). Unfortunately, in the exploration of candidate genes related to dyslexia, most studies have not been replicated and the list of candidate genes varies among studies (Becker et al., 2017). Whereas genetic research has provided some important insights into the underlying causes of dyslexia, it is important to note that genetics is just one piece of the developmental puzzle. Environmental “. . . dyslexia is best explained by multiple genes, each factors, such as early childhood experiences and educational opporcontributing a small amount toward the expression of tunities, also play an important role in the development of the disordyslexia” (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020, p. 118). der (B. Shaywitz et al., 2004; S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020).

DON’T FORGET

FAMILY HISTORY

Children with a family history of dyslexia are at substantially greater risk of experiencing reading difficulties (Muter & Snowling, 2009). Children whose parents or siblings have dyslexia are about four times more likely to develop reading difficulties than those with no family history (Snowling et al., 2019). Studies suggest that between 30% and 50% of children with a parent who has dyslexia will develop the disorder (Pennington & Lefly, 2001; van Bergen et al., 2011). Furthermore, if one child in a family has dyslexia, approximately half of their siblings will likely also experience reading difficulties (Shaywitz, 2003, p. 99). An interesting fact is that while identical twins share the same genes, they share congruent dyslexia diagnoses in only 60–70% of cases; this indicates that environmental factors also contribute to risk of dyslexia (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Given the well-­established genetic component of dyslexia, any comprehensive educational evaluation should include an exploration of a family history of reading difficulties (Uhry & Clark, 2005). In a dyslexia evaluation, always ask: Did anyone in the family It is not uncommon for a parent to be unaware of their dyslexia have trouble learning to read? until their child is diagnosed, and while parents may not know if a

DON’T FORGET

GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT  45

relative has been formally diagnosed, they are usually able to report accurately on their family members’ reading and spelling difficulties (Pennington,  2009). Thus, the first step for the early identification of dyslexia is to start with an assessment of family history (Sanfilippo et al., 2020). Family studies have also provided insights into the complexity of the genetic factors affecting susceptibility to reading-­related learning disorders. Mascheretti and colleagues (2013), for example, investigated the heritability of dyslexia and various environmental factors affecting individual risk for the disorder. Consistent with previous research, they reported a high degree of heritability of reading difficulties within families. Another finding of the study was the identification of variations in specific genetic markers that were associated with a higher risk of dyslexia in individuals with a family history of the disorder. These genetic markers, known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, pronounced snips), are variations in DNA sequences that can influence the way genes function and contribute to differences in traits such as dyslexia susceptibility. The authors reported that risk for reading difficulties was significantly mediated by environmental factors, even in individuals carrying SNPs associated with dyslexia. Specifically, they found that low birth weight, low socio-­economic status (SES), and maternal smoking during pregnancy appeared to modulate the expression of dyslexia-­related genes, a phenomenon known as an epigenetic effect, leading to significantly increased susceptibility. These findings highlight the complex role of both genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of dyslexia. By contrast, a family study performed by van Bergen et al. (2014) failed to identify significant effects of home literacy environment, an environmental factor often associated with reading outcomes, among children in families with a history of reading difficulties. Instead, the authors reported that the severity of parents’ reading difficulties was a particularly robust predictor of children’s reading outCAUTION comes. Another study by van Bergen et al. (2011) also examined the heritability of dyslexia in families with a history of reading difficulFindings from longitudinal studies indicate the long-­standing ties, again reporting that the heritability of dyslexia was higher in literacy problems of individuals with dyslexia, but they do not suggest that individuals cannot make progress in literacy skills. cases where the parents’ reading difficulties were more severe. Taken together, these findings could be interpreted to suggest a greater degree of genetic risk in individuals with a family history of severe dyslexia; however, caution is warranted, as it remains impossible to fully “disentangle the genetic and environmental contribution to the intergenerational transmission of skills” (van Bergen, 2014, p. 8), as No single gene is responsible for the transmission of dyslexia in families. Instead, many genes of small effect appear to parental reading difficulties in themselves contribute to the environincrease the risk involved. ment in which the child is raised.

DON’T FORGET

TWIN STUDIES

Twin studies have been instrumental in advancing our understanding of dyslexia’s heritability. These studies allow us to better understand the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to risk for dyslexia, thus shedding light on its etiology (Bishop, 2009). Monozygotic (MZ, i.e., identical) twins, resulting from the division of a single fertilized egg, share all of their genes, while dizygotic (DZ, i.e., fraternal) twins, resulting from the fertilization of two separate eggs, share approximately 50% of their genes, the same as any other pair of full siblings. Both types of twins share the same parents and typically experience similar home environments and attend the same schools. Thus, by studying the differences in rates of heritability between MZ and DZ twins, we can begin to disentangle the contributions of genetic and environmental factors to the development of dyslexia. In a study conducted several decades ago, Bakwin (1973) investigated the reading performance of 676 pairs of same-­sex twins. Among the MZ twins, 84% had a concordant history of reading difficulties (i.e., if one had a history of difficulty, so did the other), while only 29% of DZ twins had concordant reading difficulties. This finding highlights the genetic influence on reading performance, as MZ twins, who share all of their genes, exhibited greater similarity in reading performance compared to DZ twins, who share only half of their genes (Olson, 2006). However, the absence of one-­to-­one correspondence in reading disabilities among MZ twins in this sample suggests that nongenetic factors play a role in dyslexia development. In fact, in another twin study, only 58% of MZ twins were found to have concordant reading difficulties (Hensler et al., 2010). This finding supports the contention that environmental factors play an extremely important role in risk for dyslexia (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). The Colorado Longitudinal Twin Study of Reading Disability (LTSRD), initiated in 1982, was the first longitudinal (conducted over a long period) study that selected twin participants based on a history of reading difficulties. Throughout the years, the LTSRD has yielded numerous findings that have contributed to our understanding of reading disabilities and their underlying factors. Results from the LTSRD have demonstrated heritability estimates of 79% for overall reading achievement in twins with a family history of reading difficulties (Wadsworth et al., 2015). The LTSRD has also provided evidence of the heritability of various cognitive abilities

46  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 4.1 Sample Findings from the Longitudinal Twin Study of Reading Disability Early studies indicated genetic influence on reading disability. Deficits in orthographic coding have shown the most significant genetic influence. Deficits in phoneme awareness, phonological decoding, and orthographic decoding are partially influenced by the same genes. The relationship between phoneme awareness and phonological decoding is stronger than the relationship between phoneme ­awareness and orthographic coding. The genetic influences on reading measures are stable across the school-­age years. The genetic influence is more pronounced in poor readers with higher intelligence test scores than those with lower intelligence scores. The same cognitive variables that contribute to dyslexia also provide support for advanced reading skills.

associated with reading achievement, including processing speed (Wadsworth et al., 2007) and lexical retrieval (Davis et al., 2001). Moreover, LTSRD research has established the stability of dyslexia with age. Ten-­year-­old twins with reading difficulties still faced significant reading challenges in follow-­up assessments 5–6 years later (Wadsworth et al., 2007). Finally, the LTSRD has provided insights into the genetic and environmental factors contributing to the comorbidity between reading disabilities and ADHD (Wadsworth et al., 2015). Rapid Reference 4.1 summarizes several LTSRD twin study findings over multiple decades (Olson, 2006). The Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), which began in England and Wales in the mid-­1990s, has followed the development of over 13,000 twins. The focus of TEDS is broader than the Colorado twin study: A major goal is to investigate the genetic and environmental origins of the most common childhood developmental differences, not just reading and attentional problems. TEDS research has demonstrated that genetic factors play a significant role in reading abilities and reading disorders (Kovas et al., 2007). Within the TEDS sample, the heritability of reading skills has been estimated at up to 70% or more, depending on the age of participants and the measure used, indicating that a substantial proportion of variability in reading abilities can be attributed to genetic factors (Kovas et al., 2007). Results from the TEDS study have also shown that genetic influences on reading disorders often overlap with those affecting other cognitive skills such as verbal abilities and general intelligence (Plomin & Von Stumm, 2018). This suggests that some of the same genes that contribute to reading disorders may also play a role in other cognitive difficulties experienced by individuals with dyslexia. TEDS research has also underlined the importance of the home learning environment in the development of reading skills (Krapohl et al., 2014). Children with a genetic predisposition for reading difficulties may be more susceptible to the effects of an unfavorable early learning environment, which can exacerbate their difficulties. Conversely, a supportive and stimulating early learning environment can help mitigate the effects of genetic risk factors and improve reading outcomes (Krapohl et al., 2014). Twin studies have continued to advance our understanding of the heritability of dyslexia. Olson and colleagues (2011) explored the genetic and environmental etiologies of early vocabulary and reading development in identical and fraternal twins beginning in preschool through grade four. The authors reported that shared family environment was a more significant predictor of individual differences in vocabulary than hereditary factors in the preschool years. However, this pattern changed significantly in grades two and four, when genetic factors emerged as highly influential, and vocabulary CAUTION and word recognition accounted for all of the genetic and shared environmental influences on reading comprehension. Although much progress has been made in discovering the Through twin-­study research, we have gained valuable insights genes that are most related to dyslexia, additional research is into the stability of dyslexia over time and the genetic and environneeded. In addition, genes do not operate in isolation, and their mental factors contributing to the cognitive abilities associated with expression is affected by a range of environmental influences. reading achievement. More recent studies have continued to provide valuable insights into the genetic and environmental etiologies of dyslexia, highlighting the complex interplay among various factors.

CAUTION

Even though dyslexia is highly heritable, specific genes can only account for a very small amount of the variability in reading ability (Meaburn et al., 2008; S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Environmental factors also play an important role.

SEX DIFFERENCES

Over the past century, researchers have sought to determine the relative prevalence of dyslexia among males and females to determine if susceptibility to the disorder is mediated by sex. An early example was

GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT  47

provided by Hinshelwood (1917), who argued that boys exhibited a greater incidence of word blindness than girls. Converging evidence suggests that he was likely correct in this observation, although the male-­to-­female ratio in both research-­based and referral samples of children with dyslexia varies according to the methodology employed. Studies generally report a higher number of males than females experiencing reading difficulties, with a more pronounced male presence in severely impaired samples (Hawke et al., 2009). Several potential reasons for the higher number of boys identified with dyslexia are outlined in the next section. Research has found that, on average, females tend to outperform males in reading achievement (Reilly et al., 2019). A large-­scale analysis of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that this gender gap in reading performance was statistically significant and relatively stable over time (Reilly et al., 2019). In a large-­scale meta-­analysis of findings from several internationally administered standardized tests, Lietz (2006) found that secondary-­school girls significantly outperformed their male counterparts in reading, and that this difference was present regardless of age or language of instruction. Likewise, several studies have found that males are more vulnerable to dyslexia than females. For example, Rutter et al. (2004) found that boys were approximately 1.4–4 times more likely to experience significant reading difficulties than girls. The data included in this study were derived from several large cohorts of children who were evaluated at regular intervals, reducing the probability of bias in selection. Similarly, a meta-­analysis by Quinn and Wagner (2015) reported that males were 1.6–2.4 times more likely to experience reading difficulties compared to females, depending on the measure used. Notably, this study involved standardized screening of a sample of nearly 500,000 second graders, meaning that the differences detected are unlikely to be attributable to selection bias and instead represent a clear distinction in vulnerability by sex. Various hypotheses have been proposed to explain the apparent differences in reading achievement between boys and girls. As an example, some authors have argued that there might be greater variability in reading abilities among males compared to females, even if the mean of their abilities might be similar. This greater variability hypothesis posits that males are more likely to be overrepresented at both ends of the distribution of scores—­both among high achievers and individuals with reading difficulties (Hedges & Nowell, 1995; Machin & Pekkarinen, 2008). Machin and Pekkarinen reported that variability in reading test scores was indeed greater for males than for females in many countries, resulting in an overrepresentation of males among the lowest achievers. This phenomenon of fat tails in the distribution of achievement among males could explain why they are more frequently diagnosed with dyslexia (Quinn & Wagner, 2015; Rutter et al., 2004). Another factor influencing gender ratios in the diagnosis of reading disorders may be the reliance on school procedures for identification (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). In educational settings, boys with dyslexia are more often referred for testing than girls. This may occur because boys are more likely to have comorbidities and to exhibit externalizing (acting out) behaviors, while girls have lower rates of comorbid disorders, and, when present, they are more likely to involve internalizing behaviors, such as social withdrawal or symptoms of anxiety and depression (Pennington et al., 2009). Moreover, dyslexia research often relies on subjects classified by schools as having learning disabilities, thereby creating a biased sample overrepresented by boys. However, some studies using selection criteria independent of school classifications (research identified) have reported similar numbers of reading disabilities among boys and girls (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Contemporary research suggests that there may indeed be sex-­based differences in reading achievement, with males appearing to be more susceptible to reading difficulties; however, the reasons for these differences are multifaceted and not well understood. Factors such as greater variability in reading abilities among males, biases in referral and identification processes, and differences in comorbidities and behavioral manifestations between genders may contribute to the observed disparities. COMORBIDITY

Comorbidity is a medical term referring to the presence of more than one disorder in a single individual. Whereas comorbid conditions may have overlapping features, they nevertheless constitute independent disorders, and one does not cause the other. Comorbidity is a central characteristic of complex neurodevelopmental disorders such as dyslexia. This means that dyslexia co-­occurs with other neurodevelopmental disorders more often than would be expected by chance (Caron & Rutter, 1991; Pennington & Olson, 2007). The rate of comorbidity between dyslexia and other neurodevelopmental disorders varies among research studies (Moll et al., 2019); however, converging evidence suggests that approximately 15–60% of children with dyslexia also meet the diagnostic criteria for another neurodevelopmental disorder, depending on the strictness of the diagnostic criteria, making comorbidity the rule rather than an Comorbidity means that two different disorders are present exception (Brimo et al., 2021; Ebejer et al., 2010; Moll et al., 2019; within an individual and neurodevelopmental comorbidity in Willcutt & Pennington, 2000). Moll et al. (2020) indicate that 40% dyslexia is quite common (Brimo et al., 2021). of children with dyslexia will have another disorder as well.

DON’T FORGET

48  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

One ­possible explanation for this comorbidity is that several genes appear to contribute to the risk for more than one neurodevelopmental disorder, leading to a shared genetic etiology (Grigorenko, 2009). In other words, the genetic factors that contribute to risk for certain neurodevelopmental disorders may overlap, resulting in a high degree of comorbidity among disorders. The three most common comorbidities that occur with dyslexia are developmental language disorder (DLD), specific learning disorder in mathematics (dyscalculia), and ADHD (Moll et al., 2020). Practitioners and teachers need to understand comorbidity in the case of learning and developmental disorders, as it can impact the identification and treatment of these conditions (Willcutt et al., 2007). As an example, a child with dyslexia may also have ADHD, which could affect the child’s capacity to concentrate and complete reading and writing tasks. If the child’s ADHD is not identified and properly addressed, it could compound their reading difficulties. Similarly, a child with dyslexia may also have a speech sound disorder (SSD), which could further impair the child’s ability to produce and recognize sounds, and, ultimately, their ability to read. Although ADHD, SSD, and DLD each have distinct characteristics, individuals with The three most common comorbid disorders with dyslexia one or more of these disorders can exhibit low performance on the are developmental language disorder, dyscalculia (specific same types of cognitive and linguistic tasks. For example, tasks learning disorder in mathematics), and attention-­deficit involving short-­term memory or the ability to repeat orally presented ­hyperactivity disorder. nonsense words can be problematic for individuals with any of these disorders (Grigorenko, 2009). As discussed throughout this book, a key feature of dyslexia in many children is a deficit in phonemic awareness, or the ability to recognize and manipulate the speech sounds of language. Whereas this deficit is closely associated with dyslexia, it is less common in children with DLD when they do not have a comorbid reading disorder (Catts et al., 2005). A common measure of phonological processing is nonsense repetition, which assesses an individual’s ability to repeat pseudowords that use the phonetic patterns of the individual’s language. Poor performance on nonsense word repetition is often seen in individuals with both a language and a reading impairment, but not in those with a language impairment alone. This suggests that poor nonsense word repetition is a marker for a language impairment that co-­occurs with dyslexia (Baird et al., 2011; Catts et al., 2005). While distinct disorders, dyslexia, and DLD are closely related clinical conditions, they have overlapping genetic influences (Rice et al., 2009). This means that individuals with dyslexia may also have language impairments, and vice versa. By understanding the features of these disorders and how they may interact to mask or even amplify their respective symptoms, professionals can better diagnose and treat children with dyslexia. Dyscalculia, also described as a specific learning disorder in mathematics, is characterized by persistent difficulties in learning math facts, mastering calculations, and engaging in problem-­solving and reasoning tasks (Moll, 2022). Although dyslexia and dyscalculia each have a unique cognitive profile and a unique set of risk factors, common cognitive factors may contribute to their high rate of comorbidity. One such factor is weakness in working memory, a cognitive process that is crucial for retaining and manipulating information during problem-­solving and learning tasks (Maehler & Schuchardt, 2016; Moll, 2022). Additionally, slow processing speed has been identified as a shared characteristic in individuals with dyslexia and dyscalculia, potentially hindering their ability to efficiently process and integrate new information (Moll, 2022). ADHD, another disorder that commonly co-­occurs with dyslexia (Brimo et al., 2021; Moll et al., 2020), is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects attention, impulse control, and activity levels (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Although the two disorders have different diagnostic criteria and symptoms, they are frequently found together, with studies reporting rates of comorbidity ranging from 25% to 40% (Willcutt & Pennington, 2000). The high comorbidity between dyslexia and ADHD may be due to shared underlying genetic and environmental risk factors; in fact, genes on the 6p locus appear to contribute to dyslexia, ADHD, and SSD (Pennington & Olson, 2007). Several studies have reported evidence of other instances of genetic overlap between dyslexia and ADHD. For example, a GWAS found that a genetic variant associated with dyslexia (located on a gene called SEMA6D; Thomas et al., 2021) was also significantly associated with ADHD (Demontis et al., 2019). In a study performed by Scerri et al. (2011), the authors reported significant links between a genetic variant previously associated with ADHD (DCDC2) and risk for reading disorder. Likewise, Field and colleagues (2013) detected three candidate genes associated with dyslexia that had previously been linked to ADHD. Moreover, a large genome-­ wide association study involving over 8,000 participants identified significant links between dyslexia risk and genetic liability to ADHD (Gialluisi et al., 2021). In complementary research, Yoshimasu et al. (2010) conducted a large population-­based birth cohort study, reporting that children with ADHD have a much higher risk for reading disability compared to those without ADHD. Interestingly, among children with ADHD, the risk was similar for both boys and girls, whereas, among children without ADHD, boys were at greater risk for reading disability than girls. The International Longitudinal Twin Study (ILTS) examined the genetic and environmental influences on early literacy, language, and behavior in twin pairs from Australia, Norway, Sweden, and the United States (Ebejer et al., 2010). The authors

DON’T FORGET

GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT  49

reported that inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity were partially independent, with the strongest relationship observed between readCAUTION ing and inattention. The results suggest that inattention may underBecause of the high comorbidity between dyslexia and mine reading development as children progress through school. ADHD, clinicians should determine if a child with ADHD also The comorbidity between dyslexia and ADHD has significant has a comorbid reading disability (Yoshimasu et al., 2010). implications for diagnosis and treatment. Diagnosis can be complicated by the presence of overlapping symptoms, and it is essential to distinguish between the two disorders to ensure appropriate interventions. It is important to note, however, that ADHD is even more heritable than dyslexia, with nearly three-­fourths of variability in risk for the disorder attributable to hereditary factors. As such, environmental contributions likely play a smaller role in the etiology of ADHD than in dyslexia (Willcutt et al., 2005). The behavioral genetics of dyslexia and related disorders continues to be a complex and dynamic area of research. While progress has been made in recent years, the results of the search for candidate genes have been inconclusive, and the genetic basis of dyslexia is now believed to be more complex than previously imagined. Recent research suggests that dyslexia is likely the result of a complex interplay between multiple genes and environmental factors, rather than a single gene or genetic variant (Becker et  al.,  2017). Additionally, advances in genetic sequencing technologies have enabled researchers to identify genetic mutations that may contribute to dyslexia in some individuals. Despite these developments, a clear understanding of the genetic underpinnings of dyslexia remains elusive. The search for genetic markers that can reliably predict dyslexia or guide personalized interventions is ongoing, and additional research is needed to validate emerging evidence. Rapid Reference 4.2 highlights several crucial points gleaned from research on the subject. In the future, it may be possible to employ a gene-­based diagnostic test to identify dyslexia before a child enters school. This would facilitate the delivery of early support when a child is most receptive to intervention. This type of test, however, remains in the realm of speculation, as no such test has yet been created. ENVIRONMENT

Whereas genetic factors strongly influence reading development, the environment in which children grow up also plays a significant role in determining reading outcomes. In the context of dyslexia, genotype refers to the genetic makeup of the individual, whereas phenotype constitutes the observable traits and characteristics that result from the interaction between the individual’s genetic makeup and environmental factors. The environment can amplify or diminish the influence of genetic factors, and achievement can be affected by an intricate network of interactions among individual characteristics and family-­and school-­based influences (Goldstein & Brooks, 2007). Neither the home nor school environment, however, causes dyslexia, but both can impact a child’s reading development. Although the definition of dyslexia is clear, it can be difficult to differentiate between students who have reading difficulties that stem from environmental factors from those who have dyslexia (Becker et al., 2017).

Rapid Reference 4.2 Summary of Research on Genetics and Dyslexia Dyslexia has a genetic basis. Slightly more males than females are identified as having dyslexia (on average about 1.5:1), but males have a higher referral rate (Pennington, 2009). The heritability of dyslexia is higher in individuals with severe phonological impairments. Gender ratio estimates vary depending on the methodology employed. Multiple genes on various chromosomes are implicated. High comorbidity exists between dyslexia, DLD, ADHD, and mathematics. Dyslexia may also co-­occur with problems in motor development. Dyslexia often occurs with internalizing disorders (e.g., anxiety and depression) and externalizing disorders (e.g., conduct disorder). Genetic influences may vary by age, gender, or language. Further research is needed to clarify exactly how specific genes contribute to dyslexia. Environmental factors also influence outcomes.

50  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

HOME ENVIRONMENT

Research suggests that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to the development of dyslexia. While genetic factors appear to play an extremely significant role in the etiology of the disorder, environmental factors, particularly exposure to language in the home and early reading experiences at school, can also impact an individual’s susceptibility. Rapid Reference 4.3 presents several home environment factors that could potentially contribute to or impede reading achievement. Numerous studies have demonstrated a link between the early home environment and later reading achievement. Seminal among these is a study by Hart and Risley (1995), which found that children from homes that provided more linguistic stimulation tended to develop stronger vocabularies and reading skills. These findings were mirrored by those of Sénéchal and LeFevre (2002), who reported that a language-­rich home environment, including parents who regularly engage in reading-­related activities with their children, can significantly reduce the risk of later reading difficulties. Moreover, the researchers found a correlation between parental involvement in promoting early literacy skills at home and improved reading comprehension and word recognition during the school years. These findings are contrasted by those of Scarborough and Dobrich (1994), who, in a review of literature, reported that parental behavior accounted for a relatively modest proportion of variance in children’s reading achievement, with other factors, such as socio-­ economic status and early skills, accounting for a greater proportion of the variance. Moreover, early experience does not predetermine success or failure in reading. Effective instruction can positively impact reading achievement, regardless of a child’s initial reading ability or early opportunities for enrichment (Foorman et al., 2006). Alignment of the home and school culture has been found to be important to the development of reading skills. Snow and colleagues (2013) found that children who experienced a mismatch between the reading expectations and practices at home and school had more difficulties with reading development. This finding aligns with the results of research by Epstein (2018), which underlines the necessity of collaboration between parents and teachers to effectively promote literacy skills in children. Similarly, a report by the International Reading Association (2010) highlights the crucial role of coherent instructional practices and active parental engagement in facilitating reading success. Parents are often the first to observe their child’s struggles with early literacy skills. They may observe that their child has difficulty retaining letter names, shows little interest in looking at print during reading time, or struggles to recognize their name despite repeated exposures. Additionally, the child may have mild articulation or phonological difficulties that lead to the mispronunciation of words. Rapid Reference 4.4 provides several early warning signs that parents may observe. Parents of children with dyslexia may also have low reading skills. Bonifacci et al. (2014) interviewed 40 parents with children with dyslexia and 40 parents of children with typically developing reading skills. Their findings indicated that the parents of children with ­dyslexia group scored lower on all literacy measures, more frequently reported a poor reading history, and showed more parental distress.

Rapid Reference 4.3 Factors in the Home Environment that Affect Reading Achievement The number and quality of books in the home. The number of pages read daily. The number of school absences. The number of hours spent watching television or playing video games. Parent educational level and income.

Rapid Reference 4.4 Early Warning Signs of Dyslexia Mild speech or articulation problems. Trouble rhyming words. Trouble recalling letter names. Not interested in looking at print.

GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT  51

They caution practitioners to be wary of the fact that parents of children with dyslexia may also have reading problems and be unable to help their children with schoolwork. Parents who are concerned about their child’s reading abilities should seek a comprehensive evaluation. This evaluation should identify the root causes of the reading difficulties and recommend suitable interventions that provide targeted, intensive instruction in reading and writing by a qualified and experienced reading teacher. Ideally, the assessment and instruction should be conducted within the school setting. The intensity of instruction provided in schools, however, may sometimes prove insufficient, necessitating the need for a private tutor. Thankfully, many schools employ well-­trained school psychologists and reading teachers who possess specialized expertise in assessment and systematic Children with dyslexia often have a parent with dyslexia. interventions for students with dyslexia.

DON’T FORGET

SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

Research indicates that the quality and intensity of early reading instruction can significantly affect susceptibility to dyslexia. Environmental factors, including exposure to language and reading, have a significant impact on a child’s print knowledge during their preschool years. However, by the end of first grade, genetic factors may play an even larger role in a child’s response to instruction, accounting for between 65% and 80% of the variance (Samuelsson et al., 2008). This may lead teachers to feel less confident in their ability to improve outcomes for their students. Even after accounting for genetics, environmental factors still account for between 20% and 35% of the variability in achievement. While not as powerful as heredity, this is still a very significant contribution. Whereas dyslexia has a strong genetic component, studies have also indicated that effective reading instruction can reduce the impact of reading difficulties among students with dyslexia (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). As an example, in a meta-­analysis of the results of 34 high-­quality studies, Galuschka and colleagues (2020) reported that intensive phonics and instruction in orthography and morphology were associated with improvements of moderate to large magnitude in reading achievement among children with dyslexia. Likewise, Krafnick et al. (2011) reported that high-­quality, intensive intervention resulted not only in improvements in reading among participants with dyslexia but also in the increase of gray-­matter volume in regions of the brain involved in reading and related processes. In addition to the type of reading instruction, the timing and intensity of instruction can also impact dyslexia risk. A study by Hatcher et al. (2004) found that earlier and more intensive instruction in phonological awareness and phonics can significantly reduce the incidence of dyslexia. Learning to read is an important milestone for children, with many children beginning their journey down the road to literacy in kindergarten or first grade. To ensure that the school environment optimally addresses the needs of students with dyslexia, several factors must be considered. Perhaps the most crucial among these are the student–teacher relationship and the teacher–parent relationship. Creating a nurturing environment where all students feel respected, valued, and supported academically, emotionally, and socially is a primary responsibility of classroom teachers (Mather et al., 2015). For children with dyslexia, having a skilled and sympathetic classroom teacher and a supportive classroom environment is particularly important. These students often struggle with low self-­esteem related to the slowness of their reading and writing development. Therefore, teachers must be particularly sensitive to avoid situations that might embarrass these students, such as asking them to read aloud in front of the class or changing papers with another student for grading purposes. Rapid Reference  4.5 lists several factors in the school environment that can affect reading improvement and achievement. Chapters 7–11 provide detailed information about appropriate readEffective intervention includes small group instruction, ing and spelling instruction for individuals with dyslexia. In addi­sequential presentation of content, and provision of tion, Appendix B describes many programs that can help students ­immediate feedback. with dyslexia improve their reading and spelling.

DON’T FORGET

CONCLUSION

Dyslexia is a complex neurodevelopmental disorder that involves multiple genetic and environmental risk factors (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Although genetics appears to play a persistent and accumulating role in reading ability over the lifetime, environmental factors are known to impact early reading skills to a significant extent. Ongoing research into the interplay between genes and the environment will help increase our understanding of dyslexia. For now, simply recognizing that dyslexia is often inherited can aid in the early identification of at-­risk children, enabling timely intervention during the optimal developmental period for learning to read (Hart & Petrill, 2009).

52  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 4.5 Factors in the School Environment that Affect Reading Achievement The provision of early intervention in preschool and kindergarten to at-­risk students. The amount and type of training of the general education and special education teachers. The size of the class or classes. The opportunities for reading practice. The implementation of a structured, systematic reading methodology. The amount of individualized or small group instruction. The availability of appropriate reading materials. The availability of technology. The acceptance of individual differences.

Although our understanding of the genetic basis of dyslexia is evolving rapidly, genetic diagnosis is not yet a practical reality. Reading ability is influenced by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors, rather than any single gene or environmental factor. It is the interaction between specific genes and environmental factors that affects the development of reading ability. Overall, our growing knowledge of the genetic and environmental risk factors involved in dyslexia highlights the importance of early intervention and individualized support for children with dyslexia. By identifying at-­risk children early and providing appropriate instruction and support, we can help ensure that all children have the opportunity to develop strong reading skills and achieve their full potential.

  TEST YOURSELF 1. A specific gene has been identified that is responsible for the transmission of dyslexia.True or false? 2. Typically, considerably more males are diagnosed with dyslexia than females, and the referral rates for males are greater than for females.True or false? 3. Comorbidity means that a person has two or more disorders at the same time.True or false? 4. The human genome

a. b. c. d.

is fully understood. contains 2,000–5,000 genes. contains all the biological information necessary to build a human being. comprises an X chromosome and a Y chromosome.

5. The roles of the specific genes that can contribute to dyslexia are not fully understood.True or false? 6. High comorbidity exists between dyslexia and

a. b. c. d.

developmental language disorder. mathematics. attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder. all of the above.

7. Approximately, ____% of children with dyslexia will have a comorbid disorder.

a. b. c. d.

5–8. 6–20. 30 40.

8. Understanding the role that genetic and environmental factors play in dyslexia is important

a. b. c. d.

for the diagnosis of dyslexia. because it facilitates early identification of children at risk for dyslexia. because the environment is more important than genetics. because genetics is more important than the environment.

GENETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT  53

9. The home environment appears to exert greatest influence on an individual’s reading development

a. b. c. d.

throughout the person’s life. during the elementary school years. primarily in the preschool years. It does not influence reading.

10. Reading problems are most closely related to problems with

a. b. c. d.

impulsivity. hyperactivity. inattention. sleep deprivation

Answers: 1. False; 2. True; 3. True; 4. c; 5. True; 6. d; 7. d; 8. b; 9. c; 10. c.

Chapter Five ASSESSMENT OF COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC RISK FACTORS

Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted. —­Einstein Much of the research on dyslexia has centered on the cognitive and linguistic processes that contribute to dyslexia. To date, researchers have identified several cognitive and linguistic risk factors that, when deficient, may affect one’s ability to learn to read and spell. These various risk factors are often assessed as part of a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation for dyslexia. Essentially, one goal of a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation for dyslexia is to determine what process or processes are affecting and slowing down both reading and spelling development (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). To identify these factors, the diagnostic team needs to have a common understanding of what dyslexia is and how it can be identified in an educational setting (Andresen & Monsrud, 2022). A vast body of evidence exists regarding the role of phonological awareness and phonemic awareness in the development of reading skills. Research has also documented the influence of rapid automatized naming (RAN), processing speed, orthographic mapping and processing, morphological awareness, memory span, working memory (WM), and oral language. In fact, some research suggests that orthographic and morphological awareness are as critical as phonological awareness and RAN to the development of literacy (Berninger & May, 2011; Georgiou et al., 2021). Although oral language supports the development of reading skills and provides the basis for reading comprehension, poor oral language, by itself, is not considered to be a primary factor or correlate that affects the development of basic spelling and reading skills. Whereas phonological awareness is often impaired in individuals with dyslexia, the higher-­level components of oral language are often intact (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). For example, listening comprehension is often higher than reading comprehension (Quinn & Wagner, 2015). Some individuals with dyslexia do, however, have comorbid language disorders. Thus, a multiple deficit approach and consideration of a constellation of indicators are important when diagnosing or determining the risk for dyslexia (Erbeli et  al.,  2023; “. . . multiple risk factors work in conjunction to increase the probability of difficulties in learning to read rather than any McGrath et al., 2011; Pennington et al., 2019). Multiple neuroone factor or combination determining that an individual will logical, behavioral, and environmental factors interact to cause have these difficulties” (Catts & Petscher, 2022, p. 173). difficulty in learning to read (Catts & Petscher,  2022). Further, children who have multiple cognitive deficits are at much higher risk for having dyslexia (Pennington et al., 2019). In addition, the various cognitive deficits that are found in children with reading CAUTION disabilities are persistent (Kudo et al., 2015). This chapter explores “Identifying these children’s reading difficulties is easy. several cognitive and linguistic risk factors or correlates of dysDetermining their causes, which is crucial to preventing lexia. A correlate is not the same as a cause, but rather it is an or ameliorating them, is much harder” (Seidenberg, 2017, underlying ability or risk factor that is associated with and may p. 164). contribute to dyslexia.

DON’T FORGET

PHONOLOGICAL AND PHONEMIC AWARENESS

Phonological awareness refers to the ability to perceive and manipulate the sounds that make up the words in a language. Phonemic awareness is the ability to identify the individual speech sounds in spoken words. Although several risk factors for dyslexia have been identified, most is known about the roles of phonological and phonemic awareness. In fact, poor phonological awareness has been described as the single best predictor of risk for early reading failure (Uhry,  2005) and a significant predictor of decoding ability Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 55

56  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

(Mundy & Hannant,  2020). Even in high school, phonological weaknesses are still the best predictor of the abilities to read accurately and fluently (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Impaired phonological and phonemic awareness is often For most children, the development of phonological and phonedescribed as the key deficit, early marker, proximal cause, mic awareness occurs automatically as part of language learning and or predominant core linguistic risk factor for dyslexia reading development (Goswami, 2010). For some children, however, (Catts et al., 2005; Fletcher et al., 2018; S. Shaywitz & awareness of language sounds does not come naturally or easily. In Shaywitz, 2020; Snowling et al., 2019; Snowling, 2000). fact, many children with reading difficulties show weaknesses in phonological and phonemic awareness before they learn to read (Hulme & Snowling, 2009; Share, 2021). As noted in the definitions of dyslexia in Chapter 1, the most recent International Dyslexia Association (IDA) definition indicates that phonological processing is the core problem responsible for difficulties in word recognition and acquisition of the alphabetic principle (Lyon et al., 2003). When children with deficiencies in phonological awareness enter school, they have difficulty understanding the relationships between spoken and written words and mastering the correspondences between the sounds and the letters they represent. Thus, poor phonological awareness makes it difficult for individuals with dyslexia to understand how speech sounds map to print for both decoding and encoding (spelling) words. Individuals with dyslexia are believed to have poorly specified phonological and orthographic representations, which makes it difficult for them to acquire phonological awareness, orthographic mapping, and letter– sound decoding (Georgiou et al., 2021; Vellutino & Fletcher, 2007). Put more simply, most individuals with dyslexia initially have trouble mapping sounds to their letters, and then they encounter difficulty blending the sounds together to form words. In many students with dyslexia, a general phonological deficit is present even before the formal onset of reading and persists even after years of reading instruction (Dandache et al., 2014). Understanding Phonological and Phonemic Awareness. As students learn to read and spell an alphabetic language such as English, a critical first step is becoming aware that speech can be divided or segmented into a series of discrete sounds. This ability is often described as phonological awareness, or the ability to recognize that words are composed of sounds and to perceive and manipulate language sounds. Phonological awareness is part of the larger unit of auditory perception, but it is only involved with the sounds that correspond to speech (Miller et al., 2003). This umbrella term includes the abilities to rhyme words, segment or break words into syllables, and isolate and count the number of phonemes in a word (Aaron et al., 2008). Phonological sensitivity involves awareness of the larger, more noticeable units of speech, such as rhymes and syllables (Brady, 2020). Phonological awareness includes tasks involving both phonological sensitivity and phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness, the most important aspect of phonological awareness, includes tasks involving hearing and manipulating the discrete phonemes within words. The ability to manipulate phonemes, as opposed to syllables, is most highly related to reading skill (Brady, 2020; Pennington et al., 2019). For example, Randhir, a first-­grade student, knows that the word sheep is composed of three phonemes, /sh/, /ee/, and /p/, and that these phonemes are represented by a single letter or a group of letters that are referred to as graphemes. He also knows that the phoneme The English alphabet has 26 letters that represent 44 different phonemes, and there are approximately 250 /k/ can be spelled with the graphemes, c, k, and ck, but that ck only graphemes that are used to represent the 44 phonemes. occurs at the end of a syllable or word. His teacher, Ms. Meehan, When a letter is enclosed in forward slashes / /, it represents understands the importance of students acquiring this type of knowlthe speech sound, not the letter name. edge as they learn to read and spell. Phonemic awareness contributes to word reading and spelling development in three ways. It helps children: (1) understand the alphabetic principle or how spoken words are represented in print; (2) recognize the ways that letters represent sounds in words, reinforcing When an activity involves working with phonemes, it is knowledge of letter–sound correspondences; and (3) determine a ­described as a phonemic awareness activity. word when it is only partially sounded out (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000). The alphabetic principle refers to the understanding that letters represent sounds that are ordered in a sequence in both spoken and written words (Uhry, 2005). Beginning readers face two main challenges in acquiring the alphabetic principle (Torgesen & Mathes,  2000). First, when words are spoken in conversation, the phonemes tend to overlap with one another; this process is referred to as coarticulation. The overlapping of sounds permits the rapid production of speech and communication of language rather than providing a sound-­by-­sound pronunciation (Fletcher et al., 2018). Thus, in fluent speech, one hears the word “dog” as one sound rather than as three distinct sounds, /d/, /o/, and /g/. This process is automatic and quite unconscious (Liberman & Shankweiler, 1991).

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  57

The second challenge that beginning readers face is that, in English, there is not always a regular one-­to-­one correspondence between the CAUTION phonemes and the graphemes (written letters). That is, the number of Phonemic awareness is not the same as phonics. Phonemic sounds in a word is not necessarily the same as the number of letters. awareness is the ability to hear the distinct sounds that make For example, the word “shut” has four letters but only three sounds: up words; this ability often develops before children learn to /sh/, /u/, and /t/, whereas the word “box” has three letters but four read. Phonics refers to an instructional method that facilitates sounds: /b/, /o/, /k/, and /s/. When children are first learning to spell, reading and spelling development by teaching children the relationships between the sounds and letters. they listen carefully to words and attempt to record each of the sounds that they hear. For this reason, it makes perfect sense when a child in first grade spells the word “box” as “boks” or even “bocks.” Symptoms of Poor Phonological and Phonemic Awareness. Individuals with dyslexia exhibit a variety of symptoms that can indicate problems with phonology and the production and mastery of Phonemic awareness is an oral language skill that provides the speech sounds. These difficulties can affect development in speech, basis for learning how speech sounds are represented with graphemes for reading and spelling. word reading, and spelling. In many cases, speech develops normally, but word reading and spelling do not. Throughout their school careers, readers with dyslexia often have trouble reading phonically regular nonsense words that conform to English spelling patterns, a CAUTION problem that has been associated with a weakness in phonemic awareness (Kilpatrick,  2015; National Reading Panel,  2000; Rack “Longitudinal research has shown that phonological awareness et al., 1992; Uhry & Clark, 2005). is necessary but not sufficient for becoming a good reader” (Torgesen & Mathes, 2000, p. 5). Although a weakness in Rapid Reference  5.1 describes the different symptoms of poor phonological awareness is often associated with dyslexia, it phonological and phonemic awareness that can affect speech, word does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient cause of a reading, and spelling. Interestingly, research indicates that not all reading disability (Catts & Petscher, 2022). children with phonological deficits will demonstrate problems in word reading, suggesting that other factors in addition to phonological awareness, such as motivation, interest, and home environment, can affect the development of reading and spelling performance; thus, poor phonological awareness indicates a high risk for dyslexia, but dyslexia is not inevitable (Catts & Adlof,  2011; Catts & Petscher, 2022). Level of Analysis. English words can be divided into four main levels of analysis: words, syllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes. Figure 5.1 illustrates the word alphabet divided into syllables, onsets and rimes, and phonemes. In the English language, syllables are formed by a single vowel or vowels with varying combinations of consonants. The onset refers to the initial part of the syllable (i.e., one or more consonants) that precedes the vowel in a monosyllabic word, and the rime is the ending unit (i.e., the vowel and any consonants that follow the vowel). Every syllable in English has a rime but not necessarily an onset. For example, in the two-­syllable word “open,” the first syllable “o” is considered to be a rime without an onset. The second syllable “-­pen” contains the onset “p-­” and the rime “-­en.”

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 5.1 Symptoms of Poor Phonological and Phonemic Awareness: Problems in Speech, Reading, and Spelling • Articulation errors (e.g., boo for blue, wooster for rooster). • Difficulty rhyming words. • Mispronunciations of multisyllabic words (e.g., aminal for animal). • Trouble learning and remembering sound–symbol relationships (e.g., the sound /ch/ is made with the letters c and h). • Overreliance on whole-­word and context cues when reading. • Trouble pronouncing and spelling phonically regular nonsense words. • Difficulty applying phonics to pronounce unfamiliar words. • Difficulty sequencing sounds in words when spelling. • Confusions between similar-­sounding sounds (e.g., vowels, voiced and unvoiced consonant pairs). • Tendency to rely on the visual appearance of words when spelling rather than on phoneme–grapheme relationships.

58  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION alphabet

al

pha

bet

syllable

syllable

syllable

al rime

/a/

/1/

phoneme phoneme

ph onset /f/ phoneme

a rime ∗/

/

e

onset

phoneme

b onset /b/

et rime /e/

/t/

phoneme phoneme phoneme

Figure 5.1  Levels of Analysis for the Word Alphabet This figure depicts the levels of analysis for the word alphabet.This word is first divided into three syllables, al, pha, and bet. Syllables can then be divided into onsets and rimes. The syllable al does not have an onset because it lacks an initial consonant. Onsets and rimes can then be divided into phonemes. Note that the grapheme ph is made up of two letters (a digraph) that together form the one sound /f/. The schwa sound is an unstressed vowel sound in an unaccented syllable that sounds like the u in the word “ugh.” *The upside-­down e (phonetic symbol) is used to represent the schwa sound made by the vowel a in this syllable.

Production of Phonemes. The ability to produce the sounds for different phonemes also follows a developmental course. Children can pronounce phonemes such as /m/ and /n/ by age 3, whereas An onset includes the consonants before the vowel, whereas phonemes such as /r/ and /z/ can take several more years to master. the rime is the ending unit that begins with a vowel. Every As a general principle, sounds that are produced in the front of the syllable in English has a rime but not necessarily an onset. The mouth (e.g., /m/) are acquired earlier than sounds that are produced rime is the part of the word that rhymes. in the back of the mouth (e.g., /r/; Aaron et al., 2008). In addition, English has eight pairs of voiced and unvoiced consonants that are produced in the same manner and the same place in the mouth. The only difference in the manner of production of these phonemes is that one is produced with the ­vibration of the vocal cords (voiced), whereas the other is not (unvoiced). If you say the words big and pig with your hand on your throat, you can feel that the production of the /b/ sound involves the vocal cords, whereas the production of the /p/ sound does not. Both children and adults with poor phonemic awareness can confuse these sounds both in speaking and in spelling. For example, a CAUTION student may pronounce the word “multiplication” as “multiblication,” or “potato” as “butado.” Rapid Reference 5.2 lists the pairs of Early ear infections can contribute to articulation difficulties voiced and unvoiced consonants and provides an example of child-­ and interfere with the mastery of phonemes. friendly terminology introduced as part of the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech (LiPS; Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998, 2011). In this program, the unvoiced sounds are referred to as “quiet” sounds, whereas the voiced sounds are described as “noisy” sounds. Notice that the /th/ sound can be unvoiced as in the word “thin,” or voiced as in the word “then.” Both speech–language pathologists and reading teachers need to be able to identify children who struggle with the perception and production of phonemes as well as to determine exactly which phonemes are the most difficult for the child (Aaron et al., 2008).

DON’T FORGET

ASSESSMENT OF PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS

Individuals with dyslexia tend to perform poorly on all types of phonological tasks, but often do not have difficulty with other types of language tasks, such as measures of vocabulary or sentence comprehension (Fraser et al., 2010). The phonological deficit is domain-­ specific (i.e., affects development of reading and spelling but not other areas), higher-­order cognitive and linguistic abilities are often intact (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). As noted, poor phonological awareness is closely associated with dyslexia, but not with developmental language disorder (DLD) when it occurs in the absence of dyslexia (Catts et al., 2005; Catts & Petscher, 2022). For kindergarten students with DLD, letter identification is a more accurate predictor of poor reading than is phonological awareness, indicating that a comprehensive evaluation is needed to identify students with both DLD and dyslexia (Alonzo et al., 2020) and to differentiate between the two (Lauterbach et al. 2017). Although students with DLD and students with dyslexia may have similar reading problems, their reading problems have different underlying causes (Lauterbach et al., 2017). Typically, students with dyslexia struggle with

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  59

Rapid Reference 5.2 Eight Voiced and Unvoiced Consonant Pairs Unvoiced

Voiced

Terminology (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998, 2011)

/p/ (pig)

/b/ (big)

Lip poppers

/t/ (time)

/d/ (dime)

Tip tappers

/k/ (kite)

/g/ (gate)

Scrapers

/f/ (fan)

/v/ (van)

Lip coolers

/th/ (thin)

/th/ (then)

Tongue coolers

/s/ (sew)

/z/ (zoo)

Skinny air sounds

/sh/ (sure)

/zh/ (measure)

Fat air sounds

/ch/ (chair)

/j/ (juice)

Fat pushed sounds

word reading, whereas students with DLD struggle with reading comprehension (Hulme & Snowling, 2016). In fact, preschool oral language abilities have long-­range effects on the development of reading comprehension, so early intervention is critical (Lyster Although some children have both a developmental language disorder and dyslexia, these are distinct and different et al., 2021). Thus, an important part of a comprehensive assessment disorders (Catts et al., 2005; Lauterbach et al., 2017; Snowling of dyslexia includes evaluation of performance on different types of & Hulme, 2021). phonological and phonemic awareness tasks, as well as other oral language tasks, to identify strengths and areas of weakness in oral language that require immediate systematic interventions. Development of Phonological and Phonemic Awareness. In order to assess phonological awareness, it is necessary to have some understanding of how and when these skills develop. For most children, phonological and phonemic awareness and knowledge of phoneme–­ grapheme correspondences develop naturally over the preschool and early elementary years, progressing from the skill of rhyming words to the ability to hear and manipulate the individual sounds within words. As a general guideline, many children in preschool and most in kindergarten are able to rhyme words. The majority of first-­grade students can blend and segment phonemes within words. By second grade, most children can perform all types of tasks involving phonemic manipulations, such as deleting a sound from the beginning, middle, or end of a word. Thus, when assessing children in preschool and kindergarten, it is necessary to first ensure that they understand how to perform the target task; tasks involving phonemic substitution and manipulation can be too difficult for these children, and low scores may only indicate that the tasks were too hard (Aaron et al., 2008). Rapid Reference 5.3 provides an overview of the development of phonological awareness. Standardized Measures. A variety of instruments are available to assess various aspects of phonological awareness. Asking a child to repeat a nonsense word or a polysyllabic word (e.g., administrator) is one of the simplest ways to assess phonological abilities, as individuals with dyslexia often have difficulty repeating nonsense words and longer words with accuracy (Bishop et al., 2004; Hulme & Snowling, 2009). Individuals with dyslexia also have difficulty reading and spelling nonsense words, which is discussed in Chapter 6. Rapid Reference 5.4 proIndividuals with dyslexia often have trouble pronouncing vides an overview of commonly used measures of phonological ­nonsense words and long, unfamiliar words with accuracy. awareness. Appendix A describes several of these tests in more depth. Informal Measures. A parent or teacher can use informal procedures to explore a child’s phonological awareness development. The adult may informally assess a child’s phonological awareness development by saying familiar words and asking the child for words that rhyme, asking the child to indicate, by clapping or tapping, how many syllables or phonemes are in a word, or asking the child to name several words that start with a certain sound. Rapid Reference 5.5 illustrates questions that a parent or teacher may ask to informally evaluate a child’s phonological awareness (Mather et al., 2000). The tasks are ordered by difficulty level. If a child experiences difficulty with one or more of the tasks, then practice in these skills should be provided as part of the instructional program at home or school. Teachers have the opportunity to observe the child’s classroom performance and identify children at-­risk for reading failure. For example, difficulty pairing sounds with letters in attempted spellings is a good indicator of at-­risk status (Uhry, 2005).

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

60  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 5.3 Development of Phonological Awareness By Age 3 to 4: Can produce rhymes spontaneously without knowing they rhyme (vocal play). By Age 4 to 5: Can identify the number of syllables in a word by tapping or clapping. Can blend syllables into a whole word when presented with the syllables. Can delete a syllable from a word and state what remains. Can recognize that two words end the same or rhyme (rhyme identification). By the End of Kindergarten: Can identify and produce rhymes (rhyme production). Can identify the initial and final phonemes in words. Can put together two phonemes to pronounce a word (blending). By the End of First Grade: Can break apart and identify all of the sounds in words with four to five phonemes (segmentation). Can put together four or five phonemes to pronounce a word (blending). By the End of Second Grade: Can perform all phonemic awareness tasks: blending, segmenting, deleting, adding, and substituting phonemes.

Rapid Reference 5.4 Examples of Commonly Used Standardized Measures of Phonological Awareness Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Subtests/Tests

Publisher

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2nd ed. (CTOPP-­2)

Ages 4–0 to 24–11

Elision, Blending Words, Sound Matching, Phoneme Isolation, Phonological Memory, Nonword Repetition, Blending Nonwords, Segmenting Nonwords

PRO-­ED

Differential Ability Scales, 2nd ed. (DAS-­II) DAS II Normative Update School-­Age (DAS-­II NU SA) Dyslexia Early Screening Test, 2nd ed. (DEST-­2)

Ages 2–6 to 17–11

Phonological Processing

Pearson

Ages 7–0 to 17–11

Phonological Processing

Pearson

Ages 4–6 to 6–5

Phonological Discrimination Rhyme/Alliteration Sound Order

Pearson

Dyslexia Screening Test-­Junior (DST-­J) Dyslexia Screening Test-­Secondary (DST-­S) Gray Diagnostic Reading Tests, 2nd ed. (GDRT-­2) Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd ed. (KTEA-­3) Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test, 3rd ed. (LAC-­3) Phonological Awareness Test, 2nd ed: Normative Update (PAT-­2:NU)

Ages 6–6 to 11–5

Phonemic Segmentation

Pearson

Ages 11–6 to 16–5

Phonemic Segmentation/Spoonerisms

Pearson

Ages 6–0 to 13–11

Phonological Awareness

PRO-­ED

Ages 4–0 to 25–11

Phonological Processing

Pearson

Ages 5–0 to 18–11

Isolated Phoneme Patterns, Tracking Phonemes, Counting Syllables, Tracking Syllables, Tracking Syllables and Phonemes

PRO-­ED

Ages 5–0 to 9–11

Rhyming, Segmentation, Isolation, Deletion, Blending, Substitution with Manipulatives

PRO-­ED

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  61

Examples of Commonly Used Standardized Measures of Phonological Awareness Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Subtests/Tests

Publisher

Phonological and Print Awareness Scales (PPA Scales)

Ages 3–6 to 8–11

Rhyming, Initial Sound Matching, Final Sound Matching, Phonemic Awareness

WPS

Tests of Dyslexia (TOD) TOD-­Early (TOD-­E) TOD-­Comprehensive (TOD-­C) Test of Phonological Awareness, 2nd ed: PLUS (TOPA-­2+)

Grades K–Adult

TOD-­E: Rhyming, Early Segmenting TOD-­C: Phonological Manipulation, Blending, Segmenting

WPS

Grades K–2 Ages 5–0 to 8–11

Initial Sound–Same, Initial Sound–Different, Phonological Awareness, Letter Sounds, Ending Sound–Same, Ending Sound–Different

PRO-­ED

Test of Phonological Awareness in Spanish (TPAS)

Ages 4–0 to 10–11

Initial Sounds, Final Sounds, Rhyming Words Deletion

PRO-­ED

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th ed. (WIAT-­4) Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities, 4th ed. (WJ IV COG) Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language, 4th ed. (WJ IV OL) Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, 3rd ed. (WRMT-­III)

Ages 4–0 to 50–11

Phonemic Proficiency

Pearson

Ages 2–0 to 90+

Phonological Processing, Nonword Repetition

Riverside Insights

Ages 2–0 to 90+

Segmentation, Sound Blending, Sound Awareness

Riverside Insights

Ages 4–6 to 79–11

Phonological Awareness

Pearson

Rapid Reference 5.5 Informal Assessment of Phonological Awareness 1. Rhyme Recognition I am going to say three words, and I want you to tell me the two words that end the same or rhyme. If I say, “What rhymes with cat: hat or sun?” You would say, “hat,” because cat and hat end the same or rhyme. Now you do one. What rhymes with fun: hat or run? Additional words: bed—­red or blue; meat—­milk or seat; house—­horse or mouse? 2. Rhyme Production I’m going to say two words that rhyme. Tree rhymes with see, and dog rhymes with log. Now you do one. Tell me a word that rhymes with cat? Additional words: hop, tan, back 3. Syllable Blending I am going to say the parts of a word and then say the parts together fast (pause about ½ second between parts). If I say “cup . . . cake” fast, it would be “cup-­cake.” “Sun . . . shine” would be “sunshine.” Now you do one. What is “base . . . ball?” Additional words: play-­ground, book-­end, sun-­set, down-­town 4. Syllable Segmentation Compound Words I’m going to use these blocks (chips) to break a word into parts. “Cupcake” has two parts. Push forward one block for each part as you say it. Then point to each block and say, “This block is cup” and “this one is cake.” Push the blocks back into a group. Now you do one. Use the blocks to tell and show me the two parts of football. Additional words: meat-­ball, rain-­drop, bill-­board Syllables The word “doctor” has two parts. Push forward one block as you say each part. This first block is /doc/, and this one is /tor/. Now you do one. Use the blocks to tell and show me the word paper. Additional words: win-­dow, can-­dle, tur-­tle (continued )

62  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

5. Syllable Deletion Compound Words I’m going to say a word and leave off one part. If I say “toothbrush” but don’t say “tooth,” then it would be “brush.” Now you do one. Say the word “goldfish” (pause for a response). Now say the word “goldfish” but don’t say “fish.” Additional words: pan-­cake, star-­fish, hair-­cut Syllables The word “pencil” has two parts. The first part is /pen/ and the second part is /cil/. If I say “pencil” but don’t say /cil/, then it would be “pen.” Now you do one. Say the word “candle.” Now say the word “candle” but don’t say /dle/. Additional words: funny, elbow, garden 6. Phoneme Recognition I’m going to say a word and then ask you to tell me another word that starts with the same sound. If I say, “What starts with the same sound as the word ‘bat,’ ” then you could say “boy,” “bike,” or “boat” because all of those words start with the /b/ sound. Tell me a word that starts with the same sound as the word “cat.” Additional words: man, girl, toy 7. Phoneme Blending I’m going to say the sounds of a word slowly and then say the whole word. Pronounce each phoneme as it sounds in the word and pause about 1 second between the sounds. Listen: /s/ . . . /o–/ . . . /p/ is “soap.” Now you do one. What is . . . /b/ . . . /e/? Additional words: me, take, find, sport 8. Phoneme Segmentation I’m going to use the blocks (chips) to show you all of the sounds in a word. The word “time” would be /t/ /i/ /m/. Push a block forward as you say each sound. Now you do one. Show me the sounds in the word “toe.” Additional words: he, ten, slip, green 9. Phoneme Deletion I’m going to say a word and leave off one sound. If I say “seat” but don’t say /s/, it would be “eat.” If I say “past” but don’t say /t/, it would be “pass.” Now you do one. Say “sat” but don’t say /s/. Additional words: tan without /t/; make without /k/; chart without /ch/ Note: This informal assessment was adapted from an assessment tool that was originally developed by Mather et al. (2000). The first version was entitled the Screening of Early Reading Processes and was published in Mather and Goldstein (2001). The phonological segmentation tasks were adapted from Sawyer’s (1987) Test of Awareness of Language Segments. The most recent edition, the Phonological Awareness Skills Screener (PASS), was revised by N. Mather, J. Sammons, B. Podhajski, J. Kroese, and M.Varricchio.

Set for Variability. Because of the ambiguities between English phonology and orthography, readers have to develop some flexibility in determining the pronunciation of unfamiliar words. One relatively Informal measures of phonological awareness should not new procedure for both understanding and predicting reading perforbe used to diagnose dyslexia, but informal measures can be mance has been called set for variability (SfV). For example, when useful as screening tools for further evaluation. attempting to read the word  island, a child may first pronounce it “izland” and then self correct to island. Their flexibility with the partially decoded word or their ability to go from the incorrect to the correct pronunciation is referred to as SfV (Petscher et al., 2020). To measure SfV, researchers have used a mispronunciation task to see if a child can determine the correct pronunciation of the word (Edwards et al., 2022; Steacy et al., 2022). For example, the word hint would be pronounced to rhyme with pint or the word wasp would be pronounced to rhyme with clasp and the child would be asked to identify the correct pronunciation. Steacy et al. administered the SfV task to a large sample of grades 2–5 children (N = 489) with other reading related measures. SfV accounted for 15% of the unique variance in word reading above and beyond other predictors. In contrast, phonological awareness accounted for only 1%. Their findings suggest that SfV is a powerful and sensitive predictor of early reading difficulties and may be important for the early identification and treatment of dyslexia. Performance on this type of task is highly related to children’s phonemic awareness and their decoding skill, suggesting that both phonemic awareness and spelling skills are used to determine the correct pronunciation of a word (Edwards et al., 2022).

CAUTION

RAPID AUTOMATIZED NAMING

RAN is the ability to quickly name familiar objects or symbols. On RAN measures, children are presented with familiar objects, letters, numbers, or colors and asked to name the pictures or symbols that they see as quickly as they can. Slow naming speed is an important

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  63

symptom of dyslexia in all languages and writing systems; thus, the inclusion of RAN tasks in neuropsychological and educational assessments of reading disorders is strongly encouraged (Araújo & Faísca, 2019). Even though slow naming speed is a strong predictor of reading performance across all stimulus types (alphanumeric and non-­alphanumeric), alphanumeric RAN tasks are more strongly related to future reading achievement than non-­alphanumeric tasks (McWeeny et al., 2022). Rapid naming has been connected to reading accuracy, reading speed, and reading comprehension. Even though RAN predicts all types of reading measures, it is a better predictor of real-­word reading than nonsense word reading (McWeeny et al., 2022). Further, RAN RAN measures the automaticity in which familiar symbols, is a better predictor of reading fluency than reading comprehension such as letters and numbers, can be retrieved and named. (Araújo et al., 2015; Nelson, 2015). RAN is most highly related to speeded reading tasks and is a good predictor of irregular or exception word reading, but it is not a good predictor of nonsense word reading (Abu-­Hamour,  2010). Essentially, RAN measures the ­automaticity in which familiar symbols can be retrieved and named, and it is a significant predictor of automatic word recognition (Jones et al., 2016a; Mundy & Hannant, 2020). In addition to phonological awareness, RAN has been identified as a core area associated with dyslexia. In fact, RAN and phonological awareness were identified as the two primary factors in the double-­deficit theory of dyslexia (Wolf & Bowers, 1999). Individuals may have a problem in one or both of these areas that impact reading development. Whereas phonological deficits explain some of an individual’s reading difficulties, particularly with phonics, weaknesses in the speed of naming and processing contribute to a slow reading rate. Wolf and Bowers (1999) proposed three subtypes of reading impairment: (1) phonological deficit, intact naming speed; (2) naming speed deficit, intact phonological skills; and (3) double deficit, impairments in both naming speed and phonological skills. As discussed, phonological deficits appear to have a stronger relationship to decoding accuracy, whereas naming deficits are more strongly related to reading fluency (Manis et al., 2000). Individuals who have a double deficit have more difficulty with reading (both accuracy and speed) and are slower to respond to intervention (Denckla & Cutting, 1999). Although a double deficit is often found in the poorest readers, phonemic awareness appears to be the most pronounced weakness (de Groot et al., 2015). For younger students in kindergarten and first grade, early naming speed deficits are good predictors of students who will struggle with reading fluency later in school (Onochie-­Quintanilla et  al.,  2019; Wolf, 2007). This may be due to the fact that both reading and namPhonological awareness and RAN are the two core deficits in ing speed involve multiple perceptual, lexical, and motoric processes. the double-­deficit theory of dyslexia. Both RAN tasks and reading tasks require integrating visual–verbal information within an element of time or speed. The smooth integration of the contributions from visual (orthographic symbols), verbal (phonological labels and sounds), and attentional (conscious effort) systems is essential for reading (Neuhaus & Swank, 2002). Thus, RAN measures are good predictors of reading ability, presumably because RAN and reading tap into shared cognitive processes (Araújo et al., 2015). The best preliteracy predictors of early word-­level reading across languages and alphabetic systems are phoneme awareness, letter knowledge, and rapid automatized naming (Hamilton et al., 2022). When administered in kindergarten, both RAN and phonological awareness are strong predictors of later reading performance (Ozernov-­Palchik et al., 2017). Upon school entry, a good screening CAUTION battery for dyslexia should therefore include measures of letter-­sound knowledge, phoneme awareness, and RAN (Clayton et  al.,  2019; Researchers do not agree about the exact underlying Hamilton et al., 2022; Thompson et al., 2015). Thus, RAN measprocesses involved in RAN. Additional research is necessary ures are an effective early diagnostic measure for predicting future to clarify the specific processes. reading difficulties (Onochie-­Quintanilla et al., 2019).

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

ASSESSMENT OF RAN

When evaluating individuals for dyslexia, one or more measures of RAN should be included, as these tasks can help differentiate children with dyslexia from children with other forms of learning disabilities (Denckla & Rudel,  1976; O’Malley et al., 2002). Furthermore, the naming speed deficits associated with dyslexia persist into adolescence and adulthood (Denckla & Rudel, 1976; Korhonen, 1995; Vukovic et al., 2004), making RAN an important correlate of dyslexia in older individuals. In addition, because RAN tasks do not require any reading, they may be administered prior to the individual receiving any reading instruction, making RAN tasks an easy way to identify young children who are at-­risk for reading difficulties. Further,

64  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 5.6 Examples of Standardized Measures of Rapid Automatized Naming Test Name

Age /Grade Range

Subtests/Tests

Publisher

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2nd ed. (CTOPP-­2)

Ages 4–0 to 24–11

Rapid Digit Naming, Rapid Letter Naming, Rapid Color Naming, Rapid Object Naming

PRO-­ED

Dyslexia Early Screening Test, 2nd ed. (DEST-­2)

Ages 4–6 to 6–5

Rapid Naming

Pearson

Dyslexia Screening Test-­Junior (DST-­J)

Ages 6–6 to 11–5

Rapid Naming

Pearson

Ages 11–6 to 16–5

Rapid Naming

Pearson

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3 ed. (KTEA-­3)

Ages 4–0 to 25–11

Object Naming Facility, Letter Naming Facility

Pearson

Process Assessment of the Learner, 2nd ed: Diagnostics for Reading and Writing (PAL-­II Reading and Writing)

Grades K–6

RAN Letters, RAN Letter Groups, RAN Words, RAS Words and Digits

Pearson

Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Tests (RAN/RAS)

Ages 5–0 to 18–11

RAN Objects, RAN Colors, RAN Numbers, RAN Letters, RAS-­2 Set (Letters and Numbers), RAS-­3 Set (Letters, Numbers, Colors)

PRO-­ED

Tests of Dyslexia (TOD) TOD-­Early (TOD-­E) TOD-­Comprehensive (TOD-­C)

Grades K–Adult

TOD-­E: Early Rapid Number and Letter Naming TOD-­C: Rapid Letter Naming, Rapid Number and Letter Naming

WPS

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 5th ed. (WISC-­V)

Ages 6–0 to 16–11

Naming Speed Literacy, Naming Speed Quantity

Pearson

Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language, 4th ed. (WJ IV OL)

Ages 2–0 to 90+

Rapid Picture Naming

Riverside Insights

Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, 3rd ed. (WRMT-­III)

Ages 4–6 to 79–11

Rapid Automatic Naming

Pearson

Dyslexia Screening Test-­Secondary (DST-­S) rd

studies in other languages with shallow orthographies (more consistent matches between the sounds and the letters; e.g., Spanish) have found that slow naming speed, rather than poor phonological awareness, is the main cognitive correlate of ­dyslexia (Brizzolara et  al.,  2006; de Jong & Van der Leij,  2003; Wimmer & Mayringer,  2002). More recent information, ­however, questions the assertion that rapid naming is a more important predictor of reading in languages with consistent orthographies (Caravolas, 2022). Even so, across all alphabetic languages, phonemic awareness, rapid automatized naming, and letter knowledge, referred to as the triple foundation of code-­related skills, are the best predictors in young children of later literacy outcomes (Caravolas, 2022). Chapter 13 provides a more detailed description of the relationships between RAN and dyslexia in other languages. Standardized Measures. RAN makes a unique contribution to the prediction of reading that extends beyond the role of phonological awareness (e.g., Bowers, 1993; McBride-­Chang & Manis, 1996; McWeeny et al., 2022; Powell et al., 2007; Savage et al., 2007b; Wolf et al., 2000). Rapid Reference 5.6 lists examples of several standardized tests available that include measures of RAN or RAN-­like tasks. Appendix A describes several of these tests in more depth. Informal Measures. The nature of RAN tasks makes it easy to adapt them for informal use. For example, once a child knows the names of several colors, a rapid color-­naming task can be prepared; or if the child knows the names of letters, then a rapid letter-­naming task can be created. These informal tasks can be timed, and performance can be compared to other classmates. Parents and teachers alike can observe if a child is struggling with naming known objects or colors in the course of a normal activity. Further, teachers may notice if a child lags behind other classmates in learning the names of letters and acquiring the ability to name them on demand. Rapid Reference 5.7 presents examples of several informal rapid naming tasks.

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  65

Rapid Reference 5.7 Informal Measures of RAN Color Naming Using four to five colors known by the child, present either a series of blocks or a color chart using those known colors arranged in random order. Repeat the series of random colors, so there is a total of 50 items. Ask the child to name the colors as quickly as he can. The time it takes to complete the task can be recorded and compared to the performance of other children in the classroom. Object Naming Using 5–6 objects, or pictures of objects, known by the child, present a series of these objects arranged in random order. Repeat the series of random objects, so there is a total of 50 objects. Ask the child to name the objects as quickly as they can. The time it takes to complete the task can be recorded and compared to the performance of other classmates. Letter (or Number) Naming Using 5–6 letters (or numbers) known by the child, present a series of these letters arranged in random order. Repeat the series of random letters, so there is a total of 50 letters. Ask the child to name the letters as quickly as he can. The time it takes to complete the task can be recorded and then compared to the performance of grade peers.

PROCESSING SPEED

Whereas much of the dyslexia research has focused on RAN as a risk factor for dyslexia, individuals with dyslexia can also demonstrate other speed-­related deficits. Processing speed tasks are always timed and are clerical in nature. They involve tests such as circling the matching pictures, digits, or letters in a row or identifying if symbols are alike or different. Although there does not appear to be a multi-­field, agreed-­upon definition, simple processing speed tasks are ones that have limited cognitive demand (Gerst et al., 2021). Most assessments of processing speed that appear in standardized tests would fall under this definition: “Mental efficiency of processing and matching symbols, such as letters, numbers, and pictures” (Peterson et al., 2017). Processing speed tasks may measure speed of input or perception, speed of output, or speed of integrating perceptual, cognitive, and output processes. In other words, like RAN, a variety of processes are involved. Individuals may have difficulty in one or more aspects of processing speed. Automaticity of word recognition and reading rate appear to be impacted by an individual’s cognitive processing speed. Cognitive speediness, or mental quickness, has been considered an important aspect of intelligence for many years (Nettelbeck, 1994; Vernon, 1983). Processing speed tasks influence cognitive functioning, as they reflect the speed at which attention can be accurately and fluently directed while tasks are completed (McGrew et al., 2023). Kail (1991) observed: “In the face of limited processing resources, the speed of processing is critical because it determines in part how rapidly limited resources can be reallocated to other cognitive tasks” (p. 152). For example, how quickly a reader can recognize or decode a word impacts comprehension. If the reader’s cognitive resources are focused on decoding a word, then there are limited resources available for comprehension. Evidence of processing speed deficits has been noted on both linguistic and nonlinguistic tasks for individuals with reading disabilities (Kail et al., 1999; Shanahan et al., 2006). Some students may process linguistic information slowly, whereas others process symbolic information slowly (more common in dyslexia). Processing speed has a strong relationship with reading fluency (Cormier et al., 2017; Gerst et  al.,  2021) and is related to other timed measures. Kail and Hall (1994) found that a general deficit in processing speed explained the observed link between RAN and reading. Processing speed measures that do not rely on verbal responses may also serve as predictors of reading disability in young children (Park & Lombardino, 2013). Gender differences have also been noted on different types of processing speed tests. In a review of large-­ scale studies exploring gender differences in processing speed, Roivainen (2011) found no differences in general intelligence, but that females were faster on processing speed tasks involving letters and numbers as well as RAN tasks, whereas males were faster on tests involving reaction time and finger tapping. Females also outperformed males in reading and writing skills. Slow processing speed is a common characteristic in Because processing speed underlies performance in many areas individuals with different disabilities. Sometimes referred to as and is not specific to one area or disability, it is sometimes referred to domain-­general deficits, processing speed deficits may occur as a domain-­general deficit. For example, slow processing speed charin dyslexia but are not specific to dyslexia. They also occur in acterizes both dyslexia and attention-­deficit hyperactivity disorder other types of disabilities, such as ADHD and dyscalculia. (ADHD; Eden & Vaidya,  2008; McGrath et  al.,  2011), although

DON’T FORGET

66  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 5.8 Examples of Standardized Measures of Processing Speed Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Subtests/Tests

Differential Ability Scales, 2 ed. (DAS-­II)

Ages 2–6 to 17–11

Speed of Information Processing, Naming Speed* Pearson

DAS-­II Normative Update School-­Age (DAS-­II NU SA)

Ages 7–0 to 17–11

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th ed. (WAIS-­IV)

Ages 16 to 90–11

Symbol Search, Coding, Cancellation

Pearson

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 5th ed. (WISC-­V)

Ages 6–0 to 16–11

Coding, Symbol Search, Cancellation

Pearson

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th ed. (WPPSI-­IV)

Ages 2–6 to 7–7

Bug Search, Cancellation, Animal Coding

Pearson

Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities, 4th ed. (WJ IV COG)

Ages 2–0 to 90+

Letter–Pattern Matching, Number–Pattern Matching, Pair Cancellation

Riverside Insights

nd

Publisher

*Contributes to the Processing Speed Cluster.

children with dyslexia demonstrate greater deficits than children with ADHD (Shanahan et al., 2006). In fact, symbolic processing speed appears to be the shared cognitive deficit that explains their comorbidity (McGrath et al., 2011). Additionally, slow processing speed is also a shared characteristic of individuals who have dyslexia or have dyscalculia (Moll, 2022). ASSESSMENT OF PROCESSING SPEED

Due to the comprehensive nature of processing speed, many different types of tests and tasks provide insights into an individual’s speed of processing. In addition to the RAN tests and tasks, measures of visual perceptual speed, auditory speed, speed of lexical access, reaction time, and even motor speed may be helpful. All processing speed tasks require individuals to rapidly scan or identify stimuli, make quick associations and accurate decisions, and then move quickly to the next item (Shanahan et al., 2006). Standardized Measures. Although the concept is broader than just visual–perceptual speed, processing speed is typically measured on standardized tests through visual, clerical tasks that involve the rapid scanning of symbols, such as circling the matching digits in a Students with slow processing speed are often the last ones to complete tests and may require extra time. row of six digits as quickly as possible. Rapid Reference 5.8 lists examples of standardized tests that include measures of processing speed. Informal Measures of Processing Speed. A simple way to evaluate an individual’s processing speed is to create a visual scanning task and give the person 2 minutes to do the task. For example, using three-­digit numbers, write numbers randomly in rows on a page. Ask the individual to circle the numbers that end in a specific digit (e.g., 3) as quickly as possible. After 2 minutes, record the number of correctly circled items. Another informal approach would be to create a page of uppercase and lowercase letters arranged randomly in rows. Give the individual 1 minute to quickly circle all of the specified letters (e.g., lowercase b).

DON’T FORGET

ORTHOGRAPHIC CODING

Printed word recognition involves two major component skills: phonological coding (using knowledge of letter–sound correspondences to read words) and orthographic coding (using spelling and word patterns to aid in word recognition); dyslexia is characterized by deficits in both types of coding (Pennington, 2009; Georgiou et al., 2021). Phonology enables the initial formation of lexical representations, but orthography provides more detailed representations that are the gateways to highly skilled reading (Perfetti, 2011). Essentially, orthography is the writing system of a language that includes letters, words, numbers, and punctuation marks. Orthographic awareness is awareness of how print works and how it looks—­the visual representation of language (the letters and spelling patterns that are used to represent the words in print) (Mather & Jaffe, 2021). Orthographic knowledge contributes to both reading and spelling performance, over and above both intelligence and phonological awareness

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  67

(Zarić et  al.,  2021). In fact, results from a meta-­analysis revealed that individuals with dyslexia have a deficit in orthographic knowledge that is as large as the deficits in phonological awareness and RAN (Georgiou et al., 2021). Some languages have a close match between the sounds, or phonemes, and the letters, or graphemes, used to represent those sounds. Spanish, for example, has greater regularity than English at the phoneme–grapheme level and is described as having a shallow or transparent orthography. In contrast, English has many irregularities at the phoneme–grapheme level, and, therefore, is considered to have a deep or opaque orthography because the system is far more complex than just mapping sounds to print. English spellings involve representations of sound, morphology, and word meaning. As noted in Chapter 13, languages such as English that have deep orthographies make decoding and encoding more difficult to master. Recognizing a printed word occurs at several different levels: recognizing individual letters, letter patterns, and morphemes, including root words (Adams, 1990; Hegland, 2021). A skilled reader uses this knowledge to recognize words quickly and efficiently as well as to decode unfamiliar words. If a reader is only able to recognize individual letters, then word reading will be slow and inefficient. Whereas readers with dyslexia do not demonstrate greater difficulty than readers without dyslexia in recognizing letters presented in isolation (Hawelka & Wimmer, 2005), they do demonstrate greater difficulty in discriminating letters when they are presented in groups, such as words (Pernet et al., 2006). The presence of additional visual stimuli appears to impair the ability to focus on the target stimulus. One problem in visual recognition of orthographic units and words is a visual phenomenon referred to as crowding, which is reliably correlated with reading speed (Levi et al., 2007) and consistently discriminates between readers with and without dyslexia. In essence, visual crowding means seeing less when more is presented. For example, identifying a familiar face in a large group of people or finding a specific item in drawer filled with many items may be difficult due to visual crowding, or visual overload. To recognize a word, the individual must not only detect the letters, but also integrate them into a whole word. When a word is presented in a sentence, the additional visual stimuli to the left and right of the target word (in the periphery) interfere with the perception of that word. Features of the nearby words get mixed up with the target word’s features. Research indicates that individuals with dyslexia demonstrate more difficulty in suppressing peripheral vision while reading than do nonimpaired readers (Geiger & Lettvin, 1987; Lorusso et al., 2004). The word analysis skills of individuals with dyslexia are slowed because of greater visual crowding effects that limit the rapid perception of letter strings and, as a result, cause the reader to make numerous fixations (Martelli et al., 2009). This may explain why some readers with dyslexia have difficulty with the visual demands of reading, and their eyes may even tear up when reading. Some evidence suggests that extra-­large spaced text can increase reading accuracy for individuals with dyslexia (Bertoni et al., 2019). Orthography is particularly important for the accurate and quick recognition of irregular or exception words. Rapid Reference  5.9 identifies symptoms of individuals with poor orthographic awareness and knowledge. Due to the fact that orthography includes the numOrthographic awareness is knowledge of the writing system bers of a language, readers with poor orthographic awareness can and the visual aspects of reading and spelling (letters, spelling experience problems in mathematics in addition to problems with patterns, and words), whereas phonological awareness is reading. Although orthographic processing is a visual task, the visknowledge of the speech sounds. ual  processing tasks on many cognitive tests are not synonymous

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 5.9 Symptoms of Poor Orthographic Processing • Difficulty learning how to form symbols. • Confusion of symbols similar in appearance (e.g., b and d, n and u, 6 and 9). • Trouble with near-­and far-­point copying tasks. • Tendency to reverse or transpose letters or numbers past the age of 7. • Trouble remembering sight words even after many exposures. • Trouble reading and spelling exception or irregular words. • Trouble with accurate and rapid word recognition; slow reading speed. • Use of different spellings for the same word. • Tendency to omit word endings. • Overreliance on the phonological features rather than visual features of words.

68  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

with orthographic processing (Berninger, 1990). Most of the visual processing tasks on cognitive tests use shapes, designs, or pictures. Tasks that do not use symbols, such as letters or words, do not tap into orthographic processing ability. Rapid processing of symbols, such as letters or numbers, is more frequently measured by processing speed tasks, especially those measuring perceptual speed, making the task more similar to the orthographic processing demands of reading. Both orthographic and morphological awareness and knowledge are critical for the development of accurate word reading and spelling. As Perfetti (2011) explained: What develops along with phonology is orthography, and in skilled reading, orthographic representations take on an increased role. Finally, word meanings and their associated morphological constituents are important in ways that go beyond phonology. Reading is above all dependent on word knowledge, including the spoken forms, written forms, meanings, and morphosyntactic structures of words. Although we have learned that acquiring this lexical knowledge depends significantly on a skilled phonological component, we have more to learn about the fuller story of word knowledge and skilled reading (p. 167). MEMORY

Both memory span and working memory may affect reading development. Memory span involves the ability to listen to information and then repeat it back verbatim in a short time period, usually seconds. Common memory span tests ask individuals to repeat back a string of digits, words, or sentences that increase in length. Some children with dyslexia have difficulty recalling spoken digits in order (Cowan et al., 2017). A theoretical interpretation as to why poor readers have lower memory spans than average or good readers is that they articulate words more slowly because of inefficiency in accessing phonological information (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). In addition to poor memory span, making associations between verbal and visual information (verbal paired-­associate learning) can prove difficult for individuals with dyslexia. Many individuals with dyslexia have difficulty acquiring the associations between the speech sounds and the letters (Jones et al., 2016b). Difficulty on this type of paired-­associate learning task has been referred to as a letter–speech sound binding deficit, which is a key factor in dyslexia (Aravena et al., 2013). In examining a large sample of typically developing children, Hulme et al. (2007) found that phonemic awareness and paired-­associate learning were independent predictors of variations in reading skill. Thus, as discussed, other factors, in addition to phonemic awareness, contribute to the prediction of reading skill. Working memory involves the capacity to hold information in immediate awareness while manipulating or transforming that information in some way. Working memory is sometimes referred to as the brain’s post-­it-­note (Alloway & R. Alloway, 2015; Gathercole & Alloway, 2008). A post-­it-­note has limited space, so the analogy is apt. Working memory is a limited-­capacity system that holds information temporarily. Success on working memory tasks depends on how quickly a person can manage, process, and use or store the information. Others have indicated that working memory is the foundation of abstract reasoning (Yale University, 2020) and is important for guidance in problem-­solving and behavior. Working memory is the ability to work with information without losing track of what we are doing; for example, comprehending a passage we are reading. A common working memory test is to ask an individual to listen to a sequence of digits and then to say the digits back in sequence but in a reversed order. A widely accepted model of working memory identifies three major components: a central executive, a phonological loop, and a visuospatial sketch pad (e.g., Baddeley, 2003; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974). The central executive manages and coordinates the other two systems, which have been referred to as the slave systems. The phonological loop, which processes verbal speech input, and the visuospatial sketch pad, which is devoted to visual input, hold information for very short, specific periods of time (Savage et al., 2007a). Some students with dyslexia have a deficit in the storage capacity of the phonological loop (Fischbach et al., 2014). Warren, a fifth-­grade student, is well aware of his difficulties with memory. In addition to forgetting his homework and how to spell words, he often loses things like his books and coats. When asked to write about something he would like to change about himself, he wrote the following statements in Figure 5.2. Currently, the research on working memory’s role in reading raises more questions than it provides answers; many differing views exist. Some researchers view working memory as a domain-­general deficit, affecting all areas of academic performance, not just reading (e.g., Swanson & Sachse-­Lee, 2001). Others believe that phonological deficits, common in individuals with dyslexia, impair performance

Figure 5.2  Warren’s Sentence about His Memory

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  69

of the phonological loop in working memory, thus creating a ­bottleneck in processing (e.g., Gathercole et al., 1994). Swanson and Beebe-­Frankenberger (2004) found that scores on working memory Memory span refers to the ability to remember information tasks predict reading achievement independently of phonological in the order it was given (e.g., remembering a series of awareness measures. Still, others suggest that working memory numbers). Working memory also requires remembering is more relevant to reading comprehension than to decoding information, but it involves manipulating or transforming the (e.g., Oakhill et  al.,  2003). Despite the differences describing the information in some way (e.g., hearing numbers forward, but repeating them in reverse order). role of working memory, measures of working memory can often distinguish between readers with dyslexia and typically developing readers (Knoop-­van Campen et al., 2018). In addition, working memory deficits are related to other disorders. Gray et al. (2019) found that children with comorbid dyslexia and DLD were most likely to have working memory deficits, but that working memory deficits do not always co-­occur with either dyslexia or DLD. Individuals with co-­occurring problems, such as ADHD and dyslexia, frequently have a more general working memory deficit, whereas those with only dyslexia are more likely to have a phonological deficit (Savage et al., 2007a). Savage and colleagues concluded: “Further work is required to specify the nature of WM problems in samples of poor readers, as distinct from other co-­occurring problems such as ADHD” (p. 185).

DON’T FORGET

ASSESSMENT OF WORKING MEMORY

A variety of tests and tasks are available to measure working memory. It is important to consider the nature of the task to determine which component or components of working memory may be tapped. For Individuals with dyslexia can have one or more linguistic risk example, is the test a complex verbal working memory task, or is it a factors, but there is no one factor that is common to all cases. visual working memory task? As it relates to dyslexia, it appears that No particular cognitive deficit can be used to rule a diagnosis verbal working memory tasks and phonological working memory in or out (Pennington et al., 2019). The more factors impaired, tasks, such as reversing the sounds in a word, cause the most diffithe greater the risk for dyslexia. culty (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). Rapid Reference 5.10 illustrates several standardized tests of working memory. Rapid Reference 5.11 suggests some informal methods for evaluating working memory. The results from an evaluation of working memory may provide information about a child’s cognitive functioning and help predict how well a child can adjust to, and perhaps even overcome, some of the main challenges associated with dyslexia or DLD (Gray et al., 2019).

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 5.10 Examples of Standardized Measures of Memory Span and Working Memory Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Subtests/Tests

Publisher

Differential Ability Scales, 2 ed. (DAS-­II) Ages 2–6 to 17–11 Recall of Designs, DAS-­II Normative Update School-­Age Ages 7–0 to 17–11 Recall of Digits–Forward, Recall of Digits–Backward, (DAS-­II NU SA), 2nd ed. Recall of Objects, Recall of Objects–Delayed, Recall of Sequential Order

Pearson

Dyslexia Early Screening Test, 2nd ed. (DEST-­2)

Ages 4–6 to 6–5

Forwards Digit Span

Pearson

Dyslexia Screening Test-­Junior (DST-­J)

Ages 6–6 to 11–5

Backwards Digit Span

Pearson

Dyslexia Screening Test-­Secondary (DST-­S)

Ages 11–6 to 16–5 Backwards Digit Span

Pearson

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd ed. Normative Update (KABC-­II NU)

Ages 3 to 18

Pearson

nd

Number Recall, Word Order, Hand Movements

(continued )

70  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Subtests/Tests

Publisher

Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, 5 ed. (SB-­5)

Ages 2 to 85+

Nonverbal Working Memory, Verbal Working Memory

PRO-­ED

Tests of Dyslexia-­Comprehensive (TOD-­C)

Grades 1–Adult

Letter Memory, Word Memory

WPS

Test of Memory and Learning, 2nd ed. (TOMAL-­2)

Ages 5–0 to 59–11 Memory for Stories, Facial Memory, Word Selective Reminding, Visual Selective Reminding, Object Recall, Abstract Visual Memory, Digits Forward, Visual Sequential Memory, Paired Recall, Memory for Location, Manual Imitation, Letters Forward, Digits Backward, Letters Backward, Two Verbal Delayed Recall Tasks and a Cued Recall Procedure

PRO-­ED

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th ed. (WAIS-­IV)

Ages 16 to 90

Digit Span, Arithmetic, Letter–Number Sequencing

Pearson

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 5th ed. (WISC-­V)

Ages 6–0 to 16–11 Digit Span, Picture Span, Letter–Number Sequencing

Pearson

Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th ed. (WPPSI-­IV)

Ages 2–6 to 7–7

Pearson

Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, 3rd ed. (WRAML3)

Ages 5–0 to 90–11 Picture Memory, Design Learning, Story Memory, Verbal Learning, Visual Working Memory, Verbal Working Memory

Pearson

Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities, 4th ed. (WJ IV COG)

Ages 2–0 to 90+

Riverside Insights

th

Picture Memory, Zoo Locations

Verbal Attention, Numbers Reversed, Object–Number Sequencing

Rapid Reference 5.11 Informal Measures of Memory Span and Working Memory Span Tasks Create a set of items that increases in number or span. Present the items verbally to the individual who then must repeat them in sequence. For example, using digits, create sets of three items for each span to be presented. That is, create three items with 2 digits each, three items with 3 digits each, three items with 4 digits each, and so on. Present items until the individual misses all three items at a level. You can also use words, pictures, or objects. Working Memory Tasks To create a working memory task, an intervening activity or transformation must occur before the individual is asked to recall the information. For example, one commonly used format presents items (e.g., numbers, words) in a sequence, and then the individual must recall them in reverse order. Another type of task presents a series of sentences and then requires the individual to recall the last words from each sentence.

CONCLUSION

Reading problems cannot be attributed to any single linguistic risk factor (Ozernov-­Palchik et al., 2017; Parrila & McQuarrie, 2015; Pennington et al., 2019; Snowling, 2011). Reading is a complex task that is influenced by a number of cognitive and linguistic abilities. A skilled reader not only has these abilities intact but also is able to integrate the various processes fluently. Research is revealing more about the linguistic risk factors for dyslexia, but much is still unresolved or unknown. We do know, however, that training in phonological awareness is necessary but insufficient for good reading (National Reading Panel, 2000; Torgesen & Mathes, 2000). Adequate word identification skill also requires mastery of more complex phonic skills, as well as automaticity with sight words. Thus, fluent reading and accurate spelling also involve other linguistic risk factors discussed in this chapter: RAN, processing speed, orthographic coding, and working memory. Even with adults with dyslexia, phoneme awareness, rapid automatized naming, and working memory are strong and persistent correlates of literacy problems (Nergård-­Nilssen, & Hulme, 2014). The simple act of decoding a word is not so simple after all. It is like an orchestra playing a tune. Multiple instruments are involved that must work together smoothly and efficiently to create the music. One instrument out of tune or out of time can interrupt and spoil the melody. In reading a word, visual and auditory information must be quickly mapped and held in immediate awareness until

ASSESSMENT OF THE COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CORRELATES  71

the word can be decoded. Just as with music, one process out of tune or out of time with the other processes can disrupt the act of reading. When several processes are impaired, one can struggle to read even simple words. To properly diagnose an individual with dyslexia, it is important to collect information on the array of abilities and processes that are believed to impact reading and spelling development (Mather & Schneider, 2023). Keep in mind that children who have multiple cognitive deficits are at much higher risk for developing dyslexia and that no one cognitive deficit can rule a diagnosis in or out (Pennington et al., 2019). Ideally, the assessment of linguistic risk factors can also lead to ideas about intervention. The hope is that the identification of risk factors will contribute to an accurate diagnosis, as well as to the development of an appropriate accommodation and/or treatment plan.

  TEST YOURSELF 1. An early correlate of dyslexia that is known as the best predictor of reading failure is

a. b. c. d.

slow processing speed. working memory deficits. poor phonological awareness. low performance of RAN tasks.

2. The best example of a phonological segmentation task would be:

a. b. c. d. e.

Tell me a word that rhymes with bat. Tell me a word that begins with the same sound as bat. How many sounds do you hear in the word bat? What word is composed of these three sounds: /b/, /a/, and /t/. All of the above are examples of segmentation tasks.

3. If a child is asked to look at a word carefully and try to pronounce the word by saying each sound, then the task requires

a. b. c. d. e.

blending. syntax. context. phoneme–grapheme knowledge. Both a and d.

4. A voiced consonant is made

a. b. c. d. e.

using the vocal cords. without the use of vocal cords. made in the front of the mouth. made in the back of the mouth. Both a and c.

5. The double-­deficit theory of dyslexia involves

a. b. c. d.

phonemic awareness and orthographic awareness. working memory and RAN. RAN and phonemic awareness. orthographic awareness and RAN.

6. The word ______ has both an onset and a rime.

a. b. c. d. e.

trap each ate apt oh

7. It is important to assess RAN in an evaluation of dyslexia because

a. b. c. d. e.

RAN is the most important correlate of dyslexia. low performance on RAN tasks persists into adolescence and adulthood. RAN can be assessed before reading instruction begins. Both b and c. None of the above.

72  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

8. Processing speed deficits are thought to be domain general.True or false? 9. Individuals who are learning to read in English may have difficulties with orthographic coding because

a. b. c. d.

there are phoneme–grapheme (sound to print) irregularities. words in English are generally longer. English is a shallow orthography. words cannot be separated into syllables.

10. The study of how languages represent sounds is called

a. b. c. d.

orthography. morphology. phonology. semantics.

11. Processing speed is an important correlate of

a. b. c. d. e.

dyslexia. developmental language disorder ADHD. a and b. a and c.

12. Informal measures of the correlates of dyslexia should be used to

a. b. c. d.

diagnose individuals with dyslexia. make decisions about placement and accommodations. identify individuals at risk who may need a more comprehensive evaluation. All of the above.

13. A common conceptualization of working memory includes a central executive, a phonological loop, and a visuospatial sketch pad.True or false? 14. It is possible to assess risk of reading failure and dyslexia before reading instruction begins by using measures of

a. b. c. d.

working memory and processing speed. phonological awareness and RAN. oral language and phonics. orthographic coding and memory span.

15. Currently, the linguistic risk factors that contribute to dyslexia are best explained by a single-­deficit model, rather than a multiple-­deficit model.True or false? Answers: 1. c; 2. c; 3. e; 4. a; 5. c; 6. a; 7. d; 8. True; 9. a; 10. c; 11. e; 12. c; 13. True; 14. b; 15. False.

Chapter Six ASSESSMENT OF DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY

After studying each case of reading disability, the examiner will find it helpful to list these five general causative areas, constitutional, intellectual, emotional, educational, and environmental, then itemize under each all the factors discovered which may help to explain the child’s difficulties. —­Monroe & Backus, 1937, p. 33 Prior to planning and implementing instruction for a student who has dyslexia, a teacher needs to understand how reading and spelling skills develop, as well as which aspects of reading and spelling are difficult. In addition to understanding the various phases of development, psychologists, diagnosticians, and special educators must understand what facets of literacy should be included as part of a comprehensive evaluation for documenting dyslexia. Although dyslexia affects reading comprehension because the person has difficulty reading words, it is not primarily a reading comprehension impairment (Hulme & Snowling, 2009; S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Two basic universal characteristics of dyslexia are that the individual learns words more slowly and has difficulty sounding out unfamiliar words or nonsense words (pseudowords) (Seidenberg, 2017). Regardless of the language, however, many individuals with dyslexia have more difficulty reading pseudowords than they do reading real words (Sprenger-­Charolles & Siegel, 2013). DEVELOPMENT OF DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY

Reading and spelling follow similar developmental trajectories, but spelling skill lags behind reading because spelling is more difficult. The reason spelling is harder is that it requires recall of the entire word, whereas reading only requires recognizing the word. In the early stages of literacy, print awareness is first demonstrated when a child who is not yet reading knows what an environmental sign says (e.g., STOP), that reading goes from left to right, and that the marks on a paper represent spoken language and can be read. As literacy develops, a child learns the letter names and what sounds the letters and letter combinations make. This basic understanding that a speech sound (phoneme) can be converted into a letter or letter string (grapheme) is referred to as the alphabetic principle. This early insight regarding sound–symbol relationships is critical as a first stage in reading and spelling development. The alphabetic principle The alphabetic principle is the fundamental understanding has two parts. The first part is awareness that words are composed of that phonemes can be converted into graphemes. This insight sounds that are represented by letters. The second part, referred to as provides the foundation for the development of effective phonological recoding (sounding out words), is the ability to use word identification and spelling. these relationships between the sounds and letters to decode or encode (spell) words (Share, 1995). Through increased exposures to print, the child increases knowledge of sound–symbol, or phoneme–grapheme connections and learns what letter combination or letter strings can go together in English. Children learn which letter sequences are legal and which are illegal. For example, young children soon recognize that they can write the letters “ck” at the end of the word but not “kc” and that the letters “ck” can never start a word. This ability to picture and store accurate visual representations of both letters and words (orthography) then provides the foundation for automaticity and ease with reading and spelling (Mather & Jaffe, 2021). Ehri (1998) explained that skilled readers can identify different words in at least five different ways by (1) blending together the sounds of letters into words, (2) pronouncing and blending common spelling patterns, (3) retrieving sight words from memory,

DON’T FORGET

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 73

74  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

(4) making analogies to other words already known by sight, and (5) using context clues to predict words. Although capable readers can use any of these strategies for word identification, skilled reading is based on retrieving sight words rapidly and easily from memory, because all of the other cueing systems require attention and disrupt the reading process (Ehri, 1998, 2020). Unfortunately, children with the most severe dyslexia have difficulty reading individual words by sight (Torgesen et al., 2001) and experience disruption in both reading and spelling development. EHRI’S PHASES OF SIGHT-­WORD LEARNING

To understand what happens to readers with dyslexia, one has to consider how skill in word reading and spelling typically develops. Although several theories exist with similar phases and stages, one well-­known theory of reading and spelling development was developed by Ehri (1998, 2000, 2020). Because the stages of development are not qualitatively distinct, Ehri (2005) suggests that phase theory rather than stage theory provides a more accurate description of the course of sight-­word and spelling development. To attain skill in sight-­word reading, Ehri (1998, 2000, 2020) described the following four overlapping phases that underlie development: pre-­ alphabetic, partial alphabetic, full alphabetic, and consolidated alphabetic. During the pre-­alphabetic phase, readers recognize words by environmental cues or selected visual attributes that are not connected to grapheme–phoneme relationships. Pre-­alphabetic readers recognize words in the everyday environment. For example, the child may read the word Pepsi by recognizing the appearance of the can or may recognize the word McDonald’s by seeing the golden arches (Ehri, 2007). The child will not, however, recognize the word when displayed in isolation, apart from those cues (Ehri, 2020). In the partial alphabetic phase, readers make connections between some of the letters and sounds in written words. Many older children with dyslexia would be identified as partial alphabetic phase readers (Ehri, 2005). Partial alphabetic phase readers do not store sight words in memory in sufficient letter detail to recognize how they are similar yet different from other words. They have difficulty recalling the similarities and differences between similar words, such as “stand” and “sand” or “cap” and “camp.” In the full alphabetic phase, readers have made complete connections between the letters and their sounds in memory. Typically, by this point, they can decode new words and remember words by making these complete connections between the sounds of the spoken word A reader must have full knowledge of the connections and the letters in its spelling (Ehri, 2020). As they enter the consolibetween the phonemes and the graphemes. This knowledge must be at an automatic level before readers can acquire a dated alphabetic phase, the readers have numerous multi-­letter patterns substantial sight vocabulary and fluent reading can occur. In already stored in orthographic memory that they can apply to written other words, accuracy is a prerequisite for fluency. words (Ehri, 2020). These larger units consist of morphemes (e.g., -­ed for regular past tense), syllables (e.g., -­dle in “candle”), or onsets (initial consonants in a syllable, e.g., the st-­in “sting”) and rimes (the ending part of the syllable that starts with a vowel, e.g., the -­ent in “spent”). Having chunks or consolidated word parts stored in orthographic memory makes it easier to (1) read and spell multisyllabic words, and (2) store multisyllabic words for later retrieval (Ehri, 2000). At this phase of reading, the application of phoneme–grapheme knowledge is more automatic and less effortful (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). Rapid Reference 6.1 summarizes Ehri’s four phases of reading development. The hallmark of skilled reading is the ability to read words accurately and quickly, a process that happens automatically (Ehri, 2020). This process is referred to as automaticity, which is defined as “… recognizing the pronunciations and meanings of written words immediately upon seeing them without expending any attention or effort decoding the words” (Ehri, 2007, p. 151). Ehri explains that to recognize sight words reliably and instantly, or within 1 second, readers must first be at the full alphabetic phase. Thus, children must

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 6.1 Four Phases of Reading Development (Ehri, 1998, 2000, 2020) Phase 1—­Pre-­alphabetic: May recognize words from the environment but not based on phoneme–grapheme relationships (e.g., saying “STOP” when looking at a stop sign). Phase 2—­Partial Alphabetic: Connects some sounds and letters, particularly beginning and ending consonants and long vowel sounds, but the connections are insufficient to store accurate representations of words. Phase 3—­Full Alphabetic: Connects all the sounds and letters and can reliably remember written words. Phase 4—­Consolidated Alphabetic: Uses orthographic and morphological knowledge; has a store of letter patterns (e.g., -­tion, -­ing, -­able) in memory that are recognized automatically and assists in decoding and remembering multisyllabic words.

DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY  75

have mastered phoneme–grapheme relationships before they can acquire a substantial sight vocabulary. Rapid word recognition develops as phonetic word identification improves (Moats, 2010). Unfortunately, a core problem for children with dyslexia is their difficulty reading sight words, phrases, and sentences automatically, rapidly, and fluently (Chard et al., 2002). Many individuals with dyslexia appear to form only partial representations of words, making it difficult to acquire both decoding, spelling, and reliable encoding of words into long-­term memory. Ehri (2007) explains: “Compared to typically developing readers, poor readers have greater difficulty decoding new words, they take longer to learn words by sight, they secure partial rather than full representations of sight words in memory … and they read familiar words more slowly and take longer to unitize them” (pp. 153–154). These difficulties developing word recognition and automaticity often cause individuals with dyslexia to avoid any tasks that require sustained reading; this lack of practice also contributes to slow reading development (Wiznitzer & Scheffel, 2009). STAGES AND PHASES OF SPELLING DEVELOPMENT

As word reading skills evolve, spelling skills do also. The acquisition of orthographic knowledge follows a developmental trajectory that reflects the increasing complexity of the spelling system (Templeton & Bear, 2018; Templeton, 2020). Typically, children with dyslexia will find learning to spell more difficult than learning to read (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). When spelling, the individual has no visual cues and must mentally segment the sounds in the word, retrieve the appropriate grapheme used to represent each sound, and then produce the word. Several researchers have developed theories regarding spelling development (e.g., Gentry, 1984; Henderson, 1990). For example, Henderson outlined five developmental stages: (1) scribbles and pictures (i.e., the preliterate stage), (2) letter-­name representation (i.e., letters are used to represent sounds), (3) recognition of within-­word patterns (i.e., orthographic and morphological patterns are observed), (4) syllable juncture (i.e., consonants are doubled and patterns present in syllables are observed), and (5) derivational constancy (i.e., roots and derivations are used). Simpler theoretical models typically include five stages: prephonetic, semiphonetic, phonetic, transitional, and conventional. Prephonetic or Prephonemic or Prephonological. In the initial and earliest phases of learning to spell, a child combines a string of unrelated letters to create a word or communicate a message. When first writing, many children are not aware of the alphabetic principle and simply write the letters they know, often the ones in their first name. At this phase, the child knows little about the alphabetic system and recognizes words through memory of selected visual features (Ehri, 2005; Treiman, 2017). Figure 6.1 illustrates a story written by Alexis, a kindergarten student in the prephonetic phase. Notice that her “story” includes both letters and numbers. When Alexis gets to the bottom, she says: “I’m just going to do the rest in cursive.” Clearly, Alexis is ready for direct instruction in phonemic awareness and phoneme–grapheme correspondences. Semiphonetic or Partial Alphabetic. At the semiphonetic phase, letters are used to represent sounds, but only a few sounds in words are represented. Children recognize some of the letters and sounds in words, such as the first and last letter sounds in the word. In some instances, students may use the names of letters rather than the letter sounds (Adams, 1990). For example, the word while may

Figure 6.1  A Story by Alexis

76  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

be written as “yl.” During this phase, although spellings may follow logical linguistic patterns, children know very few correct spellings. A student may know consonant sounds, long vowel sounds, and an occasional sight word. Figure 6.2 illustrates a picture and label written by Josh, a first-­grade student, in the partial alphabetic phase. He wrote that the picture was an “alien.” Note, however, that although he is listening to the sounds in the word, he needs to be taught that writing goes from the left to the right. Phonetic or Full Alphabetic. At the phonetic phase, children produce spellings that demonstrate knowledge of phoneme–grapheme correspondences. When writing, they attempt to record all of the sounds within a word and present them in the correct sound sequence. At this phase, students may over-­rely on the sounds of words as a strategy for spelling. Thus, the words are often accurate in terms of the representation of sounds but may not have the correct orthographic patterns (e.g., the suffix “-tion” spelled as “shun”). Figure 6.3 illustrates advice to Pooh Bear from Alan, a third-­grade student. Some of Alan’s spellings (e.g., wn, r) are partially alphabetic, whereas others show he is transitioning into more fully alphabetic representations (e.g., shud, clim). Transitional or Consolidated Alphabetic. At the transitional phase, the writer demonstrates awareness of many of the conventions of English orthography. For example, the student spells the ending of the past tense of a verb as -­ed even when the ending sounds like a /t/, such as in the word “trapped.” Operating with chunks of words makes it easier for the student to both read and spell multisyllabic words (Ehri, 2000, 2005, 2020). Conventional. At this phase, the writer possesses multiple strategies for determining standard spelling. Although not all words are spelled correctly, the writer regularly employs information from all sources, sounds (phonology), sight (orthography), and meaning (morphology) as an aid to English spelling. Figure 6.4 illustrates these five stages of spelling development. A few of the theories of spelling development are more complex. For example, building on the work of Henderson and Beers (1980) and Henderson and Templeton (1986), Bear et al. (2020) described five stages of spelling development. Within each of these five stages, the speller’s knowledge about word features can be identified as early, middle, or late. Spellers advance through a sequential process of learning about the various word features through the following five stages: emergent, letter name-­alphabetic, word pattern, syllables and

Figure 6.2  Josh’s Picture

Figure 6.3  Alan’s Advice to Pooh Bear

DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY  77 Stage 1 Prephonetic

(Sarah)

(Brian)

Stage 2 Semiphonetic

(because)

(water)

Stage 3 Phonetic

(people)

(like)

(enough)

Stage 4 Transitional

(healthy)

(little)

(looked)

Stage 5 Conventional

(correspondence)

(night)

(summer)

Figure 6.4  Five Stages of Spelling Development

affixes, and derivational relations. Emergent spellers (ages 2 to 5) first acquire the basic connections between sounds and letters. They progress from marks and scribbles to pretend writing where the letters have no relationship to the sounds. By the end of this stage, the child’s spellings include only the most prominent sounds in the word. Letter name-­alphabetic spellers (ages 5 to 8) solidify letter-­sound knowledge by mastering consonants, short vowels, and most consonant blends and digraphs. In the beginning, they learn to segment the sounds within words and often use the name of the letter as a cue to represent the sound. In the word pattern spelling stage (ages 7 to 10), writers learn how to spell preconsonantal nasals (e.g., the /m/ in jump), consonant blends and digraphs, most CVCe words (e.g., cave), some vowel teams, and some homophones (e.g., bear and bare). In the syllables and affixes stage (ages 9 to 14), writers begin to experiment with consonant doubling and the addition of suffixes and prefixes to spell multisyllabic words. In the early period, the writer still makes errors at places where the syllables and affixes meet and makes errors on unaccented second syllables (e.g., mountin for mountain). In the final stage, derivational relations (ages 10 to adulthood), writers increase their vocabulary by mastering the spellings of both Greek and Latin roots and use spelling rules correctly when adding affixes. Although individuals with dyslexia appear to progress through similar stages or phases as their peers, their development is slower. At times, however, their difficulties appear indicative of arrest in one of the stages in spelling development (Moats, 1991). Thus, particular attention must be directed to helping students with dyslexia improve their spelling by gaining a deeper understanding of spelling patterns, rules, and language structure. STRATEGY THEORY

The strategy theory depicts spelling development as being more continuous, suggesting that children incorporate a variety of spelling strategies from the very beginning of their acquisition of writing skills (Treiman, 1998, 2017). In addition, depending upon the complexity of a word, a child who is more advanced in spelling development may return to the use of an earlier strategy, such as spelling

78  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

the word the way it sounds. Although they help depict spelling development, stage theories do not capture fully the complexities of the phonological, orthographic, and morphological representations that are related to spelling (Treiman & Bourassa, 2000). Even though many children do incorporate varied aspects of linguistic knowledge in their initial spellings and reveal sensitivity to orthographic and morphological influences, the proposed stages and phases of development can help explain how reading and spelling abilities evolve, and how individuals with dyslexia often appear to get stuck or make extremely slow progress at a particular developmental stage. In addition, recognizing that spelling is a developmental process has instructional implications. That is, the instruction should be geared toward the individual’s present level of spelling skill. INTEGRATION OF MULTIPLE PATTERNS

In regard to the early production of writing, Treiman and Kessler (2014) described a framework called the Integration of Multiple Patterns (IMP) to describe spelling development. This framework draws greater attention to the importance of nonphonological information than do stage theories (Treiman, 2017). According to IMP, young children learn about two classes of patterns: writing’s outer form and writing’s inner function. The outer form involves the visual form of letters and words, and the inner function represents how written symbols are linked to language, including phonology and morphology. Between the ages of 2 and 3, young children develop knowledge about the outer form of writing, prior to developing an understanding of how writing connects to language. ASSESSMENT OF DECODING AND ENCODING

Several linguistic skills underlie the successful development of decoding and encoding. In addition to phonological awareness, which is discussed in Chapters 5 and 7, an evaluator should also explore the reader’s orthographic and morphological awareness. (See Chapters 8 and 9.) An evaluator should also administer measures of word reading and spelling, as well as pseudoword or nonsense word reading and spelling to assess the reader’s ability to use phonics. Dyslexia risk can be established by simply having the student read and spell words under both untimed and timed conditions (Miciak & Fletcher, 2020). In addition, at the beginning of kindergarten, phonemic awareness, rapid naming, phoneme–grapheme knowledge, and family history can predict later reading development and indicate a child’s risk for dyslexia (Pennington et al., 2019). ASSESSMENT OF ORTHOGRAPHIC PROCESSING

Orthography includes all the symbols of a writing system, including numbers, punctuation, letters, and letter patterns. It also refers to the rules that govern how to represent words in writing (Carreker, 2018b). Individuals with dyslexia often have problems recalling letter patterns and letter strings, which then interferes with reading and spelling development (Mather & Jaffe, 2021). Consider if you could not recall a written word’s correct orthographic sequence and retrieve a visual image of it in your mind’s eye. You would then have to resort to relying on how the word sounds, rather than your orthographic memory of how the word looks. Thus, many individuals with weaknesses in orthographic processing will spell words exactly the way they sound (e.g., thay, wus). Standardized Measures. Although the number of norm-­referenced tests of orthographic processing is limited, several tests contain subtests that measure orthography (see Rapid Reference 6.2). Spelling tests, especially those that employ both pseudowords and irregular words, are also helpful for assessing orthographic processing. Informal Measures. It is also possible to measure orthographic processing informally. Both teachers and parents can observe how a child matches sounds with letters when writing. Rapid Reference 6.3 illustrates several ways to measure orthographic awareness informally. MORPHOLOGY

Morphology deals with the study of words, their internal structures, and the meaningful units of words such as affixes (prefixes and suffixes), base words (can stand alone), and word roots (cannot stand alone). (See Chapter 9.) Knowledge of morphemes aids an individual in both decoding and encoding (e.g., Carlisle, 2004; Hegland, 2021), especially when reading or writing multisyllabic words. In languages that have deep orthographies (many linguistic aspects affecting the connections at the sound–symbol level) such as English, knowledge of these meaningful words and word parts is very helpful. Morphological knowledge includes how to inflect, or change the meaning of, a word following standard patterns of the language. Inflectional morphemes are also described as grammatical morphemes. These morphemes change the form of a word to give it a different meaning, but they do not change the part of speech (e.g., verb tense [play and played], or singular–plural [girl–girls]). For example, adding an “s” to the end of a word is a standard pattern for forming a plural. “Here is one dog.” “Now there are two___________ (dogs).”

DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY  79

Rapid Reference 6.2 Standardized Tests that Include Measures of Orthographic Processing Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Publisher

Diagnostic Assessments of Reading, 2 ed. (DAR-­2)

Grades K–3+

PRO-­ED

nd

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills, 8 ed. (DIBELS-­8)

Grades K–8

University of Oregon

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities-­3, 3rd ed. (ITPA-­3)

Ages 5–0 to 12–11

PRO-­ED

Process Assessment of the Learner, 2 ed., Diagnostics for Reading and Writing (PAL II-­Reading and Writing)

Grades K–6

Pearson

Star Early Literacy Computer-­Adaptive Diagnostic Assessment

Grades PreK–3

Renaissance Learning

Tests of Dyslexia (TOD)

Ages 5–0 to 89–11

WPS

Test of Irregular Word Reading Efficiency (TIWRE)

Ages 3–0 to 94

PAR

Test of Orthographic Competence, 2 ed. (TOC-­2)

Ages 8–0 to 24–11

PRO-­ED

Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency, 2 ed. (TOSWRF-­2)

Ages 6–3 to 24–11

PRO-­ED

th

nd

nd

nd

Rapid Reference 6.3 Informal Measures of Orthographic Processing Writing Name Ask the child to write first and last names. If the child is young, ask for just the first name. Writing the Alphabet Ask the child to write the letters of the alphabet in order. Recognizing Letters Present written letters and ask the child to tell you the letters’ names. This can be done using lowercase or uppercase letters. Make a page with letters that are similar in visual appearance (e.g., b and d, n and u, p and q). Ask the child to name the letters and then count the number of errors that are made. Recognizing Words Present a written sentence and ask the child to find a word, any word, and circle it. This illustrates if the child has the concept of a printed word. Extend the activity by asking the child to circle a specific word. Word Pairs and Homophones Present written word pairs representing the same word. One of the words in the pair should be spelled correctly and the other should be misspelled but represent the way the word sounds. For example, talk/tawk, blak/black, bote/boat, salmon/sammon, beleave/believe. Say the word aloud and ask the child to identify which spelling of the word is correct. This can also be done using homophones (words that sound the same but have different meanings). Present written homophones and ask questions related to the word pairs. For example, write the words meat and meet. Ask the child, “Which one can be eaten?” Write the words two and too. Ask the child, “Which one is a number?” Write the words see and sea. Ask the child, “Which one has water?” Embedded Words Present written words embedded in a string of letters. For example, write “dmbluecst” or “xfthousewlm.” Ask the child to find the word that is hidden in the letter string. Read or Spell Irregular Words Identify a list of age-­appropriate words that contain an irregular element (e.g., they, said, once, ocean, yacht). Ask the student to read the words or dictate the words for the student to spell.

80  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Derivational morphemes often involve forming a new word from the same root (e.g., please, pleasure), which often results in a change in the part of speech. For example, by adding the suffix “-­ation” to Inflectional morphemes do not change the part of speech the word create, the word changes from a verb to the noun creation. (e.g., girl/girls), whereas derivational morphemes often do Morphological knowledge enhances the individual’s awareness of the (e.g., create/creation). spelling system as well as the meaningful parts of words, thereby aiding in both decoding and vocabulary development. As individuals grow older, the importance of morphological awareness for predicting reading skill increases (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Fortunately, in the last decade, research has focused more on how morphological structure is represented in written language, and how this knowledge is accessed and used during word recognition (Snowling et al., 2022).

DON’T FORGET

ASSESSMENT OF MORPHOLOGY

Assessing an individual’s morphological knowledge may require an evaluation of both receptive and expressive language. Typically, speech–language pathologists administer standardized measures of morphology (see Rapid Reference  6.4). Rapid Reference  6.5 presents a variety of informal methods for assessing morphology. ASSESSMENT OF BASIC READING SKILLS AND SPELLING

Many standardized tests exist that are designed to measure various aspects of school achievement. Typically, in an evaluation for dyslexia, an assessment that measures several facets of school achievement is administered. Not only do these tests include measures of reading and spelling performance, they also include other areas of functioning so that an evaluator can document areas of strength, such

Rapid Reference 6.4 Standardized Measures of Morphological Knowledge Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Publisher

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 5th ed. (CELF-­5)

Ages 5 to 21–11

Pearson

Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, 2nd ed. (CASL-­2)

Ages 3 to 21

Pearson

Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language, 4 ed. (TACL-­4)

Ages 3 to 12–11

PRO-­ED

th

Rapid Reference 6.5 Informal Measures of Morphological Knowledge Compound Words Ask the individual to break the compound word into its parts and say what the parts mean. For example, use baseball (base-­ball), chalkboard (chalk-­board), or airport (air-­port). Affixes Add an affix to a known word and have the individual describe the new meaning (e.g., skip and skipped, school and preschool, do and undo). Derivations Provide words that have the same base word and ask the individual how the words are related. For example, ask the individual how ear, earring, eardrum, and earache are all related. Pictures Use pictures to illustrate grammatical morphemes, providing a receptive evaluation of knowledge. Ask the individual to point to the picture that illustrates the correct grammatical morpheme (e.g., “the boy is jumping over the fence” versus “the boy has jumped over the fence”).

DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY  81

Rapid Reference 6.6 Commonly Used Individually Administered Achievement Tests Test Name Diagnostic Achievement Battery, 4 ed. (DAB-­4) th

Age/Grade Range

Publisher

Ages 6–0 to 14–11

PRO-­ED

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3 ed. (KTEA-­3)

Ages 4–0 to 25–11

Pearson

Process Assessment of the Learner: Diagnostics for Reading and Writing, 2nd ed. (PAL-­II)

Grades K–6

Pearson

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th ed. (WIAT-­4)

Ages 4–0 to 50–11

Pearson

Wide Range Achievement Test, 5th ed. (WRAT5)

Ages 5–0 to 85+

Pearson

Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement, 4 ed. (WJ IV ACH)

Ages 2–0 to 90+

Riverside Insights

Young Children’s Achievement Test, 2 ed. (YCAT-­2)

Ages 4–0 to 7–11

PRO-­ED

rd

th

nd

as in oral language and/or mathematics. Rapid Reference 6.6 illustrates several widely used standardized assessments that provide measures of various aspects of word reading and spelling. Both word reading and spelling accuracy are included as part of a comprehensive evaluation for dyslexia. Even when administered in kindergarten, difficulties with spelling provide an important source of information to help identify students who are at risk for reading difficulties (Kim & Petscher, 2023). Pennington et al. (2019) explain that: “… the core impairment is in basic literacy skills such as reading accuracy, reading fluency, and/or spelling…” (p. 158). On standardized tests, evaluators typically assess reading and spelling accuracy by asking the individual to read or spell a list of unrelated words that are ordered by the level of difficulty. These lists typically contain all types of words, including words with both regular and irregular elements. When assessing word reading in an evaluation for dyslexia, it is important to assess both pseudoword reading and irregular (exception) word reading (McArthur et al., 2013). Pseudoword reading is useful for assessing children who have been taught to memorize words visually as a whole, as well as older students who have difficulty pronouncing multisyllabic words (Farrall & Ashby, 2019). In addition, comparison of a student’s performance on normed assessments of pseudoword and exception word reading can help determine appropriately differentiated instruction (Savage, 2022). An evaluator should also explore an individual’s reading skills in both lists of words and text. Some children with dyslexia have well-­ developed language comprehension skills and experience more difficulty reading single, isolated words than they do reading text (Hulme & Snowling, 2009; Uhry & Clark, 2005). In addition, evaluation of word reading skills should include both accuracy and fluency with real and pseudowords in both untimed and timed conditions (Christo et al., 2009; Miciak & Fletcher, 2020). Siegel and Hurford (2019) stated: “Tests of accuracy and speed of word recognition and pseudoword reading are absolutely essential for understanding whether an individual is experiencing reading difficulties” Evaluation of word reading skills should include real words and pseudowords in both untimed and timed conditions. (p. 26). Rapid Reference 6.7 illustrates some commonly used assessments that include measures of basic reading skills, as well as rate. In assessing the spelling performance of individuals with dyslexia, it is important to go beyond an analysis of performance on classroom spelling tests. In comparison to individuals with typical spelling ability, individuals with dyslexia are often able to spell a word correctly Although individuals with dyslexia can often recall the spelling immediately after learning it, but then memory of the correct spellof a word immediately after learning it, they often soon forget ing fades rapidly (Schulte-­Körne et  al.,  2004). Thus, an evaluator how to spell the word. should also analyze a student’s spelling errors within daily writing samples. In addition, one single standardized spelling test will not provide enough information to understand the strengths and weaknesses of a student’s spelling knowledge across various orthographic patterns, and a teacher will not be able to design appropriate interventions (Calhoon et al., 2010). Analysis of spelling errors from tests as well as writing samples will provide a teacher with insights into a student’s linguistic knowledge that will be useful for instructional planning (Uhry & Clark,  2005). The International Dyslexia Association’s (2018) Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading encourages teachers to determine if a student’s spelling difficulties result from poor phonemic awareness, limited knowledge of spelling rules, or weaknesses in orthography or morphology. One spelling assessment (Spelling Performance Evaluation in Language

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

82  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 6.7 Commonly Used Standardized Measures of Reading Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Publisher

Gray Oral Reading Tests, 5 ed. (GORT-­5)

Ages 6–0 to 23–11

PRO-­ED

Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT)

Ages 7–0 to 25–0

PRO-­ED

Gray Diagnostic Reading Tests, 2nd ed. (GDRT-­2)

Ages 6–0 to 13–11

PRO-­ED

th

Nelson–Denny Reading Test, Forms I and J

Grades High School–2-­and 4-­year College

PRO-­ED

Tests of Dyslexia (TOD)

Ages 5–0 to 89–11

WPS

Test of Irregular Word Reading Efficiency (TIWRE)

Ages 3–0 to 94

PAR

Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC)

Grades 1–12

PRO-­ED

Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency, 2nd ed. (TOSWRF-­2)

Ages 6–3 to 24–11

PRO-­ED

Test of Word Reading Efficiency, 2 ed. (TOWRE-­2)

Ages 6–0 to 24–11

PRO-­ED

Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement, 4th ed. (WJ IV ACH)

Ages 2–0 to 90+

Riverside Insights

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, 3 ed. (WRMT-­III)

Ages 4–6 to 79–11

Pearson

nd

rd

and Literacy [SPELL-­3]) analyzes a student’s spelling errors and provides a teacher with pattern-­specific recommendations in a recommended sequence of instruction to enhance both spelling and reading. Appendix B provides a description of this assessment. In some cases, an evaluator will want to compare an individual’s abilities to read and spell words with regular phoneme–grapheme correspondence (e.g., cab) to words that contain an irregular element (e.g., once). As noted earlier in the chapter, the recognition and spelling of words with irregular elements require knowledge of orthography and the visual recall of common letter strings, sometimes referred to as visual orthographic images. The reader must both observe and recall letter CAUTION patterns and letter strings, an ability that has been referred to as graphemic parsing skills (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). Put more simply, the The results from only one spelling test will not provide enough information for error analysis to plan targeted reader is able to group together and recall common letter strings, such ­instructional goals for a student. as the spelling pattern “ght.” Instant access to these specified lexical representations contributes to both reading fluency and spelling. THE DUAL-­ROUTE THEORY

The dual-­route theory of reading and spelling suggests that two pathways are involved in reading words: a lexical route for reading real words and irregular words, and a nonlexical route that involves converting letters to phonemes in a serial order and aids in using phonics and reading pseudowords (Coltheart, 1980, 2007). The nonlexical reading route uses knowledge of phoneme–grapheme correspondence rules, such as knowing that “ph” represents the speech sound /f/. Some poor readers have more difficulty reading irregular words than regular words, which has been referred to as developmental surface dyslexia. Other poor readers have trouble using phonics to pronounce pseudowords (also called nonsense words) but can read real words and irregular words, which has been called developmental phonological dyslexia. When considering the existence of subtypes of dyslexia, this distinction between phonological and surface dyslexia has the most empirical support (Peterson et al., 2014). These different difficulties in learning to read relate to the lexical and nonlexical routes and provide further support for two different types of dyslexia, as well as the dual-­route model of reading (Coltheart, 2007). These qualitatively different types of developmental reading impairment are found in several different orthographies (Hanley, 2017). The same type of pattern may also be apparent in spelling. Some people with dyslexia can spell pseudowords and words with regular sound–symbol correspondence, but have trouble spelling the irregular part of exception words. Chapter  8 describes how ­children remember the precise letter order in words through orthographic mapping, which is the memory process used to remember written words. When words are spelled incorrectly, but the sounds are sequenced correctly, it indicates that an individual is developing a mastery of phonics but having trouble in accessing specific word representations (Christo et al., 2009; Mather & Jaffe, 2021). In other words, these individuals have poor lexical representations, but adequate knowledge of phoneme–grapheme

DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY  83

c­ orrespondences; this problem with inadequate orthographic lexical representations cannot be explained by low intelligence, poor motivation, or limited learning opportunities (Romani et al., 2007). The errors that these individuals tend to make when spelling are those that regularize the irregular element of the word, capturing the sounds of the word, but not the unusual or atypical spelling pattern (e.g., spelling “said” as sed and “they” as thay). As with reading, poor spelling of irregular words is referred to as surface dysgraphia (because the problem has to do with writing), whereas difficulty with the conversion of phonemes into graphemes is called phonological dysgraphia (Romani et al., 2007). Individuals with phonological dysgraphia have Poorly specified lexical representations in spelling are caused difficulty spelling pseudowords and produce spellings where the order by a weakness in orthographic processing, whereas difficulty of the sounds is incorrect. Poor spelling is an indicator of dyslexia sequencing sounds in spelling typically results from a weakness across the life span. in phonological processing. Research on the incidence of phonological and surface dyslexia has produced somewhat different findings. In a study comparing typically achieving readers to students with poor reading skill, Abu Hamour (2010) found high correlations among all the reading variables within the normally distributed data but insignificant correlations between irregular and pseudoword reading within the group of students with poor reading, providing further support to the dual-­route theory. Among the 21 students with poor reading, 10 students presented problems in both pseudoword reading and irregular word reading; 9 students presented problems just in pseudoword reading; and 2 students presented problems only in irregular word reading. Thus, in typically developing readers, a strong relationship exists among all reading skills, whereas with poor readers, a disruption can exist in one or more aspects of reading performance. Results from another study indicated that surface dyslexia is just as prevalent as phonological dyslexia when appropriate control groups are selected where the reading ability of the groups was matched to the reading levels of the sample with dyslexia instead of matching the groups by reading age (Wybrow & Hanley, 2015). Surface dyslexia was assessed by comparing students with dyslexia to a control group that was matched on a test of pseudoword reading. Phonological dyslexia was assessed by comparing students with dyslexia to a control group that was matched on a test of irregular word reading. These comparisons led to the identification of an approximately equal number of children with surface and phonological dyslexia. They suggest that when using a reading-­age-­ matched control group, the group has disproportionately poor irregular word reading, making it easy to identify children with good pseudoword reading relative to irregular word reading, but hard to identify children with poor irregular word reading relative to pseudoword reading. Other research has indicated that the longitudinal stability of these two subtypes over 5 years is only fair and is stronger for phonological dyslexia than surface dyslexia (Peterson et al., 2014). Although Peterson et al. found some support for the distinction of these two subtypes, they concluded that limited evidence supports the external validity and that determining subtype membership is not particularly meaningful or useful for educational or clinical practice. Even among college students with dyslexia, the majority appear to have characteristics of phonological dyslexia rather than surface dyslexia (Birch, 2016). Birch found, however, that most of the students had impairments in both pseudoword and irregular word reading when compared to control readers. In regard to identifying subtypes, Kilpatrick (2018) stated: “The proposed phonological and surface subtypes of dyslexia do not have a well-­established empirical foundation. This conventional subtyping model does not reflect research advances in the last 20 years regarding word-­reading development, orthographic skills, and the role (or lack thereof ) of visual skills in reading; nor does it take account of the research literature on word-­reading intervention CAUTION effectiveness. Despite its recent popularity in the field of school psyAlthough some empirical evidence supports the existence of chology, practitioners should not feel the need to attempt to estabsubtypes, identifying subtypes in an assessment for dyslexia lish dyslexia subtypes when evaluating students who struggle in may not be practical or useful. word-­level reading” (p. 966).

DON’T FORGET

PSEUDOWORD READING AND SPELLING

Another important component of an evaluation for dyslexia is to have an individual read and spell pseudowords, or nonsense words, which is a direct way to investigate the development of phonic skills. The reading of a pseudoword requires the reader to apply spelling–sound correspondences to translate a written word that is not stored in memory into speech (Berninger & Richards,  2010). Although pseudowords are not real words and carry no meaning, they do conform to English spelling patterns and rules (e.g., slib and fitch). Children with the most severe problems in phonological awareness will have the most difficulty reading and spelling pseudowords (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). To spell both pseudowords and real words, the person must be able to isolate the phonemes in spoken

84  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

words, assign a letter or letters to each sound, and then blend the sounds together to pronounce the word (Lerväg & Hulme, 2010). The spelling of pseudowords also involves knowledge of common orthographic spelling patterns and spelling rules, such as knowing to double the consonant in the pseudoword strubbing or that lutch would most likely be spelled as -­tch rather than as -­ch because the /ch/ sound follows a short vowel. Adults with dyslexia still display weaknesses in both pseudoword decoding and spelling; in fact, poor spelling is the most prominent marker of dyslexia in adults (Nergård-­Nilssen & Hulme, 2014; Romani et al., 2007). In their clinical work evaluating individuals with dyslexia, Uhry and Clark (2005) observed that standardized test results often follow this pattern: Intelligence and listening comprehension > reading comprehension > decoding words in text > decoding words in lists > nonsense word reading and spelling (p. 69). Thus, it is often not unusual for an individual with dyslexia to read words correctly within a passage but struggle to read words correctly from a list. Making comparisons among an individual’s scores across different types of word reading tasks often has instructional implications (Christo et al., 2009). If an individual struggles to read pseudowords, then instruction should focus on phonics. If an individual can read pseudowords, but struggles reading irregular words, then instruction should focus on mastering orthographic patterns. (See Chapter 8.) If an individual is accurate in reading both real words and pseudowords, but reads slowly, then an intervention to increase fluency would be appropriate. Some evidence suggests, however, that the fundamental problem of readers with dyslexia is not a specific problem in reading pseudowords, but rather difficulty acquiring orthographic knowledge; this phenomenon has been described as an orthographic–phonological binding deficit (Van den Broeck & Geudens, 2012). The difficulty seems to be that poor readers have limited phonic skills and do not have a robust store of sublexical units that would facilitate the accurate pronunciation of nonsense words. They have difficulty convertA comparison of an individual’s scores across different types of reading tasks (e.g., untimed and timed, lists vs. text) can ing letters into sounds, and their difficulty with pseudoword reading lead to helpful insights regarding the most effective type of reflects their poor grapheme–phoneme conversion knowledge intervention. (McArthur et al., 2013).

DON’T FORGET

INSTRUCTIONAL LEVELS AND INFORMAL READING INVENTORIES

It has been long known that readers who are given material to read that is too difficult for them will likely become frustrated (Betts, 1946). To match an individual reader’s level of performance with appropriate books, it proves helpful to administer an informal reading inventory (IRI). IRIs have been used for many years to determine both word reading accuracy and the level of comprehension. The percentage of words read correctly is used to calculate the reader’s accuracy level. When a reader’s accuracy is below 90%, the text is considered to be too difficult. The concept of identifying an individual’s independent reading level, instructional reading level, and frustration reading level is associated with IRIs. Typically, if the reader’s accuracy level on a text is 99% or higher, then the text is considered to be at the reader’s independent level; 98–90% accuracy is considered to be the instructional level; and accuracy less than 90% is considered to be the reader’s frustration level (Betts, 1946). A simple way to judge if a book is too difficult for a child is referred to as the rule of thumb. The teacher counts out 100 words for the child to read and then starting with the little finger on one hand puts down a finger each time an error is made. If the teacher reaches the thumb (five errors) before the child finishes the passage, it is likely that the text will be too difficult. One limitation of IRIs is the amount of time they take to administer, especially when evaluating a struggling reader. In addition, they must be administered individually. ASSESSMENT OF READING FLUENCY

A comprehensive evaluation for dyslexia must also include measures of reading fluency. Reading fluency deficits are a consistent marker of dyslexia into adulthood (Christodoulou et al., 2014). Measures of reading fluency are often more sensitive than word reading measures in detecting reading problems (Meisinger et al., 2010; Sofie & Riccio, 2002). Fluent reading requires automaticity, which is the quick recognition of words without using decoding strategies. Denckla and Mahone (2018) describe automaticity as “… the ability to perform tasks without actively thinking through them” (p. 15). Automaticity is not the same as fluency. Fluency also includes prosody (expression). Reading with expression can only occur with automaticity. Students who read fluently are more likely to comprehend connected text (Sabatini et al., 2019). An accurate assessment of fluency also involves consideration of the depth and breadth of a reader’s sight vocabulary. In fact, the extent of a child’s sight vocabulary is the most important factor for explaining differences in reading fluency (Torgesen, Alexander, et al., 2001). Sometimes, fluency and rate of reading are not included as part of a reading evaluation. If fluency is not evaluated, then readers who have learned to decode accurately but still lack fluency, a common characteristic of individuals with dyslexia, may be misunderstood, as well as misdiagnosed. Meisinger and colleagues (2010) found that children with reading disabilities were under-­identified when fluency measures

DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY  85

were not included as part of the evaluation. In fact, prior to 2004, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included only two CAUTION areas of reading in which a student could qualify for having a specific Accurate reading does not guarantee fluent reading. It is also learning disability, basic reading skills (i.e., word reading) and reading important to assess an individual’s rate of reading. comprehension. In 2004, they added the third area: reading fluency. Possibly the biggest change in current discussions about fluency since the National Reading Panel Report in 2000 is the widespread universal use of fluency-­based assessments (Hasbrouck, 2020a). Both standardized and curriculum-­based measurements (CBM) are used to assess fluency. In addition, CBM measures are frequently used to set progress monitoring goals. Oral reading is used to assess reading fluency because it is more reliable than silent reading (Jenkins et al., 2003), primarily because what the reader is reading can be heard. Also, in order to measure prosody (expression), the individual must read aloud. Prosody is generally viewed as more of an outcome of comprehension rather than a primary contributor to comprehension (Groen et al., 2019). Prosody makes an indirect contribution to both reading and reading comprehension (Wade-­Woolley et al., 2021). Sometimes observable differences exist between a person’s speed of oral reading and silent reading, as rate of articulation must be considered during oral reading. For typically developing adolescent readers, silent reading is faster than oral reading. For adolescents with dyslexia, however, the deficit in silent reading appears to be as great or greater than that in oral reading (van den Boer et al., 2022). Traditionally, the speed of reading a list of words has been the primary means of measuring fluency in children with dyslexia. Researchers have found, however, that focusing solely on rate, such as only calculating the number of words read correctly per minute, ignores other important aspects of reading, such as accuracy and prosody (Valencia et al., 2010). This focus on rate leads to incorrect identification of individuals needing special services. The process overidentifies children who do not require special services and under-­identifies those who do, especially children struggling with reading comprehension and English language learners (Valencia CAUTION et al., 2010). In addition, the emphasis on rate encourages teachers to focus on building speed rather than increasing vocabulary and If rate is the only indicator measured for reading fluency, then comprehension. Unfortunately, problems with fluency are often incorrect conclusions may be drawn regarding which individuals persistent. For example, van Setten et al. (2018) found that children need reading support and what is the most appropriate type who have a low reading fluency level in third grade were still slow of instruction. readers in sixth grade. METHODS OF ASSESSING FLUENCY

An assessment of reading fluency must explore the various components that comprise fluency: accuracy, rate, and prosody. All aspects of reading fluency must be considered when determining a reader’s instructional needs. Some of the most common methods used for assessing aspects of fluency include informal reading inventories, curriculum-­based measurements of reading (R-­CBM), and standardized measures of reading that include word lists, pseudoword lists, sentences, and passages. R-­CBM measures are even useful in the assessment of college students with dyslexia (Nelson et al., 2019). Qualitative information, such as observing the individual’s reading performance and behaviors, as well as analyzing the errors made, is also invaluable for diagnosis and instructional planning. Rapid Reference 6.8 lists several measures of reading fluency. Rate. Rate is frequently assessed using R-­CBM probes. This approach requires the individual to read a grade-­level text orally for 1 minute. The teacher, using a copy of the same text, marks any errors made and then calculates the total number of words read correctly. A common benchmark for oral reading fluency is the number of words read correctly per minute (WRC), which is sometimes written as WCPM. Use the following procedure to calculate the WRC. In May, Josh, a very poor reader in seventh grade, read a second-­grade passage for 1 minute. He read 24 words and made 13 errors. We would record the total number of words read [24] and then subtract the number of errors [13]. The top number is WRC, and the bottom number is the number of errors. His WRC is 11/13, which is less than 50% accuracy. In addition, a typical second-­grade student in the spring term would read at least 100 words per minute. As another example of a more advanced reader, after reading for 1 minute, Juan had read 140 words total. He made five errors, so 140 − 5 = 135 words read correctly. We would record WRC as 135/5. Rapid Reference 6.9 illustrates the types of words that are considered to be read correctly and the types that are considered to be errors. Although CBM measures are useful for monitoring progress, they are not sufficient for determining the existence of dyslexia (Nelson et al., 2019). Response to Intervention (RTI) is primarily a service delivery model, not a diagnostic model (Feifer, 2011).

86  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 6.8 Examples of Measures of Reading Fluency Test Name

Age/Grade Range

Publisher

Dynamic Indicators of Beginning Early Literacy Skills, 6 ed. (DIBELS-­6)

Grades 1–6

University of Oregon

Fluency Formula

Grades K–8

Scholastic

Gray Oral Reading Tests, 5th ed. (GORT-­5)

Ages 6–0 to 23–11

PRO-­ED

th

Qualitative Reading Inventory, 7 ed. (QRI-­7)

Grades K–High School

Pearson

Tests of Dyslexia (TOD)

Ages 5–0 to 89–11

WPS

Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC)

Grades 1–12

PRO-­ED

Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency, 2 ed. (TOSWRF-­2)

Ages 6–3 to 24–11

PRO-­ED

Test of Word Reading Efficiency, 2nd ed. (TOWRE-­2)

Ages 6–0 to 24–11

PRO-­ED

th

nd

Rapid Reference 6.9 Determining Correct and Incorrect Words Words Read Correctly (WRC) Correctly pronounced words. Repetitions. Insertions. Self-­corrected words within 3 seconds. Articulation/dialect differences. Words Counted as Errors Hesitations (longer than 3 seconds, examiner provides the word). Substitutions (e.g., reading house for home). Omissions (i.e., leaving out a word). Mispronunciations.

CAUTION Information obtained by RTI procedures can contribute to an understanding of the reading problem, as well as what interventions may be most effective, but this information alone is insufficient for making a diagnosis of dyslexia. Multiple sources of information are required including family history, standardized test results, prior interventions, classroom work samples, and teacher reports.

DON’T FORGET If an individual makes an error but self-­corrects, then it does not count as an error. Fluency and rate, however, are affected by the self-­corrections.

Within this type of model, a lack of response to core reading instruction coupled with poor word reading would be the defining characteristics of dyslexia (Cárdenas-­Hagan, 2019). Rapid Reference  6.10 illustrates common oral reading benchmarks (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2017). Note that oral reading fluency is not typically assessed during the first few months of first grade, which is why that column is blank. Also, within each grade and at each semester, there is an expected range of words correct per minute. The ranges reported in Rapid Reference 6.10 are WCPM at the 50th percentile to the 90th percentile. The rate, or automaticity, of individuals who are at or near these expected ranges is considered adequate. Others who are consistently above or below the expected range are at risk for problems in reading fluency. It may seem odd that individuals above the expected range may be at risk. Some individuals, however, read very quickly but may have limited comprehension and expression. There is no value in reading quickly if comprehension is limited. Limited evidence from research, theory,

DECODING, ENCODING, AND READING FLUENCY  87

Rapid Reference 6.10 Oral Reading Fluency Benchmarks (WCPM) Fall Grade 1:

Winter

Spring

29–97

60–116

Grade 2:

50–111

84–131

100–148

Grade 3:

83–134

97–161

112–166

Grade 4:

94–153

120–168

133–184

Grade 5:

121–179

133–183

146–195

Grade 6:

132–185

145–195

146–204

Ranges: WCPM at Percentile 50 to Percentile 90 Adapted from: Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702), Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

or practice suggests a benefit to reading significantly above the 50–75th percentile range on unpracticed, grade level text, but the 50th percentile is necessary for comprehension and the 75th percentile for Reading grade level text at the 50th percentile is necessary optimizing comprehension (Hasbrouck & Tindal,  2017; White for comprehension and the 75th percentile for optimizing et al., 2021). comprehension. Table 6.1 (grades 2–8) and Table 6.2 (K–1) present comprehensive charts developed by Dr. Ron Hockman. These charts combine information from various sources and provide a summary of reading rates for commonly used R-­CBM measures. As noted in Table 6.1, MAZE procedures, another type of fluency measure, is similar to a cloze procedure (fill in the missing blank) but the reader is provided with three or four choices that can fit in the blank. Both accuracy and rate can be measured using the same R-­CBM probe simply by adding in a calculation for accuracy (Rasinski, 2006). Using the 1-­minute reading probe, the teacher can determine the rate (WCPM) and then divide the WCPM by the total number of words read (words correct + errors) to obtain the accuracy level. For example, a beginning second-­grade student read 85 words correctly out of a total of 100 words attempted. Her reading rate is 85 WCPM, which falls within the expected range for the fall term of grade 2 (see Rapid Reference 6.10). However, her accuracy level is only 85% (85 divided by 100 = 0.85 or 85%), which is below the frustration level “CBM data alone cannot be used to diagnose a reading ( to indicate a spelled or written form. When you A base element can be free, forming a word on its own, see angle brackets < >, spell out the letter names inside. or bound, forming a word only when combined with Affixes include prefixes ( e.g., the in ), suffixes (the ­another element. in ), and connecting vowel letters. Connecting vowel letters can connect two base elements (the single element in ), two suffixes (the single element in ), or a base and a suffix (the in ). The connecting vowel letter came into English from Greek and Different terms are often used for base elements. They are and from Latin. It may be surprising to see connecting vowel letsometimes called base words, roots, stems, or combining ters included with affixes because they do not make a specific contriforms. The term root, however, is also used to refer to an bution to the meaning of a word, but they are categorized this way ancestor or etymon of a word. Because it can be confusing to use the same term for both a morphological structure because they are structural elements that help to construct the meanin present-­day English and a word from an earlier language, ing of a word. Students need to learn from the very beginning that it is clarifying to reserve the term root for an ancestor English words are spelled by combining morphemic elements in conof a word and use the term base (free or bound) for the sistent ways and that, in fact, m ­ orphology is the framework of the morphological foundation of a present-­day English word. English writing system (Hegland, 2021).

DON’T FORGET

122  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Figure 9.1  David’s Spelling of Going

fish

cat

sand

bag

s

say

ing s

un

lock

s

ed ing s

Figure 9.2  Orthographic Morphological Matrices (Word Matrices)

Instruction in the morphological framework of English can and should be integrated into phonics instruction from the beginning. How can we do this? Many of the words that students initially learn to read and spell consist of only a single free base (hat, bug, sit, plan, lunch); however, these base elements can be combined with affixes and other bases to make longer words. Teachers can point this out using an orthographic morphological matrix, also known as a word matrix. Figure 9.2 shows word matrices for the base elements , , , and . A word matrix shows the morphological structures of a set of words organized around a common base element, which is found in the main cell of the matrix. Other base elements that may compound with the primary base are indicated in boldface. A matrix provides a concrete representation of the structural elements that form words. Even before students are ready to work with all the elements within them, teachers can use matrices to introduce concepts that will become increasingly important as students advance. The goal is to frame early instruction so that students do not develop misunderstandings about the spelling system. Here are just a few of the morphological concepts that can be discussed using word matrices: 1. We spell words by combining morphemic elements. A word that is formed with only a base is called a simple word. A word spelled with two or more elements is called a complex word. 2. A word sum allows us to illustrate and verify morphological processes and morphemic structures of words. A synthetic word sum lists elements on the left and a completed word on the right, with plus signs between elements and a rewrite arrow that indicates the spelling of the completed word:

An analytic word sum shows a completed word on the left side and the morphemic elements within it on the right:

3. In every English word, there is at least one base element—­free or bound—­that contributes to the core of the word’s meaning. Many words also include affixes. Words that include more than one base are called compound words (catfish and sandbags). Although many compounds are formed from free bases, students will eventually learn that bound bases can also be compounded (e.g., ). Interestingly, the base has an orthographic denotation of “great” and the base adds the idea of “mind” or “spirit.” Thus, with the addition of the adjective-forming suffix , magnanimous refers to “greatness of spirit.” 4. Prefixes contribute to the meaning of a word but not always in the same way. For instance, the prefix in the word contract adds the idea of “together” to the bound base (“pull”). The in concede, however, seems to be intensifying the sense of the base (“yield”) (Harper, 2023). When a prefix is acting as an intensifier, it adds emphasis. Suffixes also contribute to meaning in varying ways, often by adding grammatical information (such as the that changes the noun joy to the adjective joyous).

TEACHING THE ORTHOGRAPHIC SYSTEM BY INTEGRATING MORPHOLOGY  123

5. Morphemic elements in words are spelled consistently, yet their pronunciations may change when combined with another element. For example, the plural suffix is pronounced /s/ in cats but /z/ in bags. The base is pronounced differently in break and breakfast. Stable spelling of an element is highly functional for comprehension; it allows a reader to quickly recognize each element in a word such as or and the contribution it makes to the meaning or usage of the word, independent of its pronunciation.

DON’T FORGET When you see angle brackets < >, spell out the letter names inside. Angle brackets are a signal of a spelled or written form. When you see forward slashes / /, pronounce what’s inside. Slash brackets indicate that the symbols inside are representing phonemes—­the smallest parts of spoken words that are distinctive for meaning.

The examples in Figure 9.2 were chosen in part because they do not require students to know the three suffixing conventions. As students learn these conventions (explained in Rapid Reference 9.2), they will develop the knowledge needed to spell thousands of words accurately. Figure 9.3 presents a note that Peter, a sixth-­grade student, wrote to his teacher. You can see from his writing that he knows common ways to spell many phonemes, but he’s not aware of other aspects of orthography that would help him understand why to use specific graphemes. Errors that relate specifically to suffixing conventions include his spellings of called and helped, which indicate that he does

Rapid Reference 9.2 Three Suffixing Conventions English spelling has three suffixing conventions for combining written morphemic elements: the E convention, the doubling convention, and the Y to I convention. (Note that there are different names for these conventions, but these are the ones we will use in this chapter.) The E convention: When a suffix that begins with a vowel letter (a vowel suffix) is added to a base or suffix that ends in an ­unpronounced , the final is replaced by the suffix that is being added. This convention may be applied more than once in the spelling of a complex word. The forward slash mark following the final in each word sum provided in the following text signals this process. Note that the final is not replaced when adding a consonant suffix (a suffix that begins with a consonant). hope/ + ing → hoping rinse/ + ed → rinsed act + ive/ + ate/ + ion → activation hope + ful → hopeful (No replacement of when adding a consonant suffix.) The doubling convention: When adding a vowel suffix, the final consonant of a base is doubled when (a) there is a single consonant letter at the end of the base, (b) a single vowel letter precedes the final consonant, and (c) stress—­in the completed word—­is on the syllable just before the suffix being added. In the word sums provided in the following text, the second consonant in parentheses is a signal of the doubling process. The final consonant is not doubled when adding a suffix that begins with a consonant. run (n) + ing → running hop (p) + ed → hopped cup + ful → cupful jump + ing → jumping rain + y → rainy regret (t) + ing → regretting market + ing → marketing

(No doubling when adding a consonant suffix.) (No doubling when the base ends in two consonants.) (No doubling when the base contains a vowel digraph, such as .) (No doubling due to stress; see the explanation in the following text.)

Note that in the word regretting, because the stress is on the syllable just before the suffix being added, the final is doubled when adding the vowel suffix . In marketing, however, the stress is on the first syllable, so the final is not doubled, even though the same suffix is being added. The Y to I convention: When adding either a vowel or consonant suffix to a base or suffix ending in a single vowel , the is changed to an before adding any suffix that does not begin with an . In the word sums provided in the following text, the slash mark and are a signal of that process. There is no change when the final is part of a vowel digraph , , , or . try /i + al → trial happy /i + er → happier happy /i + ness → happiness try + ing → trying play + ed → played

(The does not change to when adding a suffix that begins with .) (The does not change to if it’s part of a vowel digraph.)

124  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Figure 9.3  Peter’s Note

not understand the formation of past tense. In addition, from his spelling of the word writing, we can assume that he is confused about when and how to apply the doubling and E conventions. BUILDING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYSTEM

The morphological concepts discussed in this chapter are essential knowledge for students with dyslexia, who often have difficulty recalling letter strings (as described in Chapter 8). It is particularly important that students learn right away that the spelling of an element will be stable, even though its pronunciation may change when elements are added to or removed from it. Teachers already introduce this concept when they teach the varying pronunciations of a suffix as well as the three different pronunciations of the suffix (rained, jumped, and planted). By teaching this concept from the very beginning of instruction and pointing out that it also applies to base elements, teachers can help students understand the particular vowel and consonant graphemes in many words. They can also show students one important reason that English often has more than one way to spell a phoneme and more than one way to pronounce a grapheme: to allow for the consistent spelling of written morphemic elements, one of the factors that leads to the deep orthography of English. Without this knowledge, as students become familiar with the most common spellings of phonemes, they might logically write the word says as . To understand the spelling , they need to know that it is a complex word—­a word formed from more than A complex word is one that is composed of more than one one morphemic element: a base (where we find the expected written element. Even a single-­syllable word can be complex, pronunciation of ) combined with a suffix that adds gramas we see in cats, dogs, says, does, and been. matical information. Teachers should point out that the base is pronounced differently in say than when combined with the suffix in says, but that the spelling of says is completely logical and predictable—­once we take into consideration the morphological structures in the word: . This understanding allows students to reconstruct the spelling as needed and will prepare them to watch for morphological complexity in words throughout the system, including two other words that are learned early and are also typically described as irregular: does and been ( and ). Although the change in pronunciation of the base in says may be surprising, a base is often pronounced differently after affixes are added, as we see in this next set of words.

DON’T FORGET

act + ion → action sculpt + ure → sculpture com + fort + able → comfortable grade/ + u + al → gradual When comparing the pronunciation of the complex words mentioned above (action, sculpture, comfortable, and gradual) with the pronunciation of the words formed from just a free base (act, sculpt, fort, and grade), we observe changes in the pronunciation of both vowel and consonant graphemes. The pronunciation of in both act and sculpt changes when a suffix is added to yield action or ­sculpture. The pronunciation of the in the base is different in fort, comfort, and comfortable. Both and are ­pronounced differently when grade becomes gradual.

TEACHING THE ORTHOGRAPHIC SYSTEM BY INTEGRATING MORPHOLOGY  125

Students with dyslexia can find it difficult to spell a word such as gradual or comfortable when working with its pronunciation in isolation. To understand why gradual is spelled with rather than , students need to see the structural relationships between and . To spell comfortable, students need to understand the relationship between , , and : (see Hegland, 2021, for a more complete discussion of these three words). This understanding was helpful to Ms. Webster, a fourth-­grade teacher, who wondered how to help Miranda spell the word family. Miranda kept writing , omitting the . Ms. Webster explained to Miranda that although the in family is frequently unpronounced, the pronunciation of the becomes distinct and clear once a suffix is added to form the adjective familiar: . After this explanation, Miranda thought about the word familiar to help her remember to put the in family when spelling it. The word familiar presents its own challenges if students attempt to spell it from its pronunciation in isolation, which does not clarify either of the ’s or the second . However, students can understand every letter in both words once they are aware of the relationship between and and know the convention for changing a final to before adding a suffix such as . Spelling instruction must help students—­especially those with dyslexia—­make sense of the writing system of their language. Effective spelling instruction teaches students how to think about spelling, not just how to spell individual words (Carreker, 2018b). A WORD HAS A MEANING: A BASE HAS AN ORTHOGRAPHIC DENOTATION

Every base has an orthographic denotation: a deep sense that contributes to the meaning of words containing that base. An ­orthographic denotation of a base comes from its history and is not the same as the meaning of a word. Figure 9.4 shows a word matrix (an orthographic morphological matrix) for the base . The central banner of the matrix displays the spelling of the base element along with its orthographic denotation, “step (toward something),” which is shown below the base in quotation marks. When working with a matrix, combine elements from left to right. Note that you do not need to use an element from each column, but you should not skip over a column or randomly pull elements from cells in the matrix. It is important to create word sums for the words you are building and to apply the three suffixing conventions as you combine elements to form a completed word that makes sense. The meaning of an English word and the orthographic denotation of its base may be closely related, but often the connection is more distant and metaphorical. For instance, the base element (as seen in Figure 9.4) has an orthographic denotation of “step (toward something).” Numerous words can be constructed from this one base element. Here are just a few examples: grade → grade grade/ + u + al → gradual under + grade/ + u + ate → undergraduate grade/ + u + ate/ + ion → graduation de + grade/ + ed → degraded grade/ + i + ent → gradient The first definition of the word grade in the New Oxford American Dictionary is “a particular level of rank, quality, proficiency, intensity, or value.” That’s not the same as the orthographic denotation of the base, “step (toward something),” but there is a hint of that sense in the many usages of the word grade, including as an indication of a student’s level of progress in school. Similarly, something that is gradual takes place slowly or by small degrees (i.e., in a step-­wise fashion, rather than abruptly). These often subtle connections in meaning are the result of the shared history of these words. The English words grade and gradual both evolved from the Latin word

ed

under

de

grade “step (toward something)”

ing s i

ent al ing

u ate

ion s

Figure 9.4  A Word Matrix for

126  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

gradus, which had a broad array of meanings relating to the idea of stepping toward something (Harper, 2023). All of the words in the matrix can be traced back to that same Latin etymon (or ancestral word). Although grade and gradual came into English many centuries ago, and their usage and meaning have changed, they retain a connection to the idea of “stepping toward,” even if it is now quite muted. Knowledge of the morphological structures of words can help students build and anchor vocabulary learning as well as spelling. All students, but particularly those with dyslexia, benefit from learning words such as gradual and gradient, along with noun and verb usages of grade and graduate, in the context of a morphological family of words. A morphological family, as represented in the word matrix, provides memorable connections in structure and meaning to support vocabulary growth (Bowers & Kirby, 2010), as well as spelling and reading skills. BOUND BASE ELEMENTS

While free base elements form words in English with no other elements added, English also includes many bound base elements, which form words only when combined with at least one additional element. Bound bases are extremely productive for both spelling and vocabulary development and are common in academic vocabulary (Henry, 2010). Figure 9.5 shows the bound base with the orthographic denotation “break.” Note that although this base element comes from a Latin verb (meaning “to break”), the words formed from this base are not necessarily verbs. This matrix includes a number of words that might be challenging to spell from their pronunciation alone. Here are just a few examples: fracture → fract + ure infraction → in + fract + ion refracting → re + fract + ing diffractor → dif + fract + or fractious → fract + i + ous Not only does working with the structures of complex words facilitate accurate spelling, but it also can accelerate vocabulary development. Notice that the same affix may appear in more than one cell in this matrix, and several affixes are found in both this matrix and the one for . All these affixes occur in other words in English. A suffix often forms a noun, as it does in diffraction, t­ension, champion, and repression. A suffix can be noun-­forming as well, as in fracture, sculpture, moisture, and pressure. With an awareness of morphemic elements and the contributions they make to meaning, students can make sense of many words and, even more importantly, the overall spelling system. Morphology has great power to help students expand their vocabularies, and this power is amplified when students learn a set of words that share a common base and thus have a shared orthographic denotation. The specific and often somewhat diverse meanings of a set of words can be anchored to the more general sense carried in the base. The word fractious, for instance, has a definition of irritable, quarrelsome, or difficult to control. Groups that are fractious, then, can be thought of as likely to break apart fairly easy, perhaps over minor issues. Refraction of light has a specific meaning, but this usage also connects to the idea of breaking. In this case, it describes a break or change in the direction of light.

al ing or s dif in re

fract “break”

i

ous

ion

al s

ure

ed ing s

Figure 9.5  A Word Matrix for the Bound Base

TEACHING THE ORTHOGRAPHIC SYSTEM BY INTEGRATING MORPHOLOGY  127

Students also need to learn about bound base elements, which are an integral part of the writing system. Carolyn, an eighth-­grader, had been learning about the importance of morphology and was familiar with the prefix , found in words such as object and obstruct. She also knew the suffix from words such as nervous and famous. However, because she had not been taught explicitly about the importance and pervasiveness of bound base elements, she had not paid any attention to the prefix and suffix in the word obvious, built from a base element . The orthographic denotation of , “road, way, course” (from the Latin word via), and the usage of the prefix (which adds the idea of “in front of ” or “against”) have a subtle connection to our use of the word obvious today; we can think of something that is obvious as being, metaphorically, right in front of us as we go on our way. Carolyn was amazed to learn that the same base is present in previous, deviate, and impervious. (If something is impervious to water, water can’t make its way through it; the prefix adds the idea of “through.”) If students like Carolyn are taught explicitly about bound base elements, they will be able to read, spell, and remember new vocabulary words. They will also be more likely to notice prefixes and suffixes in words they already know, which will help them identify and learn new base elements, and develop a deeper understanding of the English writing system. Specific definitions of words must be learned, but we can support students with dyslexia by helping them to anchor those definitions to the orthographic denotation of a base element; this also prepares them for ongoing learning. Explicit instruction is the start of the journey toward literacy. We all continue to learn about language throughout our lifetimes, sometimes subconsciously, ­ CAUTION ­noticing and using regularities or patterns in the language through what can be called statistical learning (Seidenberg,  2017). The Be thoughtful when using collections of elements, matrices, or ­connection between the varied surface meanings of words and the other morphological resources. The most important outcome deeper ­sense— the orthographic denotation— carried by the base is is that students understand how the spelling system works; it an often overlooked regularity of English that is a powerful tool for is not enough to know a set of isolated morphemic elements. The word sum and matrix are essential tools that build an vocabulary learning. understanding of the English spelling system.

ETYMOLOGY AND ITS ROLE IN SPELLING

The spelling of a word in present-­day English represents the phonology of a spoken word within the context of its morphemic structure. However, there is another influence on the spelling of many words that teachers and students must understand: etymology—­the history of words. Etymological references allow us to identify the orthographic denotation of a base and to discover words that are morphologically related: words that share the same base in English today. Etymology may also clarify why a particular grapheme is part of the spelling of a word, because many words with puzzling spellings make sense in the context of related words that have come from the same ancestral roots. The spelling of , for instance, is often thought of as irregular. And, indeed, early written records show that this word was once spelled , which might seem a more logical spelling, because the in our current spelling of people is not pronounced; it is not representing a phoneme. To understand the spelling , students need to know that letters in words may have functions other than representing segments of pronunciation. In this case, the in can be thought of as an etymological marker showing a connection to the Latin etymon populus, meaning “a people, nation; body of citizens; a multitude, crowd, throng,” as well as to other words in present-­day English that have descended from that same Latin ancestor populus, including population, popular, and populist (Harper, 2023). In fact, sometimes words were intentionally respelled in ways that reveal these etymological connections (Venezky, 1999). The word debt, for instance, was spelled in Middle English. It was later respelled as , with the reinserted, because of the spelling of its Latin etymon debitum (Smith & Kim, 2018). Latin debitum, which means “a thing owed,” also led to the English word debit (Harper, 2023). When students learn the spelling of the word debt, they can also learn the connection to debit, where the follows the (as in ) but is pronounced. Students can then use the phoneme–grapheme relationships in the word debit to remember and accurately place the in the spelling of debt. These kinds of connections are found in many words in English that are often thought of as irregular, including friend (another of Peter’s misspellings in Figure 9.3). Friend shares an etymological history with Friday, where the is distinctly pronounced. Both friend and Friday evolved from words connected to the idea of love. In Old English, the word friend was complex: the base meant “to love” and the suffix formed a noun meaning “someone who loves” (Oxford English Dictionary). The word fiend has a similar story; it is a noun that developed from a verb that meant “to hate” (Harper, 2023). The word Friday was named after the Norse goddess of love, Frigga or Frigg. We can point out to students that Friday is the day of the week when we often begin spending more time with those who love us: our family and friends. Students can remember this type of connection, and learning about these relationships would enable Peter to understand why there is an in the spelling of both Friday and friend. In addition, the pronunciation of Friday would be a reminder of where the belongs in . Without an understanding of etymological influences on spelling, students must learn unexpected segments of a word by rote. This memorization process is difficult for many, but particularly for those with dyslexia.

128  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

DON’T FORGET The etymology of words can explain why a particular grapheme is present in a word, even graphemes that do not represent a phoneme, such as the in , the in , or the in .

When working with etymological references, we must keep in mind that the meanings of words in English today are not the same as their etymons; etymological references are not intended to lay out fully formed explanations of present-­day spellings. Instead, etymology provides data that can be analyzed and interpreted to shed light on the spellings of many present-­day English words. With an understanding of etymology and its influences, teachers can frequently show students exactly why each and every letter is in a word.

SPELLING REVEALS THE IDENTITY OF WORDS

The English spelling system is complex yet coherent. Students and teachers must understand all the components of the system, which work together to enable quick and accurate comprehension. Virtually all spelling conventions facilitate rapid identification of words (and of morphemic elements) while reading. When readers are fluent with the suffixing conventions and know how to analyze words using word sums, they can see beneath the surface of a complex word and spot the elements that form it, including suffixes that may provide grammatical information and bases that carry orthographic denotations. Although suffixing conventions are often expected to provide clear signals of pronunciation, that is not always the case. Suffixing conventions do, however, consistently provide clear signals of morphological structure. Other conventions provide additional clues to the identity and function of individual words. For instance, English has different conventions for content (lexical) words than for function words. Content words include nouns, verbs, adjectives, and most adverbs. English scribes adopted conventions for spelling content words, many of which still apply today, but they left function words alone (Crystal, 2012). One of the conventions we inherited from the scribes is to spell content words with at least three letters. This explains spellings such as , , , and , which do not need their third letter to represent the phonemes in the spoken words. Instead, the third letter in each written form makes it clear that these are not function words (grammatical words—­pronouns, prepositions, determiners, conjunctions, auxiliary verbs, and certain types of adverbs), which can be spelled Effective spelling instruction for individuals with dyslexia with as few letters as needed to represent the phonemes (e.g., , must help them make sense of the English writing system. , , , , ). Understanding English spelling convenThis includes an understanding of the interrelationships of tions and the ways in which they facilitate rapid identification of phonology and morphology, the conventions for spelling words while reading can help students learn to spell and read words words, as well as the influences of etymology on spelling. more easily and accurately.

DON’T FORGET

TEACHING PHONEME–GRAPHEME RELATIONSHIPS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OVERALL SYSTEM

As discussed in Chapters 7 and 8, students need to learn how the phonemes in spoken words are represented by the graphemes in written words; this is essential knowledge for accurate spelling. A full understanding of phoneme–grapheme relationships also supports orthographic mapping, which leads to automatic reading (Ehri, 2005, 2014). Explicit teaching of these relationships is an important characteristic of systematic instruction. With single-­syllable words, the relationships between phonemes and graphemes are often direct and obvious (cat, shrimp, land). However, other single-­syllable words (says, does, been) are morphologically complex, and this fact must be shared with students before they attempt to learn the relationships between the phonemes and graphemes in these words and before they are asked to spell or read them. From the very beginning of instruction, morphology should always be a consideration. Students who learn morphemic structures—­such as the in , , , and —­will be able to use this knowledge as they read and spell many words. Those who are also aware of etymological influences on spelling are likely to become curious rather than frustrated when encountering an unexpected spelling. CONCLUSION

This chapter has not detailed all the components of the English spelling system, but the examples provided point to the importance of teaching phoneme–grapheme relationships, morphology, and the influences of etymology in the context of the overall spelling system. The more teachers know about how English spelling works, the more they will be able to help students with dyslexia learn to read and spell. Students who develop this knowledge themselves will be prepared to continue learning to read, spell, and understand new words during their school years and throughout their lives.

TEACHING THE ORTHOGRAPHIC SYSTEM BY INTEGRATING MORPHOLOGY  129

  TEST YOURSELF 1. When a student is struggling with reading, research indicates that instruction should focus on reading skills and de-­emphasize spelling.True or false? 2. Morphology is an advanced skill and not important for early readers.True or false? 3. How do written morphemes contribute to the meaning of a word?

a. b. c. d. e.

A base element contributes a deep, often subtle sense that comes from the word’s history. Prefixes and suffixes contribute to the meaning of a word, but in varying ways. Suffixes may add information about the grammatical function of a word. Morphemes contribute to meaning, but they often don’t simply “add up” to the definition of a word. All of the above.

4. Does an understanding of etymology help with spelling? If so, how?

a. Etymology is not that important. Although it is often fascinating, etymology is “nice to know” rather than essential information. b. Etymological references provide important clues and information that can help teachers and students understand the spelling of present-­day English words. c. Etymology gives us the current definition of a word as it’s used in English today. d. None of the above. 5. Which statement best describes the relationships between phonemes in spoken words and graphemes in written words?

a. The phonemes in spoken words are represented by graphemes in written words in unvarying ways. b. The phonemes in spoken words are represented by graphemes in written words in flexible ways, which allows for the consistent spelling of morphemes. c. The phonemes in spoken words are represented by graphemes in written words in random ways; the spellings of many words just can’t be understood. 6. The term “complex” can be used in different ways. When discussing the morphological structure of a word, describing a word as complex means that it is

a. b. c. d.

difficult to understand. difficult to spell. composed of more than one written element. None of the above.

7. The three suffixing conventions are important because

a. b. c. d.

they allow writers to combine written elements using consistent procedures and to spell words accurately. they allow readers to “see inside a spelling” to perceive the meaning-­contributing elements in words. Both of the above. None of the above.

8. Knowledge of the morphological structures of words can help students develop

a. b. c. d.

spelling skills. reading skills. vocabulary. All of the above.

9. One of the conventions for English content words is that they

a. b. c. d.

are written with an initial capital letter. are written with at least three letters. are never found in dictionaries. None of the above.

10. The most important goal of effective spelling instruction is

a. b. c. d.

to help students memorize the spelling of as many words as possible. to help students understand how the overall writing system works and how to think about spelling. to teach students to use spell checkers more effectively so that they can correct their own errors. None of the above.

Answers: 1. False; 2. False; 3. e; 4. b; 5. b; 6. c; 7. c; 8. d; 9. b; 10. b.

Chapter Ten INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING SKILLS AND SPELLING

In all remedial work, the teacher should start first with the child and then find the appropriate method. Fit the method to the child, not the child to the method. —­Dr. Marion Monroe, 1935, p. 227 The most effective meaningful activity to “build memory” and “enhance learning” (including automatic PA and phonics) is to help children use the alphabet tool to turn words they say into words they can see. —­Dr. Jeannine Herron, 2023 As noted in Chapter 7, training in phonological awareness coupled with systematic instruction in phoneme–grapheme correspondences is critical for helping individuals with dyslexia develop efficient word identification skills and spelling. For individuals with dyslexia, single-­word reading is most affected because of their weaknesses in phonological, orthographic, and morphological representations (Alexander & Slinger-­Constant, 2004). Thus, the most effective methods are those that target the mastery of phoneme–grapheme relationships and increase the reader’s understanding of the links between the speech sounds and print (Hulme & Snowling, 2009). A student cannot become an expert in reading comprehension without first developing automaticity in basic reading skills (Pennington et al., 2019). This chapter reviews the types of interventions that are most effective for helping individuals with dyslexia improve their basic ­reading and spelling skills. In addition, this chapter includes some basics regarding language structure, as teachers’ understanding of language structure is as important as the instructional methodologies they use to increase children’s reading and spelling skills (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Unfortunately, many children with dyslexia struggle with reading for several years before they receive effective interventions (Ozernov-­Palchik & Gaab, 2016; Raskind, 2001). The longer that the intervention is delayed, the greater the impact upon the child’s reading development, as well as the child’s self-­esteem and motivation to read (Snowling & Hulme, 2011). Even when children with dyslexia do receive targeted treatments, their progress may be slow (Wagner et al., 2022). As discussed in earlier chapters, individuals with the most severe reading impairments have specific linguistic risk factors that make it difficult for them to acquire basic reading skills even when they do receive adequate instruction (Vellutino & Fletcher, 2007). They have to work extra hard and practice reading much longer than their peers without dyslexia to approach average reading levels (Olson, 2011). Unfortunately, traditional special education instruction often proves insufficient in closing the reading gap between students with dyslexia and typically developing readers (Denton & Al Otaiba, 2011). Students with dyslexia require specialized instruction that is intensive, systematic, and delivered by a reading teacher who has training in the specific methodologies that are effective for students with dysIt is important to monitor the progress of struggling readers lexia. In addition, results from a meta-­analysis indicated that students in both elementary and secondary school. who receive the most intervention showed the greatest gains; effects, however, were larger for students in grades K–2 than in grades 3–5. Although this reinforces the benefit of early intervention, some ­students in high school still require instruction in decoding. In fact, if their decoding does not improve, these students will have little to no growth in reading comprehension in the following years (Wang et al., 2019). Fortunately, struggling readers in grades 4 through 12 can improve their reading when they receive appropriate interventions (Scammacca et al., 2015).

DON’T FORGET

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 131

132  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

As noted in Chapter 7, in 2019, the International Dyslexia Association coined the term Structured Literacy™ to encompass such types of reading approaches. In these approaches, teachers carefully structure literacy skills and concepts and the sequence of instruction to ensure student success. These types of approaches teach students how oral language consists of specific patterns of speech sounds (phonology); how language is represented in writing, including the spelling patterns and the rules for punctuation and capitalization (orthography); how word parts are combined to form words (morphology); the rule system that underlies the structure of sentences (syntax); the study of word and phrase meanings (semantics); and the organization of spoken and written discourse. The following website provides a guide describing Structured Literacy™ (Structured Literacy: An Introductory Guide): https://dyslexiaida.org/. In addition, the Reading League has a guide that defines and explains what is meant by the science of reading, an interdisciplinary body of scientifically-­based research: https://www.the readingleague.org/what-­is-­the-­science-­of-­reading/. In addition, the following website provides a detailed index of numerous podcasts that address various issues related to the science of reading (https://www.themeasuredmom.com/podcast-index/). BASIC READING SKILLS

DON’T FORGET

The terms “basic reading skills” and “decoding” refer to the ability to use the systematic correspondences between sounds and spellings to Word recognition refers to words that are recognized autoacquire a repertoire of words that are recognized by sight (Ehri, 2022; matically, whereas word identification refers to words that are not, and the reader must use a strategy. McCardle et al., 2001). These skills allow readers to pronounce both familiar and unfamiliar words. Two terms that are used to describe the process of word reading are word recognition and word identification. Johnson (2016) recommends that word recognition should be reserved for words that are instantly and automatically recalled, whereas word identification refers to words that are not automatically recognized and the reader must use some type of strategy. Decoding also includes both phonics and structural analysis. Phonics is the reading method that is used to teach individuals how to pronounce words by identifying the sounds of the letters and then blending the sounds together to form words. Structural analysis involves breaking the words into parts or units, such as syllables, to make longer words easier to pronounce. As explained in Chapter 8, regarding orthography and orthographic mapping, the application of both decoding and encoding promotes sight-­word recognition, which refers to the instant recognition of words without analysis of word structure (Ehri, 2022). Both research and clinical practice have documented the fact that provision of instruction in foundational reading skills has a ­positive effect on reading outcomes for students with dyslexia (Gersten et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2022; Neitzel et al., 2022). TeachingLD. org provides “Tutorial #7: Decoding Instruction” by Benita Blachman and Maria S. Murray that provides a guide with practical ­recommendations for teaching fundamental skills from learning phoneme–grapheme associations through sounding out simple and multisyllablic words (https://www.teachingld.org/topics/reading). BASIC PHONICS TERMINOLOGY

Before undertaking phonics instruction, a teacher needs an understanding of how to teach phonics, as well as knowledge of terminology. Rapid Reference 10.1 reviews basic phonics terminology. PHONICS APPROACHES

A large evidence base provides strong support for the benefits of teaching children to decode words using systematic and explicit phonics instruction (Petscher et al., 2020). Interventions that teach phonics can improve the decoding accuracy of individuals with poor word reading skills (Blevins, 2023; Ehri, 2022; Snowling & Hulme, 2011). In fact, the last two decades of research have provided further support for the provision of explicit phonics instruction for both younger and older readers who are experiencing difficulties (Brady,  2011,  2020). Children with dyslexia require “… intense, frequent, and extended phonics instruction” (S. Shaywitz & ­ Shaywitz, 2020, p. 228). CAUTION The type of instruction that an individual requires will also differ depending upon the age of the individual as well as the present level Not all children with dyslexia require phonics instruction. Some children with dyslexia have intact phonemic awareness of reading skill. Poor readers in grades K–2 almost always need a full and phonics skills, but weak orthographic processing that afprogram of instruction in basic decoding skills. According to Denton fects reading and spelling exception words. For these children, and Al Otaiba (2011), poor readers in grades 3 and above may need: the instruction should focus on the mastery of orthographic “(a) a full program of instruction in basic decoding and word recognipatterns and spelling rules. tion, (b) short-­ term concentrated word identification instruction

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  133

Rapid Reference 10.1 Basic Phonics Terminology Affixes: prefixes (added as word beginnings) and suffixes (added as word endings). Consonant: a speech sound in which the respiratory airstream traveling through the vocal tract is fully or partially obstructed by the lips, tongue, and/or teeth. Consonant blend: two adjacent consonants that maintain their own sounds. Digraph: two adjacent consonant or vowel letters that make one new sound (e.g., ph, oa). Diphthong: two adjacent vowel sounds that slide together when pronounced (ou, ow, oi, and oy); the first vowel is referred to as the “on-­glide,” and the second vowel is referred to as the “off-­glide.” Grapheme: a letter or letter string that represents a single speech sound (e.g., k or ck). Irregular word: a word that contains one or more elements that do not follow standard English pronunciations or spelling rules (e.g., the “ai” in said). Morpheme: the smallest unit of language that carries meaning (e.g., affixes). Onset: the beginning consonant or consonants in a syllable. Phoneme: the smallest unit of speech; a single speech sound. Phoneme–grapheme correspondences: the connections between the speech sounds and the print. Regular word: word that conforms to standard English spelling patterns and rules. Rime: the ending part of the syllable that begins with a vowel sound (e.g., -­at). R-­controlled vowels: vowel sounds that are influenced by the /r/ sound (e.g., /ar/). Voiced consonants: consonant sounds that use the vocal folds (e.g., /b/). Vowel: a speech sound in which the respiratory airstream travels through the vocal tract unobstructed. Unvoiced consonant: a consonant sound made without the vocal folds (e.g., /p/).

focused primarily on multisyllable words and structural analysis, or (c) ongoing word study that provides only minimal support in basic word recognition but equips students for decoding and spelling complex words as well as using morphemic analysis to determine word meanings (i.e., using knowledge of meaningful word parts such as affixes and roots)” (p. 4). The good news is that most adolescent students who receive interventions do maintain the gains they made at the end of the intervention (Daniel et al., 2021). Several different instructional approaches exist for teaching phonics including analogy, analytic, embedded, phonics through ­spelling, and synthetic. The first two approaches, analogy and analytic, rely on the student’s previous knowledge and experience with print to deduce new learning. Analogy phonics instruction teaches unknown words by analogy to known words, often using word families. For example, using a rime the child knows such as -­at in the word cat, the teacher introduces unfamiliar words containing that rime. The child learns to read the new words mat and flat by analogy to cat. Analytic phonics approaches use a whole-­to-­part approach that teaches children to analyze spelling patterns once the word has been identified as a whole (Ehri, 2006). The spelling patterns are analyzed by comparing unknown words to known words. This approach starts with the whole word and teaches the child to break the word down into parts, but avoids pronouncing sounds in isolation. Embedded phonics is an implicit approach that relies somewhat on incidental learning. Phonics skills are taught by embedding phonics instruction into text reading. This approach is not explicit or systematic and, therefore, is not generally recommended for individuals with dyslexia. The phonics through spelling approach teaches students to spell words phonetically. The student is taught to segment a word into phonemes, select the graphemes that spell those phonemes, and then write the word. This type of approach is most in line with a speech-­to-­print approach. It moves from speech to print, that is, starting the instruction with phonemes and teaching students how to map these phonemes to graphemes. Wasowicz (2021) explains: “Very simply defined, speech-­to-­print refers to the process of mapping from phoneme to grapheme to spell (encode) the spoken word in written form. This is sometimes referred to as phonological encoding. A speech-­to-­print approach starts with a focus on the spoken word and moves from that starting point to the written word” (p.11). Synthetic phonics is the reverse of analytic phonics, using a part-­to-­whole approach. The child learns to build the whole word from the individual parts through explicit instruction in converting sounds to letters and then blending the phonemes to pronounce the word. Rapid Reference  10.2 summarizes these five different phonic instructional approaches. Put more simply, however, phonics approaches can be classified as going from part-­to-­whole (synthetic) or from whole-­to-­part (analytic). Although findings from the National Reading Panel (NRP) report (2000) indicated that students with severe dyslexia require a synthetic phonics approach,

134  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 10.2 Summary of Five Phonics Instructional Approaches Analogy Phonics: The student learns unfamiliar words by analogy to known words. If the student knows the word lip, then the rime -­ip can be used to learn new words, such as rip or trip, by blending the known rime with the new onset. Word families are often used with this approach. Analytic Phonics: Uses a whole-­to-­part approach. The student uses a known word to analyze the phoneme–grapheme relations and then applies that to an unknown word. For example, if the student knows the word house, the ou letter–sound relation can be analyzed and applied to unfamiliar words such as loud, mouse, cloud, proud, and pound. Embedded Phonics: An implicit approach that provides phonics skills instruction within text reading. The embedded phonics approach is often used in conjunction with a whole-­language approach. This type of approach is not recommended for students with dyslexia because it is neither explicit nor systematic. Phonics through Spelling: Teaches the student to segment a word into its phonemes and then select the letters that represent each phoneme to spell the word. Synthetic Phonics: An explicit, part-­to-­whole approach that teaches the student the associations between phonemes and graphemes and then how to blend those phonemes together to pronounce a word.

Brady (2020) explained that the use of synthetic versus analytic phonic methods does not have to be an either/or choice, “… but a question of when and for what purpose” (p. 25). For example, the practice of reading a list of words that share a similar spelling pattern (e.g., goat, boat, moat) may help students develop automaticity with that particular spelling pattern. Since approximately 84% of English words are phonetically regular, it makes sense to teach children the relationships between sounds and their spellings (Blevin, 2023). In general, systematic phonics instruction incorporates the following three principles: (1) phoneme–grapheme associations are taught directly, (2) a preplanned sequence of phoneme–grapheme associations is used, and (3) the associations are practiced in isolation as well as in decodable text (Uhry & Clark, 2005). Students with dyslexia should first learn to decode words using phonemes and graphemes rather than using larger units such as syllables or onset–rimes (Ehri, 2022). Two of the first developed synthetic phonics approaches that are still widely used are the Orton–Gillingham (Gillingham & Stillman, 1973; Orton, 1966) and the Slingerland approaches (Slingerland, 1981). These approaches provide instruction aimed at strengthening visual and auditory associations through tracing. Although these approaches are highly effective for students with dyslexia, they also require intensive teacher training. Appendix B describes several easy-­to-­use synthetic phonics programs. Most phonics approaches are derived from or have been influenced by the Orton–Gillingham approach. Proponents of the Orton– Gillingham approach suggest that instruction must be individualized and presented in a cohesive sequence with a multimodal approach that provides sufficient practice and review; an essential goal of this type of instruction is the development of phonological awareness and its application to phonic skills in the reading process (Rooney, 1995). Rapid Reference 10.3 presents an example of a systematic sequence for phonics instruction. In addition, the University of Florida Literacy Institute has a scope-­and-­sequence chart for phonics instruction: https://ufli.education.ufl.edu/wp-­content/uploads/2022/06/UFLI-­Scope2.pdf In a review of effective interventions for students who struggle with reading, Alexander and Slinger-­Constant (2004) observed: “… that the younger the child, the more explicit the intervention must be; the older the child and the more severe the impairment, the more intensive the treatment, and the longer its duration must be. A systematic phonics approach results in robust results in word reading accuracy but is not effective in developing fluency in the older, more impaired reader” (p. 749). Thus, phonics approaches are designed to build both word reading skill and spelling accuracy, but not reading fluency. Appendix B In order to develop accuracy in word reading, most students ­presents examples of several systematic instructional programs for with dyslexia require a synthetic phonics approach when phonics, structural analysis, and spelling. Brady (2020) summarizes initially learning to read. three important points regarding phonics instruction: (a) a synthetic method is most effective, (b) instruction should extend beyond kindergarten and first grade, and (c) struggling readers of any age should be provided with a phonics intervention that is tailored to their level CAUTION of development. Piasta and Hudson (2022) explained: “Ultimately, Phonics programs help to develop decoding and encodthe goal of phonics instruction is to equip children with knowledge ing skills and accuracy, but they do not build reading fluency. and strategies to be used generatively; that is, for them to be able to Other methods are needed to build reading fluency. read and spell words that they may not have encountered before in

DON’T FORGET

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  135

Rapid Reference 10.3 Example of a Systematic Sequence for Phonics Instruction 1. Sound blending with CVC words, using a few continuous consonants (e.g., m, n, s) and a short /a/. 2. Single consonants and short vowel sounds in a VC, CVC format. 3. CVCe spelling pattern (e.g., cape, tone). 4. Consonant blends (e.g., sc, sl, sm). 5. Consonant digraphs (e.g., ch, sh, th). 6. Vowel digraphs (e.g., oa, ee, ay). 7. Diphthongs (ow, ou, oi, oy). 8. R-­controlled vowels (e.g., ar, er, ir, ur). 9. Common prefixes (e.g., re-­, un-­, mis-­, dis-­, pre-­, ex-­, sub-­). 10. Common suffixes (e.g., -­s, -­er, -­ly, -­ful, -­ed, -­est, -­ing, -­tion). 11. Silent letters (e.g., kn-­, wr-­, -­mb). 12. Latin and Greek roots (e.g., tract, rupt, spect).

print and, through repeated exposure and orthographic mapping, add these words to their sight vocabularies. The goal of phonics instruction is not memorization of correspondences and spellings” (p. 204). DECODABLE TEXT

Another important component of phonics instruction is to have the student practice phoneme–grapheme relationships by reading decodable text. In this type of text, the vocabulary is controlled, and most of the selected words conform to regular phoneme–grapheme correspondences known by the student so that the words can be read through the application of phonics. Typically, high-­frequency words are introduced slowly, practiced in isolation, and then reinforced within the stories. Many phonics programs come with sets of decodable books that reinforce and review the content of the lessons. The major purpose of using decodable text is to provide readers with opportunities to practice applying the phonics skills that they are learning in isolation, not to build vocabulary or reading comprehension. By reading decodable texts, however, students are assured of success, and they have a greater chance of increasing their reading fluency and comprehension in the future (Smartt & Glaser, 2010). Keep in mind that phonics instruction is only one part of the reading program. It is also important to ensure that children listen to interesting, authentic stories that promote vocabulary development and increase their interest and knowledge. Rapid Reference 10.4 provides examples and short descriptions of commercially available decodable texts. The Reading League Compass also provides a comprehensive list of sources for decodable text for different age groups (https://www.thereadingleague.org/decodable-­text-­sources/). To help teachers locate appropriate decodable text, Lexile®  Find CAUTION a  Decodable Book and Lexile®  Decodable Passages are available on Hub.Lexile.com. For students who enjoy graphic novels, the Yak Pack The purpose of reading decodable text is to practice and provides decodable stories using comics for teaching both phonics reinforce phonics concepts. Children also need to listen to and sight words that are available on Amazon. There is also a game, authentic texts to increase their knowledge and vocabulary. Kangaroo Cravings, that provides systematic reading instruction and teaches 300 high frequency words. The game has three levels of difficulty and is available on Amazon, Shopify, or from: clevernoodle.com. Another source for decodable passages created by former teachers and experts from Stanford uses artificial intelligence (AI) to generate Snow (2020) reminds us: “It should be noted that asking decodable text. Designed to be compatible with any Science of children to read only decodable texts in the early stages of Reading-­ based phonics curriculum, Project Read’s AI Decodable instruction in no way precludes adults reading to them from a range of texts that include elaborate vocabulary, grammatiGenerator allows teachers to pick a phonics skill and quickly genercally complex sentences, and intricate narrative forms. This is ate, save, and print a student-­friendly PDF in a matter of seconds. strongly encouraged for the contribution it makes to ongoing Stories are decodable up to the chosen objective with a focus on the language development, the development of background letter sound that is targeted in that objective. An AI tutor is also availknowledge, and to reading comprehension.” (p. 38). able. Available at: https://www.projectread.ai/

DON’T FORGET

136  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 10.4 Examples of Decodable Texts • Beanstalk Books: Beanstalk Books has over 400 titles of decodable books for students in K–2. The Letters & Sounds Decodable Readers are 100% decodable and each story has been written with a strictly controlled text. Children are only exposed to words and text based on their knowledge of letter–sound correspondences. Available at: https://beanstalkbooks.com/ • Bob Books: Offers decodable text for beginners or advanced beginners. Uses word families and compound words. Emergent readers begin with text that uses only the letters M, A, T, and S and then move toward long vowels. Also includes workbooks, books for sight words, and books for more advanced readers. Available at: www.scholastic.com and most major bookstores (https://shop.scholastic.com/ parent-­ecommerce/series-­and-­characters/bob-­books.html) • Developing Decoders: Developing Decoders is a series of decodable stories designed to help beginning or struggling readers acquire phonics skills. Each book contains 15 stories that focus on a specific phonics pattern. Available at: Amazon.com. • DOG ON A LOG Decodable Books, Chapter Books, and Printables:  These books start with fun, easy activities for phonological awareness. The first decodable book has six letters and two sight words. The first chapter book has 260 words. By Step 10, books start to include over 8,000 words. Children love reading “real chapter books” that require a bookmark. Older students especially love the chapter book collection volumes. At 140 to 458 pages, the collection volumes are as hefty as the books their peers are reading. Available at Amazon and online booksellers. Free printable Parent and Teacher Guides, board games, D’Nealian Letter Tracing Cards, letter/sound cards, decodable passages, and more are available at www.dogonalogbooks.com. • Express Readers: These decodable books are designed for students in PreK–3rd grade (intervention). The stories are engaging and humorous. They include "slow down" sounds that are tricky or being practiced for the first time and "sticky" words that are high-­ frequency or irregular words. The website allows the user to download and print some of the books and to flip through the ones in color. Available at: www.expressreaders.org • Flyleaf Publishing: Flyleaf ’s decodable books provide beginning and struggling readers with opportunities to apply their phonics knowledge in meaningful, colorful books. Their decodable books stress both foundational skills and reading comprehension. Available at: flyleafpublishing.com. • High Noon Books: Offers a large selection of decodable books for struggling readers of all ages. They also provide High Interest/Low Level books (Hi–Lo), as well as graphic novels. Available at: highnoonbooks.com. • Little Learners Love Literacy Decodable Books and Games. The Little Learners decodable fiction and nonfiction books are cute stories that children can read by applying their phonics knowledge. Little Learners games provide students with opportunities to practice the skills that they are learning. Available at: https://shop.thereadingleague.org/collections/ little-­learners-­love-­literacy-­decodable-­books-­and-­games • Open Court Decodable Books: Multiple decodable text series separated by grade level. Available at www.amazon.com or any major online bookstore. Additional free practice activities are provided at: https://www.opencourtresources.com/teaching/OCRunits/­decodable_ books/decodables.html • Pat & Pals Decodable Graphic Novels: These decodable graphic novels provide beginner and struggling readers an opportunity to practice their phonics skills with engaging and humorous stories. They are designed for all ages. Available at Amazon.com, ingramspark. com, and suemarasciulo.com • Phonics Practice Readers by Modern Curriculum Press: Offers three different series for variety of context. Each series includes practice on short vowels, long vowels, blends, and digraphs. Available at www.amazon.com or any major online bookstore. • PLD: PLD’s range of decodable reading books align with PLD’s Structured Synthetic Phonics (SSP) sequence. The types of words, word count, and amount of high-­frequency words gradually become more complex as more phonics concepts are introduced. Set 1 starts with VC and CVC words with no high-­frequency words. Gradually, as new phonics concepts are introduced, length increases. The first 11 books introduce approximately a quarter of the alphabet sounds. Available at: https://pld-­literacy.org/decodable-­first-­reading-­books-­middle-­ upper-­primary/ • Power Readers and Supercharged Readers: Power Readers has 28 related decodable stories with recurring characters and activity pages aligned with the story and the phonics concepts. The program is designed for students in K–1 or for intervention for students in grades 2–4. The stories begin with simple, one-­syllable short vowel words (sat) and gradually progress to simple, two-­syllable words (rabbit, ringing). Supercharged Readers is a series of decodable chapter books for students in grades 1–2 or for intervention for students in grades 3–5. Available at: https://www.voyagersopris.com/products/reading/power-­readers/overview • Reading A-­Z: Reading A-­Z provides a variety of decodable books for students to practice their phonics skills. Teachers may select a certain skill, such as consonant blends or vowel digraphs, and then find the appropriate titles. The books may be used in combination with other materials, including Alphabet, Sound/Symbol, and Read-­Aloud Books. Available at: https://www.readinga-­z.com/phonics/ decodable-­books/

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  137

• Reading Head Start: Provides a reading program for parents to use at home with children ages 2 to 14. It is a subscription-­based program, but it provides a yearlong free trial. Available at: https://www.readingheadstart.com/ • Simple Words Books: This series of engaging books is written for upper elementary students and older readers. There are stand-­alone books as well as a series that follows the same characters. The website provides additional resources for parents and teachers, including free webinars. Available at: https://www.simplewordsbooks.com/ • SPELD: SPELD SA Phonic Books follow a structured synthetic phonics approach. The books support the learning of letter-­sounds and blending in a sequential order, helping students to develop decoding skills. A few high-­frequency words are taught before reading each book. Ten sets are available at no cost that provide a pdf version and a power point. Available at: https://www.speldsa.org.au/SPELD­SA-­Phonic-­Readers-­New-­Series • S.P.I.R.E.® Decodable Readers: This library contains 120 decodable readers that cover a wide range of topics in science, social studies, and literature. The texts provide practice for every concept, allowing students to apply new phonics skills to connected text. The texts include a variety of genres including biographies, poetry, Greek myths, and science and social studies articles. Available at: https://eps. schoolspecialty.com/ • Whole Phonics™: This series contains stories that are of high interest to beginning readers. The stories follow a systematic approach to teaching phonics. High-­frequency words are introduced carefully. The program includes accompanying workbooks, games, and other teaching tools. Available at: www.whole-­phonics.com • Wright Skills Decodable Books: The complete series offers comprehensive phonemic awareness, phonics, and word study resources for reading instruction. Available at: www.wrightskills.com • Youkan Decodable Books: funny, engaging and whimsical designed for early elementary children. Each series has multiple stories with colored illustrations on each page. The series follows a structured, sequential phonics scope and sequence beginning with closed, one syllable words (CVC). There is a “Sounds and Concepts Chart” at the beginning of each story and optional comprehension questions. Available at: www.youkanpublishing.com and Amazon.com.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Structural analysis refers to the ability to analyze a word and break it down into its parts. Once a reader can blend and segment sounds to read and spell words, operating with chunks or word parts makes it easier to decode and encode multisyllabic words (Ehri, 2000, 2022). Thus, when readers have mastered phoneme–grapheme connections, attention to word parts and syllable patterns can facilitate reading and spelling development. Six Syllable Types. Several programs, including the Wilson Reading System®, teach the students how to recognize and pronounce six basic English syllable types (closed syllables; syllables with a long vowel and a silent “e”; open syllables; syllables ending in a consonant with -­le; r-­controlled syllables; and vowel team, including digraph and diphthong syllables). Once the syllable types are known, they can be used to practice reading and spelling of multisyllabic words. Overall, the closed syllable is the most common syllable. In the elementary grades, the most common syllables are the closed, open, and consonant -­le syllables (Henry, 2010). Knowledge of these basic syllable types can help a struggling reader know how to pronounce the vowel sounds in words. Instruction in syllable types may also facilitate spelling, such as mastery of words that end with a final silent e. Also, knowing closed, open, and consonant -­le syllables can help a student know to: (a) not double the consonant when an open syllable is combined with a consonant -­le syllable (e.g., table, noble) and (b) double the consonant when a closed syllable is combined with a consonant -­le syllable (e.g., rabbit, mitten) (Moats, 2019). Rapid Reference 10.5 provides a short description and examples of these six syllable types. Rapid Reference 10.6 provides a summary of generalizations regarding language structure grouped by syllable type. An article from Reading Rockets by Louisa Moats and Carol Tolman provides a good overview of providing instruction in the six syllable types: https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/spelling-­and-­word-­study/articles/six-­syllable-­types In the Wilson Reading System®, students use a simple syllable-­marking system to code each of the syllable types. Using a left-­to-­right movement, the reader draws a curved or straight line under each syllable and then identifies the type of syllable, codes the vowels with a long or short marking, puts a slash through the e if it is a silent e or consonant -­le syllable, and draws a circle around the r-­controlled vowels or vowel teams. Figure 10.1 illustrates this process. Onset–Rimes by Syllable Types. Instruction in onset–rimes can also be helpful for teaching students how to read and spell using word parts. The onset is the beginning part of a syllable which includes one or more consonants (e.g., sh -­in ship or c-­in cat). The rime is the ending part of the syllable that begins with a vowel sound (e.g., -­ip in ship or -­at in cat). Every English syllable has a rime but not necessarily an onset (e.g., on). These word parts can be combined to form multisyllabic words (e.g., hotdog, clambake). Table 10.1 illustrates examples of common rimes arranged by different syllable types.

138  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 10.5 Six English Syllable Types Closed syllable: at, mat (VC or CVC with short vowel sound). Silent e: bike, shake (CVCe or CCVCe with a long vowel sound). Open syllable: motion, go (the syllable ends with a long vowel sound). Consonant -­le: candle, little. R-­controlled vowel: harm, turn, bird, fern, horn. Vowel team: boat, meat, out, coin, night.

Rapid Reference 10.6 Summary of Language Structures Grouped by Syllable Type I. Closed Syllable • When a vowel is closed or blocked in by one or more consonants, it is a closed syllable. • The vowel is short, such as in “dad, mom, it, black,” and “hunt.” • In upper-­level phonics, the vowel can have the schwa sound of “uh” such as in “son, at-­tach, as-­sist, com-­plete.” The schwa sound is in the unaccented syllable. Generalizations for Closed Syllables Place a check mark in the I (introduced) column when a generalization has been introduced. Place a + in the M (mastered) column when the generalization has been mastered. I

M

____ ____  1. A single vowel in the middle of a syllable is usually short (e.g., not, cat, picnic, cabin). ____ ____  2. Use “-­ck” for /k/ at the end of a one-­syllable word after one short vowel (e.g., back, deck, sick, cluck). ____ ____  3. Use “-­tch” for /ch/ at the end of a one-­syllable word after one short vowel (e.g., patch, etch, ditch). Common exceptions: such, much, which, rich. ____ ____  4. Use “-­dge” on the end of a one-­syllable word for /j/ after one short vowel (e.g., badge, edge, bridge). ____ ____  5. In one-­syllable words, double the final “f, l, s, z” after one short vowel (e.g., tell, mill, fluff, bluff, class, fizz, fuzz) (FLOSS rule). ____ ____  6. When a vowel comes before a double consonant, it is almost always short (e.g., dipper, supper, bonnet). ____ ____  7. Use “c” for the final /k/ sound when the word has two or more syllables (e.g., magic, terrific, Atlantic). ____ ____  8. When two consonants stand between two vowels, the syllable division usually occurs between the two consonants (e.g., nap/kin, ten/nis, but/ter). ____ ____  9. When three consonants stand between two vowels, the division occurs between a blend and the other consonants (e.g., mon/ster, pump/kin). ____ ____10. When one consonant stands between two vowels, the consonant may belong to the first syllable (trav/el, reb/el), which is a closed syllable, or it may belong to the second syllable (be/ long, re/bel), which is an open syllable. ____ ____11. Doubling rule (1+1+1): In a one-­syllable word with one short vowel and ending in one consonant, double the final consonant before adding a suffix beginning with a vowel (to keep the vowel short) (-­ing, -­y, er) (e.g., sad, sadder, saddest). Note: Do not double the final consonant when adding a suffix beginning with a consonant (e.g., sadly, manly, sinful). Never double “v” and “x.”

____ ____12. Doubling rule (2+1+1): In a two-­or more-­syllable word, if the final syllable is accented, double the final consonant before adding a suffix beginning with a vowel (-­ing, -­er, -­est) (e.g., omit, omitted, begin, beginning). ____ ____13. Use “-­est” for the suffix when comparing three or more things (e.g., tallest, youngest, nicest). ____ ____14. Use “-­ist” for people (nouns) who do things (e.g., artist, projectionist, activist).

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  139

II. Open Syllable .

• It is called the open syllable because the vowel is at the end of the syllable and says its name as in “hi, me, so, bi.” • In upper-­level phonics, the open syllable may be pronounced another way. When the vowel says its name, the accent is on that vowel. • When the vowel says “uh,” the syllable is unaccented, such as in “di/vorce.” Generalizations for Open Syllables I

M

____ ____ 1. A vowel at the end of a syllable is usually long (e.g., hi, me, by, va/ca/tion, pre/tend, pi/lot, lo/cate). ____ ____ 2. If a word ends in a consonant followed by a “y,” change the final “-­y” to “i” whenever adding suffixes (e.g., try, tried, rely, relied, reliable). ____ ____ 3. Nouns ending in a vowel “-­o” combination are made plural by adding “s” (e.g., radios, studios). Note: Nouns ending in a consonant “-­o” combination have no generalization; therefore, the dictionary must be used in each case (e.g., potato).

III. Silent “E” Syllable • It is often called the “magic e.” • The “e” indicates that the preceding vowel is long (or says its name). • In beginning phonics, if the student counts back three letters beginning with the final “e” and lands on a vowel, then the vowel says its name (e.g., bake, like, compete). • In upper-­level phonics, the silent “e” syllable may take on the sound of the schwa such as in “sur-­face” or a semi-­schwa-­short sound such as “considerate.” Either way, it is a silent “e” syllable. Generalizations for Silent “e” Syllables I

M

____ ____ 1. Silent “e” on the end of a word usually makes the preceding vowel long (e.g., name, mule, Pete, compose, imitate). ____ ____ 2. Usually, drop the final “e” on words when you add a suffix beginning with a vowel (e.g., late, later, shine, shiner, fame, famous). ____ ____ 3. Keep the final “e” when adding suffixes beginning with a consonant (e.g., shameless, movement). ____ ____ 4. Use “-­ize” as the suffix to add to whole words or to roots (e.g., modernize, authorize, criticize). ____ ____ 5. “Cise” is a common Latin root and not really a suffix at all. The root “cise” means “to cut,” and that only makes sense when used with a prefix (e.g., incise, excise) or with a prefix and a suffix (e.g., incising, excised). Unusual Silent e Generalizations ____ ____ 6. Very few words in English end in “v.” They end with “-­ve” no matter whether the vowel is long or short (e.g., have, gave, drove, live). The silent “e” generalization is not consistent with “-­ve” words. ____ ____ 7. Never end a word with a single “z.” Use “-­ze” after a long vowel sound or a double vowel (e.g., freeze). IV. Vowel Team Syllable • The most difficult of all of the syllable types is the vowel team syllable. • There are 24 subtypes. • Vowel teams can have one pronunciation, up to four pronunciations, or can have a unique pronunciation, and each combination has to be learned carefully (e.g., August, say, saw, shoulder, couple, avoid, meat, head, eight). Generalizations for Vowel Team Syllables I

M

____ ____ 1. Use “i” before “e” except after “c” or when it says /a/ as in neighbor or weigh (e.g., priest, chief, receive, ceiling, vein, freight). ____ ____ 2. “Ai” is most often followed by an “n,” an “l,” or a “d” (e.g., rain, sail, aid). ____ ____ 3. “Oa” is almost always used in one-­syllable words (e.g., boar, roast, oat). ____ ____ 4. “Ough,” “augh,” and “igh” are usually followed by a “t” (e.g., ought, caught, night). ____ ____ 5. Use “se” at the end of a one-­syllable word with a vowel pair instead of “s” so words are not confused as plural (e.g., grease, grouse, house). ____ ____ 6. Nouns ending in a vowel “-­y” combination (ay, oy, ey) are made plural by adding “s” (e.g., days, boys, donkeys). (continued )        

140  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Note: Nouns ending in a consonant “-­y” combination (dy, ny) are made plural by changing the “y” to “i” and adding “es” (lady, ladies, pony, ponies).

____ ____ 7. If the word ends in a vowel “-­y” combination, then just add the suffix (e.g., play, playing, played, player). ____ ____ 8. Most nouns with a vowel pair ending in “f ” form their plurals by adding “s” (e.g., roofs, chiefs). V. Consonant -­le Syllable • Any time there is a consonant -­le, the “e” is not pronounced. • They appear in words such as “terri-­ble, cud-­dle, Bi-­ble, swiz-­zle, and giggle, but NOT in nu-­cle-­us. Generalizations for Consonant -­le Syllables I

M

____ ____ 1. Most nouns ending in a consonant -­le form their plurals by adding “s” (e.g., puzzles, ruffles, candles). ____ ____ 2. Usually drop the final “e” when you add a suffix beginning with a vowel (e.g., cuddle, cuddling, sizzle, sizzling). ____ ____ 3. Usually use the suffix “-­able” when you are adding to a whole word and it means “able” (e.g., serviceable, workable, manageable). ____ ____ 4. Usually use the suffix “-­able” when the root word ends in a hard “c” or “g” (e.g., despicable). ____ ____ 5. Use the suffix “-­ible” when adding to a root word (e.g., visible, edible). ____ ____ 6. Use the suffix “-­ible” when the root word ends in a soft “c” or “g” (e.g., forcible, legible). VI. R-­Controlled Syllable • When a syllable has a single vowel followed by an “r,” it is called an r-­controlled syllable. • The letter “r” is so strong that it changes the vowel sound so that it is no longer short. I

M

____ ____ 1. Usually use “-­er” as a suffix for one-­syllable words when you mean a person who “does” (e.g., diner, jumper, hopper). ____ ____ 2. Use “-­or” for two or more syllable words when you mean a person or thing that “does” (e.g., professor, editor, incinerator). Tractor, doctor, and actor are common exceptions. ____ ____ 3. Use “-­ar” to form an adjective (e.g., singular, regular, popular) and “-­ure” for all others (e.g., manure). ____ ____ 4. Use “-­er” for the suffix when comparing two things (e.g., taller, younger, nicer). Plus Category It is for anything that does not fit into the other patterns. Other Generalizations I

M

____ ____ 1. The letter “c” usually has the soft sound of /s/ when “e,” “i,” or “y” follows it (e.g., city, center, cyclone). ____ ____ 2. The letter “g” usually has the soft sound of /j/ when “e,” “i,” or “y” follows it (e.g., gentle, ginger, gym). ____ ____ 3. To keep the hard sound for (/g/), follow the “g” with a “u” when used before an “i” or “e” (e.g., guess, guide, guest). ____ ____ 4. “Q” is nearly always followed by a “u” and at least one other vowel (e.g., quit, quack). ____ ____ 5. Some common nouns have irregular plural forms (e.g., man, men; mouse, mice; tooth, teeth). ____ ____ 6. Use “wr” as opposed to “r” for words that imply the meaning “twist” (e.g., wrench, wrestle, wrist, write, wrought, wrap, wrong, wreck, wry). ____ ____ 7. Separate prefixes and suffixes as separate syllables (e.g., pre/ vent/ing, trans/por/ta/tion). Other Suffix Generalizations I

M

____ ____ 1. For most words, add “s” to make them plural (e.g., dogs, cars, figs). ____ ____ 2. When a noun ends in “s,” “x,” “z,” “ch,” and “sh,” add “-­es” to make it plural (e.g., gases, taxes, buzzes, marches, brushes). ____ ____ 3. Use “-­ous” as the suffix when the word is an adjective (e.g., dangerous, marvelous). Use “-­us” as the suffix when the word is a noun (e.g., sinus, ruckus).

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  141

____ ____ 4. For the suffix sound (n) that indicates a person, a nationality, or a religion, use “-­an” (e.g., American, Lutheran). For the suffix sound /eyun/ that indicates a person, a nationality, or a religion, use “-­ian” (e.g., Indian, Cambodian). For the suffix saying the sound (n) usually, use “-­en” (e.g., ripen, redden, deaden). ____ ____ 5. These suffixes mean people who do: -­ist, -­ee, -­cian, -­eer, -­ier, -­er, -­ess (e.g., typist, employee, physician, engineer, brigadier, runner); “-­ess” means female (e.g., princess, countess). Developed by C. Wilson Anderson, Jr. and modified by Stephanie Bieberly. Used with permission.

dr p

1. Closed syllable

C

2. Vowel-consonant-e syllable

r ke e or v-e

3. Open syllable

m

o

bub ble

4. Consonant -le syllable

c

-le

5. R-controlled syllable

mark

6. Vowel digraph/diphthong syllable

clown d

r

Figure 10.1  Example of the Syllable and Vowel Marking System from the Wilson Reading System®

Table 10.1  Common Rimes by Syllable Type Closed Syllables

Closed Syllables

CVCe Syllables

Vowel Teams Syllables

R-­Controlled Syllables

-­ab

-­ill

-­ake

-­ain

-­ar

-­all

-­ack

-­im

-­ale

-­aw

-­er

-­ild

-­ag

-­in

-­ame

-­ay

-­ir

-­ind

-­am

-­ing

-­ape

-­ean

-­or

-­old

-­amp

-­ink

-­ate

-­eat

-­ur

-­ost

-­an

-­ip

-­ice

-­eed

-­ank

-­ob

-­ide

-­een

-­ant

-­ock

-­ife

-­eet

-­ap

-­og

-­ime

-­eigh

-­ash

-­op

-­ine

-­ew

-­at

-­ot

-­ite

-­igh

-­ed

-­uck

-­ive

-­ight

-­ell

-­ug

-­oke

-­ough

-­ent

-­um

-­ope

-­out

-­est

-­ump

-­ore

-­ow

-­ick -­ig

-­unk

-­uke

-­oy

Exception Patterns

142  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Serena, a second-­grade student, is learning about the vowel digraph oa. Her teacher, Mr. Boswell, asked her to create a sentence or two using words with this spelling pattern. Figure 10.2 illustrates her creation. Glass-­Analysis for Decoding Only. Glass-­Analysis for Decoding Only is a technique for improving a student’s ability to recognize CAUTION common letter clusters in printed words, thereby making the words easier to decode. The method is designed to be used for one or two Glass warns to not be a “cluster buster.” Do not separate word parts that cannot be separated (e.g., --­ar, sh-­). 15-­minute sessions daily. The teacher presents individual words to the student on cards and asks the student to look at the whole word. The teacher does not cover up parts of the word. Rapid Reference 10.7 reviews the five steps of the method adapted from Glass (1973, 1976). When using this method, the teacher would only teach letter clusters and spelling patterns that can be generalized to other words. Teachers can select words from a student’s reading or spelling materials. Toste et al. (2017) describe five research-­based instructional practices that can be used to increase student ability to pronounce multisyllabic words. The five procedures include teaching students three new affixes a day, segmenting words into their parts, blending word parts together, timing the reading of multisyllabic words with teacher feedback, and practice reading connected text that includes many multisyllabic words. Overall, students with the most severe reading difficulties will require a great amount of instruction and practice to master the pronunciation of multisyllabic words (Heggie & Wade-­Wooley, 2017). HIGH-­FREQUENCY AND IRREGULAR WORDS

High-­frequency words are the words that are used most frequently in reading materials. They are the most common words in the English language. Some of these words are regular and rule-­governed in terms of spelling and pronunciation (e.g., and), whereas others contain one or more irregular elements (e.g., of, once). Reading requires the rapid mapping of letters onto phonological representa-

Figure 10.2  Serena’s Sentences (provided by Deborah Schneider)

Rapid Reference 10.7 Steps in the Glass-­Analysis Method 1. Identify the whole word. For example, present the word carpenter on an index card and say: “This word is carpenter.” Review with the student which letters and letter clusters make which sounds. 2. Pronounce a sound in the word and ask the student to name the letter or letters that make that sound. Say: “In the word ‘carpenter,’ what letters make the ‘car’ sound? What letters make the ‘ar’ sound? What letters make the ‘pen’ sound? What letters make the ‘ter’ sound?” 3. Ask for the sound that certain letters or letter combinations make. Say: “What sound does E-­R make? What sound does the T-­E-­R make?” Ask about each part of the word. 4. Take away letters (auditorily, not visually) and ask for the remaining sound. Say: “In the word ‘carpenter,’ if I took off the ‘/k/’ sound, what would the word say?” Ask the same question omitting different word parts. 5. Identify the whole word.

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  143

tions, followed by blending those representations into a whole word. Even if phonological abilities and phonics skills are intact, slow speed in mapping letters to the sounds can impair reading performance and result in poor retention of words. Methods that are multimodal and involve tracing are often effective for teaching irregular words. In addition, a teacher can color code or enlarge the irregular element in a word to highlight the atypical spelling pattern. Figure  10.3 illustrates a simple procedure that Ms. Fernandez, a second-­grade teacher, uses to teach her three students with dyslexia the spellings of words with an irregular element, such as the word said. She Most irregular words have only a part that is irregular. enlarges the irregular part and color codes it in red. She then draws a heart around the irregular part and says: “This is the part you have to memorize by heart.” She then says the sounds of the ­regular letters and the letter names of the irregular part: /s/ A-­I-­/d/. The students then write the word several times with larger letters for the “ai” and then turn over their papers and write the word from memory. High-­frequency words are taught in tandem with a phonics approach (Brady, 2011). Table 10.2 contains lists of high-­frequency words that were compiled by Wilson Anderson based on a study of the major lists of commonly used words (e.g., Dolch, Fry). Group 1

DON’T FORGET

Figure 10.3  Procedure for Teaching an Irregular Word Table 10.2 

High-­Frequency Words

Group 1 a

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

make

all

now

white

after

of

always

off

about

light

and

me

am

on

who

again

old

around

or

better

long

away

my

are

our

will

an

once

because

pull

bring

much

big

name

at

out

wish

any

open

been

read

carry

myself

blue

not

ate

please

with

as

over

before

right

clean

never

yes

can

one

be

pretty

ask

put

best

sing

cut

only

color

play

black

ran

by

round

both

sit

done

own

come

print

brown

ride

could

some

buy

sleep

draw

pick

down

red

but

saw

every

stop

call

tell

drink

seven

find

run

came

say

fly

take

cold

their

eight

shall

for

said

cat

she

from

thank

does

these

fall

show

funny

see

did

so

give

them

don’t

those

far

six

go

the

do

soon

going

then

fast

upon

full

small

help

three

eat

that

has

think

first

us

got

start

here

to

four

there

had

walk

five

use

grow

ten

I

two

get

they

her

were

found

very

hold

today

in

up

good

this

him

when

gave

wash

hot

together

is

we

have

too

his

why

goes

which

hurt

try

it

where

he

under

how

green

work

if

warm

jump

yellow

into

want

just

its

would

keep

little

you

like

was

know

made

write

kind

many

your

look

must

well

let

new no

went what

live may

Source: Compiled from several lists of high-­frequency words by C. Wilson Anderson, M. A. T. Used with permission.

laugh about better

144  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

contains the easiest, most frequent words, and Group 5 the most difficult. These words can be used for reading and/or spelling instruction. If needed, tracing procedures can be used to aid in retention, such as described in the Fernald approach. By asking the student to read a list of words, a teacher or parent can easily ascertain which words are known versus which words need to be reviewed and practiced. Generally speaking, by the end of second grade, a student should be able to read all of these words automatically. Sight Words. As noted in Chapter 8, sight words are any words that are recognized instantly without decoding. They include both irregular words and high-­frequency words. The term “sight word” does not convey the underlying processes involved, and often results in a type of instruction (e.g., memorizing flash cards) that is not highly effective (Wasowicz, 2021). Moats (2020) notes that most words do not have to be learned by sight or visual memory, but rather through Structured Literacy™ teaching principles. Rapid Reference 10.8 describes several recommended techniques for teaching sight words. Fernald Approach. The Fernald approach is a variation of the language-­ experience approach where children write stories (Fernald, 1943). When students come to a word that they do not know how to spell, the teacher writes the word on a large card in manuscript or cursive. The student then traces the word with a finger, saying the word while tracing. The word is traced as many times as needed until the whole word can be written without looking at the copy. This method can be particularly helpful for students who have In using the Fernald approach, words are always written from weaknesses in orthographic processing that affect sight-­word learning memory and never copied. and the spelling of irregular words. Betts (1946) observed that the Fernald approach that emphasizes visual, auditory, tactile, and ­kinesthetic modes, is most effective “… with children of normal and CAUTION superior intelligence who have a short memory span for verbal material and who have difficulty in associative learning of the visual type” Remember to monitor the progress of struggling readers (p.  381). Rapid Reference  10.9 reviews the steps of a write–say beyond the elementary years (Wang et al., 2019). method based upon the Fernald approach.

DON’T FORGET

SPELLING

As we have discussed, for individuals with dyslexia, spelling creates even greater challenges than reading (Uhry & Clark,  2005). Although encoding (spelling) involves many of the same skills as reading, reading difficulties will improve over time with proper intervention, while spelling skills are more resistant to intervention (Shastry, 2007). With reading, we can recognize words with partial word memories, whereas with spelling, we need complete word memories (Moats, 2019). One has to reproduce the entire word, not just

Rapid Reference 10.8 Principles of Sight Word Instruction (Moats, 2020) • Highlight regular spelling patterns, such as short words with open syllables (e.g., me, see, be, go, no, so). • Pronounce irregular words according to how they look, not how they sound, and explain the difference (e.g., Wed-­nes-­day). • Group words with similar spelling patterns (e.g., would, should, could). • Associate words with meaning when possible (e.g., our and your are possessive pronouns). • Limit the number of irregular words introduced at once. • Provide plenty of practice and review.

Rapid Reference 10.9 Write–Say Method Based on Fernald Approach Select word and write it on a card. Pronounce the word and have the student look at and say the word. Have the student pronounce the word while tracing the word as many times as needed until the word can be written from memory. Have the student write the word correctly three times and then file it alphabetically in a word bank. Review the word periodically to ensure the student can read and spell the word with ease.

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  145

Figure 10.4  Alicia’s Sentence

Figure 10.5  Santiago’s Comments

recognize it; therefore, problems with spelling persist even after reading accuracy has developed (Snowling & Hulme, 2011). Figure 10.4 illustrates a sentence by Alicia, a seventh-­grade student, who wrote that she likes writing, but she hates spelling. Figure 10.5 shows sentences by Santiago, an eighth-­grade student. These feelings about spelling are often common among students with dyslexia. When a student spells a word correctly, this indicates a consolidated memory representation exists which allows for fast and accurate word recognition (Farrall & Ashby, 2019). Teaching students with dyslexia how to spell, however, is a long process that involves careful lesson planning (Carreker, 2018b). Although technology, such as spelling checkers, can help individuals with dyslexia, the individual has to be able to produce a spelling that is close enough to be recognized by the program. In addition, when asked to select the correct spelling, an individual with dyslexia often has trouble distinguishing among words that are very similar in appearance (e.g., tough, though, thought, through, thorough). As with decoding, spelling instruction needs to be systematic and sequential. Appendix B describes a few effective commercial spelling programs. In addition, many phonics programs focus on both word reading and spelling. A reciprocal relationship exists between reading and spelling: accomplished readers use spelling patterns when they read, and conversely reading reinforces knowledge of spelling patterns (Adams & Bruck, 1995). Results from a meta-­analysis indicated that positive ­outcomes are associated with formal spelling instruction that directly and systematically teaches students how to spell, regardless of students’ grade or literacy skills (Graham & Santangelo, 2014). Other results from a meta-­analysis have indicated that interventions that provided both spelling and word reading instruction had larger effects than only word reading instruction for elementary Integrate spelling instruction with word reading instruction. ­students with dyslexia or at risk for dyslexia (Hall et  al., 2022). In Spelling is important. addition, even children in kindergarten benefit from integrating spelling instruction with word reading (Møller et  al.,  2022). For example, Møller et al. taught kindergarten children at risk for reading difficulties nine letters and their sounds. The teacher pronounced a word orally, and the child segmented each sound in the word and pointed to the letter for each sound. Children in this intervention made larger gains in phoneme awareness, spelling, and reading than those who only worked on reading words.

DON’T FORGET

INSTRUCTION IN PHONOLOGY, ORTHOGRAPHY, AND MORPHOLOGY

Effective spelling instruction increases a student’s understanding of the linguistic systems that underlie spelling, including phonology (how to order the speech sounds), orthography (how to recall common spelling patterns), and morphology (how to alter a word’s meaning). Spelling instruction is enhanced when instruction is provided in all three systems, as well as their interrelationships (Berninger & Fayol, 2008). Spelling interventions are most effective when they include the application of phonics, specific ­orthographic patterns and spelling rules, instruction in morphology, and the instruction is provided individually or in a small group (Galuschka et al., 2020).

146  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Figure 10.6  Accord’s Writing Sample Translation: I went to the fair and I got on the bumper cars and I got on the Ferris wheel.

Figure 10.7  Wendy’s Writing Sample Figure 10.8 illustrates a sentence from Diana, another second-­grade student. Her teacher can see that Diana needs direct instruction in how to spell vowel sounds. Translation: When I get home from school, I play outside.

Figure 10.8  Diana’s Writing Sample

Ideas for spelling intervention can be gathered by examining a student’s writing. Figure  10.6 illustrates a writing sample from Accord, a second-­grade student. Accord has mastered the spellings of high-­frequency words with simple patterns, but has difficulty with vowel sounds and spelling longer words. Figure 10.7 illustrates a short writing sample from Wendy, a second-­grade student. She self-­corrected the words she and book. It is impossible to know who fsms refers to. Wendy seems to have mastered a few words by sight, but is confused by the left-­to-­right sequence and has limited knowledge of phoneme–grapheme correspondences. Figure 10.8 illustrates a sentence from Diana, another second-grade student. Her teacher can see that Diana needs direct instruction in how to spell vowel sounds. To enhance phonological awareness and phoneme–grapheme knowledge, a teacher would provide students like Accord, Wendy, and Diana with activities such as Elkonin boxes, phoneme–grapheme mapping, and building words with tiles; see Chapters 7 and 8 for descriptions of these methods. To enhance orthographic awareness, the second goal of instruction, a teacher could focus instruction on the mastery of common spelling patterns (e.g., -­ight and -­tion) that are impossible to sound out but occur frequently in English spelling. Alternatively, the focus could be on mastery of the spelling of a few words with irregular elements (e.g., once, ocean). Chapter 8 provides strategies for enhancing orthographic mapping. As noted in Chapter 9, the study of the smallest meaningful linguistic units (morphemes) should occur throughout spelling development (Hegland, 2021). For example, a first-­grade teacher may show children how to form plurals by adding the letter -­s to words, or a more advanced lesson on when the plural form is spelled with -­es. A teacher may help students understand when the final -­e is dropped when adding a suffix (e.g., the dropping rule: When the base word ends in an e and a vowel suffix is being added, the final e is dropped: hope becomes hoping). A third-­grade teacher may teach and have students practice the rule for doubling consonants when a suffix is being added (e.g., the doubling rule: The final consonant of a word is doubled when there is [a] one vowel in the last syllable, [b] one consonant after the

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  147

vowel, [c] the last syllable is accented, and [d] a vowel suffix is added [e.g., running, hopped, but not jumping, raining]; the following seven letters in English rarely or never double: h, j, k, v, w, x, and y). In later grades, the teacher may help students understand the three different sounds made when the suffix -­ed, for regular past tense, is added to a word (e.g., rained, jumped, planted). A more advanced lesson may focus on spelling of words with an irregular past tense spelling (e.g., wept, said). The key to knowing if the word has an irregular past tense spelling is whether or not the root word changes in pronunciation. If the root word changes in sound (e.g., weep becomes wept; say becomes said), then the past tense spelling is irregular. If the pronunciation stays the same (e.g., rain becomes rained; jump becomes jumped), the past tense is marked with an -­ed, regardless of pronunciation. Understanding the rules that govern the English language helps students with both decoding and encoding. Chapter 9 provides additional strategies for incorporating morphology into spelling instruction. An example of instruction that teaches the interrelationships among phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness Effective spelling instruction for individuals with dyslexia must would be to have children sort words using suffixes, such as plural help them make sense of the English writing system. pronounced as /s/ in cats, as /ez/ in busses, as /z/ in bees, or with no suffix, as in miss (Berninger & Fayol,  2008). For individuals with ­dyslexia, spelling instruction must help them make sense of their ­languages’ writing system. Effective spelling instruction teaches students how to think about language, not just how to spell individual words (Carreker, 2018b).

DON’T FORGET

SPELLING TESTS

Often, the main way spelling is assessed in classrooms is through the use of weekly spelling tests. Although this procedure may be appropriate for children who learn to spell easily, it is typically ineffective for students with dyslexia who require systematic, individualized spelling programs that build upon previous knowledge. Often, the words are too difficult for students to spell, and they cannot even read the words with ease. In addition, the student may not even use the words in writing. Figure 10.9 illustrates a spelling pretest of Daniel, a sixth-­grade student with dyslexia. Clearly, the words have been selected around a theme, such as ancient Egypt. One has to wonder about the choice of words for this student, as well as the difficulty level of the words. Since Daniel has such difficulty with spelling, it makes no sense to ask him to spell a word like number 15, Rosetta Stone.

Figure 10.9  Daniel’s Spelling Pretest

148  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Carreker (2018b) describes spelling instruction that requires copying words or memorizing lists as “dull and uninspiring,” whereas instruction that engages all students in active thought about language is “exciting.” As a general rule, do not give children lists of words to memorize for a spelling test until they understand how the spelling system works (Ehri, 1998). Ehri indicated that children should be able to generate spellings that are phonetically complete and graphemically possible before they should be expected to memorize a list of words for a spelling test. She stated: “Learning the spellings of specific words by memorizing word lists should not begin until students understand how the conventional system works graphophonically. Once this point is reached, remembering the spellings of specific words will be much easier, so spelling instruction can shift to this learning activity” (p. 34). Once students have mastered ­common patterns, they can turn to the mastery of irregular words. Figure 10.10 presents a spelling test from Ivan, an eighth-­grade student. Notice that he only spelled one word correctly. His teacher writes that Ivan should “study to take over.” Ivan studied several hours for this test, but the words were too difficult for him. In frustration, Ivan gave himself the stars at the top of the page. Hopefully Ivan’s teacher will analyze his spelling errors and provide corrective feedback designed to help Ivan increase his spelling skill. For example, Ivan needs to know that when spelling words in English, the letter “s” does not follow an “x.” The letter “x” is composed of two phonemes /k/ and /s/, so another /s/ sound is not needed. In addition, he needs a list of words that are selected with his developmental level in mind. Although an analysis of Ivan’s errors can help identify his instructional needs, it is clear that this list of words is too difficult for him. Spelling Flow List. In order to master irregular words, as an alternative to weekly testing, students can use a flow list, or a list that changes as the student learns to spell words. This is a different procedure from using a fixed spelling list, such as the kind that many teachers use for the weekly spelling test. The purpose of using a spelling flow list is to provide systematic instruction and review in order to promote mastery of spelling words. For this type of procedure, adapted from McCoy and Prehm (1987), the teacher or student selects words from the student’s writing that are misspelled frequently, or the teacher may select the words from a high-­frequency word list or group of spelling patterns, such as the -­ight pattern. The selected words are then placed on the spelling flow list form. The student studies the words and is tested daily by the teacher. The teacher marks each correctly spelled word with a C and each incorrectly spelled

Figure 10.10  Ivan’s Spelling Test

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  149

Name: Jamie

Word they said people would could should were any people said would every busy because any friend C = Correct √ = Incorrect

Start date: 1/15

M T C C C √ √ C √ C √ C √ C

W TH F C √ C C C C √√ C C C C C C √ C C

M

T

W TH F C

C

√

M

T

W TH F

√ √

C C C C

√

C C

C

√

C C

C

C

√

C C

C C C C

√ √

C C

√

C C √

√

C C √ √

C C

Figure 10.11  Example of a Spelling Flow List

word with a check mark. When a word is spelled correctly 3 days in a row, it is crossed off the list, and a new word is added. All words that are spelled correctly for 3 days are filed alphabetically into a word bank. A week later, the teacher checks to make sure that the student still knows how to spell the words added to the bank. If a word is incorrect, then the word is added back to the list. Figure 10.11 illustrates an example of a spelling flow list for a fourth-­grade student with dyslexia who is having trouble mastering the spellings of irregular words. MODIFICATIONS IN THE SPELLING PROGRAM

Individuals with dyslexia will often need modifications in the classroom spelling program. In most instances, the selected words on the classroom list are too difficult, and the instruction is unsystematic. In some cases, the spelling lists are merely a list of randomly selected words that may be appropriate for students at a certain grade level. As with Daniel’s and Ivan’s spelling tests, it is not unusual for students with dyslexia to miss nearly all of the words, even though they have studied the words. Even if they do spell the words correctly on the spelling test, these same words are soon forgotten and will be misspelled in their writing in the following days. Examples of modifications for spelling tests include: a shortened list of words, a list of phonically regular words, a short list of high-­frequency words, words that contain a common spelling pattern, and words selected from the student’s writing. Matthew is in fifth grade. Ms. Randall, his teacher, noticed that he was missing nearly all of the words on the weekly spelling test. She had a private conference with Matthew and told him she would only assign him five words for the test, rather than all 20. Matthew said: “I want to take all 20 words like everybody else.” Ms. Randall then replied: “You can take all 20 words like everybody else, but before the test, we will agree on the 5 words I am going to grade.” Matthew responded, “Okay, that would be great.” As we all know, children of any age do not like to feel that they are different from their peers. SPELLING INSTRUCTION FOR OLDER STUDENTS

When working with older students who struggle with spelling, a crucial first step is to identify the cause of failure in order to provide the most effective interventions. Whereas some older students have difficulties with spelling because of weaknesses in phonological awareness, others may have adequate phonological awareness skills, but underdeveloped orthographic and morphological knowledge of conventional spelling patterns and rules. The most useful interventions are those that directly address the nature of the difficulties. Because most older students have spent a good deal of time writing, a good way to distinguish between weaknesses in phonological awareness versus limited knowledge of English orthography is to analyze the writer’s spelling errors. TYPES OF ERRORS

Essentially, two broad types of spelling errors exist: phonetic spelling, which reflects poorly developed orthographic knowledge, and dysphonetic spelling, in which errors exist in the sound sequence of the word (Snowling, 2011). Phonetic spelling results from an over-­ reliance on phonology, whereas dysphonetic spelling often results from an under-­reliance on phonology. Sometimes a student has both

150  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

types of spelling errors. For example, look at the sentence in Figure 10.12 that was written by Bashir, a third-­grade student. His spelling of the word play results from under-­reliance on phonology, Individuals with dyslexia need to whereas his spelling of video indicates an over-­reliance on phonology • understand how phonemes are represented with and a weakness in orthographic knowledge. graphemes. Weaknesses in Phonology. Similar to emergent readers with dys• learn how to blend and segment phonemes to pronounce lexia, some older readers with dyslexia experience difficulties with and spell words. reading and writing because they have weaknesses in phonological • learn how to break words into smaller units, such as awareness. These older students can often be identified by the use of syllables, to make them easier to pronounce. immature spelling strategies and by unusual spellings that indicate • learn to recognize and spell common orthographic confusions between sounds and limited awareness of the order of patterns (e.g., -­tion). phonemes within words. Rapid Reference 10.10 adapted from Moats • learn how to read and spell words with irregular elements (2010) describes some common spelling errors that are seen in older (e.g., ocean). students with poor phonological awareness. Rapid Reference 10.11 • spend time engaged in meaningful reading and writing provides examples of several strategies that can be used to increase activities. phonological awareness and knowledge of phoneme–grapheme relationships. Weaknesses in Orthography. In contrast to students with weaknesses in phonology, others may struggle with reading and writing because they have underdeveloped knowledge of conventional spellA careful analysis of spelling errors is essential to providing ings (e.g., students with limited exposure to text). For these students, the most appropriate instruction. intensive phonological awareness training would be of little use in spelling instruction because they often over-­rely on phonology when spelling; that is, they spell words the way they sound rather than the way they look. Instead, appropriate interventions would focus on instruction in common spelling patterns and words with irregular elements. Figure 10.13 provides a writing sample from Tomoko, a fourth-­grade student. Although it is possible to read this sample, it is easy to see that Tomoko is over-­relying on sounds for spelling and has not mastered the spelling of high-­frequency words. Tomoko needs instruction in orthographic patterns, vowel sounds, use of ­apostrophes, and spelling rules, such as that English words very rarely end in the letter ‘v.’ Rapid Reference 10.12 presents a list of common spelling mistakes that are often seen in students with good phonological awareness, but underdeveloped knowledge of orthography and morphology (Moats,  2010). Rapid Reference  10.13 provides suggested interventions.

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

Figure 10.12  Bashir’s Sentence

Rapid Reference 10.10 Common Spelling Errors of Older Students with Weaknesses in Phonological Awareness 1. Omitting consonants within consonant blends (e.g., mike for milk, paying for playing). 2. Substituting vowels that are not close in sound (e.g., dronk for drink). 3. Confusing short vowels with similar sounds (e.g., /i/ for /o/ as in git for got, /a/ for /e/ as in bad for bed). 4. Confusing voiced and unvoiced consonant sounds due to difficulty differentiating between the sounds (e.g., efry for every). 5. Omitting the schwa sound or syllables that contain the schwa sound (e.g., compny for company, presdent for president). 6. Confusing, deleting, or misplacing nasal (n, m, ng) and liquid sounds (l, r) (e.g., sign for sing, clorel for color, amr for arm). Omitting nasal sounds after vowels (e.g., cap for camp, pats for pants) or before stop consonants (e.g., jup for jump, wet for went). 7. Spelling a word that is far from the spelling of the original word (e.g., pureck for park).

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  151

Rapid Reference 10.11 Spelling Strategies for Increasing Knowledge of Phonology and Phoneme–Grapheme Relationships 1. Provide explicit instruction and review of any sound–symbol confusions that are observed in spelling. 2. Provide practice ordering the sounds in words in the correct sequence. 3. Practice spelling words that conform to standard English spelling patterns. 4. Group words for instruction around patterns, such as onset–rimes or how to add affixes to root words. 5. Use a program like Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme-­Grapheme Mapping (Grace, 2022) (see Appendix B) to practice listening to and ordering sounds in the correct sequence.

Figure 10.13  Tomoko’s Writing Sample

Rapid Reference 10.12 Common Spelling Mistakes of Older Students with Weaknesses in Orthography and Morphology 1. Using letter names to spell long vowels (e.g., fel for feel, cam for came, criy for cry). 2. Confusing sounds and deleting vowels in syllables that are controlled by the sound of the consonant (i.e., syllabic consonants; e.g., lidl for little, pepl for people, bigr for bigger, opn for open). 3. Making errors on inflectional endings (i.e., past tense, plurals; e.g., wakt for walked, dawgz for dogs, litid for lighted). 4. Spelling words the way they sound, not the way they look (e.g., thay for they, sed for said).

Rapid Reference 10.13 Spelling Strategies for Increasing Orthographic Awareness 1. Provide instruction in spelling patterns (e.g., teach common letter sequences in English, such as ight). 2. Teach English syllable patterns (e.g., closed CVC, r-­controlled, etc.). 3. Teach similar words in families (e.g., could, should, would). 4. Teach common words with double letters in English (e.g., tt, ff, ss). 5. Teach spelling rules for adding prefixes and suffixes to root words. 6. Teach students to break words into syllables, write the spelling of each syllable, and then write the whole word from memory. 7. Have student keep a list of high-­frequency words that are often misspelled; review the correct spellings frequently. 8. Use multimodal techniques where the student says the word, traces the word several times, and then writes the word from memory. 9. Provide systematic review of high-­frequency words with irregular spellings (e.g., once, said) using a flow list procedure.

152  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF SPELLING INSTRUCTION

Individuals with dyslexia of any age have by far the most severe and long-­lasting spelling difficulties (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). They require abundant practice with spelling patterns that exist in real words and information about how the patterns in English orthography have been influenced by word origins and the changes in pronunciations over time (Moats,  2019). Instruction in ­orthographic and morphological patterns is particularly important for children with dyslexia who spell words by the way they sound rather than by the way they look (McMurray, 2020). In addition, it is important to provide appropriate spelling instrucChildren with dyslexia require instruction that focuses on tion that is incorporated with positive teacher feedback. Figure 10.14 phonology, orthography, and morphology from the beginning of spelling instruction. illustrates the spelling test of Samantha, a third-­grade student with dyslexia. Look at number 4, her spelling of the word “unusual.” Most importantly, notice the positive, encouraging comment from Ms. Bowers, her classroom teacher. Samantha will keep trying. CAUTION The goal of spelling instruction is for children to understand how the English writing system works; teachers who understand the reaDo not ask children to spell words that they cannot read. sons for a child’s spelling errors can provide appropriate feedback and monitor progress more effectively (Treiman, 2018). Sandy, a second-­ grade student who is struggling with spelling, wrote the short story in Figure 10.15. Looking at her story, her knowledgeable teacher, Ms. Cummins, explained to Sandy that even though it may sound like a /d/ when we say the word eating, it comes from the word eat

DON’T FORGET

Figure 10.14  Samantha’s Spelling Test

Figure 10.15  Sandy’s Story

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  153

so we maintain the t. She also had Sandy hold her nose and pronounce the word went so she could feel the missing nasal sound. Ms. Cummins also explained the differences in sound in the medial vowels /a/ and /e/. She further pointed out that although the spellings sal (some young children pronounce the word saw this way) and saw sound very similar, our mouth positions as we look in a mirror differ when we pronounce them correctly. For the word giraffe, Ms. Cummins first had Sandy identify how many syllables are in the word by counting the number of chin drops when she said the word. She then reminded Sandy that in English spelling, we include a vowel in each syllable. She then asked Sandy “What vowel do you think is in the first syllable /gi/?” Sandy said, “an i.” Ms. Cummins then rewrote the sentences and they examined the correct spellings together. This is the type of instruction that can really help students, like Sandy, improve their spelling. Teaching spelling according to the principles of Structured Literacy™ means teaching language structure at all levels: phonology, phoneme–grapheme associations, spelling patterns, morphology, and the grammatical role of words (Moats,  2019). Rapid Reference 10.14 summarizes several general principles for spelling tests and writing samples for students with dyslexia. It also helps if students with dyslexia develop nice handwriting. Direct instruction in handwriting enhances both legibility and fluency and results in better writing performance (Santangelo & Graham, 2016). In addition, teachers are less critical of papers with spelling errors when the handwriting is neat. Figure 10.16 shows Donavan’s retelling of a joke that he had heard. Anyone can see that although he has numerous spelling errors, he is doing his best. His writing is legible, making it more readable despite the many misspellings.

Rapid Reference 10.14 General Principles for Spelling Tests and Feedback on Writing Samples • Select words at the instructional level. • Only count off for spelling errors on spelling tests. Grade written work for content and do not mark a paper down because of spelling errors. • Do not ask struggling students to write their spelling words 5 times each. • On spelling tests, mark the number of words spelled correctly, not the number wrong. • Do not assign students words to spell that they cannot read or do not use in their writing. • Change the difficulty level of the words when a student is missing too many. • Do not ask students to edit their own work. • On writing samples, focus the initial feedback on the ideas and treat spelling as part of the editing process.

Figure 10.16  Donavan’s Joke (provided by Wendy Wall). Translation: A man went to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist says, “What is your problem?” The man says, “My wife thinks she’s a chicken.” The psychiatrist says, “How long (has) she had this problem?” The man says, “For two years.” The psychiatrist says, “Why didn’t you do anything about it?” The man says, “Because we needed the eggs.”

154  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS

Many of the programs mentioned in Chapters 7 to 9 are also effective for developing basic reading and spelling skills. In fact, a number of programs cover multiple areas of reading, oftentimes addressing all five areas of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Rapid Reference 10.15 lists effective programs that are described in more detail in Appendix B. Rapid Reference 10.16 presents additional programs not previously mentioned that are helpful in developing an individual’s basic reading and/ or spelling skills. Several programs take advantage of the adaptability of software to target and customize instruction. For example, System 44 is a foundational reading and phonics program designed for struggling readers in grades 3–12; Lexia Reading uses web-­enabled software to provide guided practice on foundational reading skills for grades Pre-­ K–12; and Accelerated Reader provides reading practice at appropriate reading levels for students in Pre-­K–12 and even offers an option to connect from home for additional practice. One additional resource designed to improve literacy outcomes is Instruction is most effective when: “… it is delivered within the University of Florida Literacy Institute (UFLI). The focus is on structured, carefully sequenced, well-­organized lessons and both the reader and professional development programs. The website when it includes daily opportunities to read and respond to ­connected text at an appropriate level of difficulty” includes webinars, several digital apps, and a free, comprehensive (­Denton & Al Otaiba, 2011, p. 7). phonics program: UFLI Foundations; https://ufli.education.ufl.edu/

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 10.15 Examples of Effective Programs for Basic Reading and/or Spelling Skills Barton Reading & Spelling System LANGUAGE! Live® MindPlay PAL II Research-­Based Reading and Writing Lessons Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling Phonics Reading Lessons: Skills and Practice REWARDS® Road to Reading Sonday System Spellography Take Flight Wilson Just Words® Wilson Reading System® WORDS, 2nd Edition Wordy Qwerty: Foundations for Reading and Writing Fluency

Rapid Reference 10.16 Additional Programs for Developing Reading and Spelling Skills Program

Website

Accelerated Reader

www.renaissance.com/products/accelerated-­reader/

Lexia Core 5 Reading

www.lexialearning.com

Read 180

www.hmhco.com/programs/read-­180

SpellRead

www.spellreadworks.com

Success for All

www.successforall.org

System 44

www.hmhco.com/programs/system-­44

INSTRUCTION IN BASIC READING AND SPELLING SKILLS  155

foundations/toolbox/. In addition, the website has numerous resources, including a Dyslexia Resource Hub, designed for parents, teachers, and student advocates; https://ufli.education.ufl.edu/resources/. It also includes a Dyslexia 101  webinar that provides an overview of dyslexia and an introduction to the various resources available. CONCLUSION

Individuals with dyslexia require intensive interventions for word reading and spelling that teach the connections between print and speech sounds in a systematic, explicit fashion. They require more reading practice and instruction than their typically developing peers (Denton & Al Otaiba, 2011). Fortunately, many structured programs exist that can be used to help students increase their word reading and spelling accuracy. Unfortunately, some schools do not implement these methodologies because of limited resources or a lack of teacher training. As a result, some students with dyslexia do not receive help in an appropriate or timely fashion. The longer an individual with dyslexia struggles without effective instruction, the greater the impact on self-­esteem and motivation to read or write. While working on basic skills, students must also engage in meaningful reading and writing activities, so that they see the connections between skill development and the ultimate purpose of reading and writing: comprehension, learning, and enjoyment, as well as the ability to communicate and express ideas.

  TEST YOURSELF 1. The word ________ contains a vowel digraph.

a. b. c. d. e. f.

toe bed fine phone toy Both a and e.

2. The word ______ contains a diphthong.

a. b. c. d. e.

oil pool boat feel None of the above.

3. An effective method for teaching phoneme–grapheme relationships involves

a. b. c. d. e.

using text with pictures to illustrate meaning. applying grapheme–phoneme relationships in both reading and spelling. using letter tiles to blend and segment speech sounds. providing oral and written instructions. Both b and c.

4. Decodable books contain many irregular words that must be recognized as sight words.True or false? 5. An important component of the Fernald approach is that words are written from memory, not copied from a model. True or false? 6. A closed syllable is:

a. b. c. d. e.

the most common syllable type. one in which the vowel sound is short. the vowel followed by one or more consonant. All of the above. Only a and b.

7. In a consonant–vowel–consonant–e (CVCe) syllable, the vowel sound is usually ________.

a. b. c. d.

short unstressed long Both b and c.

156  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

8. For individuals with dyslexia, the development of spelling accuracy often lags behind reading accuracy.True or false? 9. A spelling flow list

a. b. c. d. e.

provides for daily testing of words. provides systematic review of words when errors are made. can be based upon words a student misspells. can be used to reinforce certain spelling patterns. All of the above.

10. Two common but distinct causes of poor spelling in older students include

a. inattention and lack of motivation. b. weaknesses in phonological awareness and lack of knowledge of conventional spelling patterns (orthography and morphology). c. vocabulary deficiencies and difficulties in reading comprehension. d. None of the above. Answers: 1. a; 2. a; 3. e; 4. False; 5. True; 6. d; 7. c; 8. True; 9. e; 10. b.

Chapter Eleven INSTRUCTION IN READING FLUENCY

Students who do not develop reading fluency, regardless of how bright they are, are likely to remain poor readers throughout their lives. —­National Reading Panel, 2000

COMPONENTS OF READING FLUENCY

Reading is effortless for fluent readers because they are accurate, maintain a good rate of reading, and read with expression. The process they use to identify words is fast and nearly effortless, or automatic. This concept of automaticity refers to the ability to recognize words rapidly with little attention required to the word’s appearance. Although fluency has been defined in different ways, the various definitions focus on the ease of word reading. Rapid Reference 11.1 reviews several examples of definitions of reading fluency. Reading fluency is often defined as having three components: accuracy, rate, and prosody (Hudson et al., 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000). Accuracy is the ability to recognize or decode words correctly. To have automaticity with decoding, the individual must have a firm grasp of the alphabetic principle. In addition, the individual needs to have acquired a store of high-­frequency words, especially those that have irregular elements and cannot be decoded using phonics. Rate refers to speed of identification at the single-­word level as well as at the connected text level. A fluent reader must quickly recognize or decode the individual words on a page and must maintain speed while moving through the text. Expression, or prosody, describes the rhythms and intonations of language. Prosody interprets the cues in the text, such as responding to punctuation by raising or lowering your voice. Expression helps communicate the text meaning and can signal surprise, questioning, exclamation, as well as other meanings. Good prosody demonstrates comprehension because it signals that the reader understands the meaning of the text. Prosody is an outcome of comprehension (Groen et al., 2019). Struggling readers often read in a monotone manner, whereas fluent readers read with expression. Unfortunately, many students with dyslexia have difficulty developing fluent reading (Hasbrouck, 2020b). Even so, care must be taken to ensure that an emphasis is not placed Reading fluency is more than just the rate or speed of readon oral reading speed at the expense of understanding (Rasinski ing. The fluent reader is accurate, understands what is read, and reads with good expression. et al., 2015). Rapid Reference 11.2 provides a summary of the major components of reading fluency. A good reader first learns to read accurately and is able to apply phonic skills and recognize numerous sight words. Hasbrouck and Glaser (2019) remind us that accuracy should be viewed as “first, foremost, and forever the foundation of fluency” (p. 12). Accurate readers are then able to develop an appropriate rate or speed of reading. This automaticity with reading allows readers to adjust their speed of reading depending on the difficulty of the text. Finally, a reader with good accuracy and rate can focus on reading with expression by paying attention to punctuation marks and adjusting the voice to clarify and express the exact meaning of the text. Figure 11.1 illustrates the components of reading fluency and how they usually develop. As noted by the arrow in Figure 11.1, as accuracy and rate improve, so does comprehension. In fact, the best predictor of reading comprehension is how fluently one reads (Chall, 1996; Chard et al., 2002; Fuchs et al., 2001; Laberge & Samuels, 1974; Stanovich, 1991). Reading fluency is a strong predictor of later reading achievement (Good et al., 2001; Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; Stage & Jacobsen, 2001). In addition, the National Reading Panel (2000) identified reading fluency as one of the five critical areas of reading assessment and instruction. These findings led to the addition of reading fluency as one of the eight areas of classification for a specific learning ­disability in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004).

DON’T FORGET

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 157

158  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 11.1 Sample Definitions of Reading Fluency • “Reasonably accurate reading, at a reasonable rate, with suitable expression, that leads to accurate and deep comprehension and motivation to read” (Hasbrouck & Glaser, 2019). • “Fluency is the ability to read a text accurately and quickly. When fluent readers read silently, they recognize words automatically. They group words quickly in ways that help them gain meaning from what they read. Fluent readers read aloud effortlessly and with expression. Their reading sounds natural, as if they are speaking” (Armbruster et al., 2001, p. 22). • “… the ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effortlessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to the mechanics of reading, such as decoding” (Meyer & Felton, 1999, p. 284). • “… the ease or ‘naturalness’ of reading,” including how a reader: (a) groups or phrases words as revealed through intonation, stress, and pauses; (b) adheres to the writer’s syntax; and (c) expresses oneself in feeling, anticipation, and characterization during oral reading” (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1995). • Oral reading fluency is the combination of rate (i.e., how fast one reads) and accuracy (i.e., correct word identification). For oral reading, fluency may also involve expression or prosody, which means alternating pitch, tone and other vocal elements in response to punctuation (Bryant et al., 2008). • “Fluency, the ability to read a text accurately, quickly, and with good intonation (prosody), is the hallmark of a skilled reader” (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020, p. 251).

Rapid Reference 11.2 Major Components of Reading Fluency Accuracy Decodes unfamiliar words accurately. Uses context to help signal errors in word reading. Recognizes most words by sight. Rate Recognizes most words instantly. Reads at a good speed or rate (words per minute). Maintains rate and knows when to adjust rate when reading more difficult material. Expression or Prosody Attends to punctuation marks. Uses appropriate timing and phrasing. Emphasizes important words and phrases. Reads with expression that helps communicate text meaning.

Fluency is often described as the bridge between word identification and comprehension. This relationship between oral reading rate and comprehension is not only significant at the beginning stages of Individuals with dyslexia often experience significant difficulty reading but also continues to be significant into middle school and in developing fluent reading. high school. Individuals with dyslexia continue throughout the school years to read more slowly than typically developing readers (Uhry & Clark, 2005). They often have underlying deficits in the automatic application of reading skills (Olson, 2011). This inability to read fluently is often described as one of the main symptoms of both adolescents and adults with dyslexia (Lyon et al., 2003; S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). In fact, in languages other than English, poor fluency appears to be the major characteristic that distinguishes between readers with and without dyslexia (Rodrigo & Jiménez, 1999; Tressoldi et al., 2001; Wimmer & Mayringer, 2002). Chapter 13 p ­ rovides a more detailed explanation of reading fluency in different languages.

DON’T FORGET

INSTRUCTION IN READING FLUENCY  159

Reading Fluency

Decoding

Accuracy Good Decoding Skills Recognizes Sight Words

Rate Appropriate Speed of Reading (WPM) Automatic Recognition of Words

Expression/Prosody

Comprehension

Adjusts Voice Attends to Punctuation

Figure 11.1  Components of Reading Fluency

When reading, words may be sounded out, recognized by sight, or determined from the context (e.g., Ehri, 2020). The quickest, most efficient method of reading is recognizing words instantly by sight. Skilled readers pronounce words with little effort so that all of their attention is focused on the meaning of the text. Both sounding out words and guessing words from context require more time and, hence, reduce speed, accuracy, prosody, and even comprehension. Cognitive resources, including attention, are consumed when trying to pronounce an unfamiliar word. If a reader has to spend too much energy decoding a word, then less energy is available for comprehension (Rasinski, 2017). Individuals can vary in the speed at which they read words. Decoding may occur phoneme-­by-­phoneme or by decoding larger orthographic units. Trouble with any of the processes involved, or The child’s level of oral vocabulary knowledge impacts the lack of mastery of phoneme–grapheme connections, impacts speed of ability to recognize and read words. Knowing the meaning of decoding. Even when a word is stored as a sight word, speed of word a word helps the reader identify the word in print. recognition varies. These differences in speed may be due to how much practice the individual has had with a word or individual differences in the rate of processing on cognitive tasks. The more practice an individual has with a word, the more easily the word is recognized (Levy et al., 1997). Context also contributes to word recognition speed. Words are recognized more quickly in a meaningful context than in isolated word lists (Jenkins et al., 2003; Stanovich, 1980), particularly for individuals with strong vocabulary knowledge (Torgesen & Hudson, 2006). For children with a more limited vocabulary, the context will not aid word recognition if the words are unknown. Finally, individual differences in reading speed may be due to personality, motivational traits, or cultural influences. For example, some individuals may value accuracy over speed, some may be reflective, whereas others are more impulsive. Typically, children become fluent readers during second and third grades and are able to use reading as a learning tool in fourth grade and beyond (Chall, 1996). Chall observed that children learn to read in grades 1 through 3 and then read to learn in grade 4 and higher. If an individual does not read fluently, then reading is laborious, and the person tends to avoid reading, further c­ ompounding the problem (Rasinski, 2001). A reader’s fluency, however, also varies depending upon the difficulty of the reading material. Garnett (2018) explains that a student can be fluent reading certain types of text but not others, and so the question becomes: “How fluent, reading what? Controlled text with mostly CVC words? Amelia Bedelia? The high school science text? James Joyce?” (p. 469). Thus, fluency Children learn to read in grades 1–3 and then read to learn is an ongoing process that continues to develop over time as the text from grade 4 and higher (Chall, 1996). complexity and reading demands of the school curricula increase.

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

160  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

READING FLUENCY INSTRUCTION

The purpose of fluency instruction is to increase automaticity with reading, thus making the act of reading easier so that a reader can devote all attention to comprehension. Although performance in reading fluency can be improved, dysfluent reading is unfortunately a highly stable characteristic that is difficult to remediate (Landerl & Wimmer, 2008; Torgesen, 2007). Even though struggling readers can close the gap in decoding accuracy and comprehension, the gap in fluency typically remains for those with moderate and severe reading impairments (Torgesen, 2007). An appreciable number of individuals with dyslexia have specific deficits in reading fluency despite having intact word reading skills; most often these are the students who have had the largest dose of intervention (Meisinger et al., 2022). For students with the most severe dyslexia, interventions have been more successful in improving the accuracy of word reading, rather than the rate (Torgesen, Alexander, et al., 2001). Thus, fluency is more difficult to remediate than accuracy (Hulme & Snowling, 2009; Pennington et al., 2019). Although improvement is possible, accuracy is easier to Even so, teacher modeling of fluent reading, having the reader improve than reading fluency. ­listen to a text while following along, repeated reading, and wide reading have all been associated with improvement in fluency (Rasinski, 2017). In a review of empirical studies on reading fluency, CAUTION Hudson et al. (2020) found that the most effective interventions were conducted one-­on-­one and provided a model of accurate and fluent If a child has problems with fluency, do not wait until there is reading. One comprehensive resource, The Megabook of Fluency a formal diagnosis of dyslexia before implementing reading (Rasinkski & Smith, 2018), contains numerous ideas for integrating interventions (Pennington et al., 2019). fluency instruction into the classroom.

DON’T FORGET

DECIDING WHERE TO BEGIN INSTRUCTION

An individual must first be an accurate reader before instruction addresses building speed or rate. For beginning readers, this means instruction should emphasize development of accurate word recognition and analysis skills (Pikulski & Chard, 2005). Once the reader has developed basic decoding accuracy, the emphasis shifts to reading and rereading a sentence to make it “sound like talking” (Stahl & Kuhn, 2002). Fluency instruction can, however, begin earlier with letters, sounds, and phrases to help with the acquisition of basic reading skills. For example, for younger readers, fluency instruction can even begin with phrases that contain common words. Table 11.1 includes simple phrases that can be used to assess a child’s ability to read basic sight words and to practice reading common phrases. Before beginning instruction for students in grade 2 or higher, determine the reader’s accuracy level and rate. A simple guideline for determining the focus of instruction is to listen to the individual read an appropriate level passage aloud. If the reader makes more than one error for every ten words read, instruction should focus on building accuracy; if fewer errors are made, but the individual has a slow rate of reading, then instruction should focus on building speed (Simmons & Kame’enui, 1998). When focusing on increasing rate, students should have a 95%–98% accuracy level on the materials used so that the focus can be on increasing rate, not accuracy. A brief review of methods for determining accuracy level and reading rate is described next. Chapter 6 provides more detailed information on assessing reading fluency. Determine Accuracy Level. One method for determining a reader’s accuracy level is to calculate the percentage of correctly read words. Divide the number of correctly read words by the total number of words attempted. For example, if the individual reads 95 words correctly out of a total of 100 words, then the accuracy rate is 95% (95 words read correctly divided by 100 words read = 0.95 or 95%). Once the individual’s accuracy level is known, materials at the appropriate instructional level can be selected for building reading fluency. Determine Reading Rate. Reading rate can be calculated by dividing the number of words read correctly by the total amount of reading time or by counting the number of words read correctly in one minute. For example, time the individual reading a passage with 100 words. Count the number of words that the individual read correctly and divide by the amount of time it took to read the passage. If the i­ndividual reads 90 words correctly out of the 100 in two minutes, the words correct per minute (WCPM) would be 45 (90/2 = 45). Alternatively, have the individual read a text for one minute. CAUTION Count the total number of words read and subtract the number of A reader must have an adequate level of accuracy (95%–98%) errors to obtain the WCPM. For example, if the individual read on a text before instruction can focus on increasing reading rate. 100 words in one minute but made eight errors, then the rate would be 92 WCPM.

Table 11.1  Sight-­Word Phrases for Assessment or Practice Sets

Phrases in Set

Sets

Phrases in Set

Sets

Phrases in Set

Sets

Phrases in Set

Set 1

a big horse

Set 7

has found

Set 13

my brother

Set 19

too little

Set 2

a big house

has run away

my father

too soon

a new book

has made

on the floor

up there

a new hat

has come back

on the chair

up here

a pretty home

he is

so much

a pretty picture

he was

so long

he would do

some bread

he would try

some cake

about it

Set 8

her father

Set 14

the little dog

Set 20

was found

about him

her mother

the old man

was made

all night

his brother

the funny rabbit

we are

all day

his sister

the new coat

we were

as he did

the small boat

went away

as I said

the new doll

went down

as I do as he said Set 3

Set 4

at once

Set 9

I am

Set 15

Set 6

Set 21

will walk

at three

I was

the little chickens

will go

at school

I will come

the red cow

will buy

at home

I will go

the little pig

will look

by the house

I may go

the small boy

will read

by the tree

I may get

the old men

will think

can fly

Set 10

if I must

Set 16

the funny man

Set 22

when you

can live

if you can

the black horse

come

can play

if I may

the red apple

when I wish

can run

if you wish

the white duck

when I can

the black bird the white sheep

when you know what I say what I want

could eat could make Set 5

the little children

did not fall

Set 11

in the window

Set 17

the yellow ball

Set 23

with mother

did not go

in the water

the yellow cat

with us

down here

in the garden

then he came

would like

down the street

in the barn

then he said

would want

down the hill

in the grass

they are

down there

in the box

they were

for them

Set 12

is coming

Set 18

to stop

Set 24

you are

for him

is going

to go

you were

for the baby

it is

to the barn

you will do

for the girl

it was

to the nest

you will like

from the farm

must be

to the school

your sister

from the tree from home

must go

to the farm to the house

your mother

Source: Reformatting of Edward Dolch’s “The 95 Commonest Nouns and Basic Sight Vocabulary” by C. Wilson Anderson. Used with permission.

162  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

As noted in prior chapters, the most effective interventions for individuals with dyslexia are explicit in nature, which means that nothing is left to chance. In fact, the research findings related to effective instruction for reading fluency identify both explicit modeling of fluent reading and practice with corrective feedback as highly effective methods (Chard et al., 2002). The teacher first provides a model or demonstration of the skill to be learned, followed by the learner practicing the skill under the close supervision of the teacher, who provides immediate corrective feedback as needed. When an error is made, have the student finish the sentence, and then point to the word, provide the correct pronunciation, and include any feedback on the error (e.g., that word is camp, you said cap and left out the /m/ sound). Have the student then reread the sentence. In a study by Hammerschmidt-­Snidarich et al. (2019), the interventionist used this procedure to provide feedback: Following each passage reading, the interventionist provided standardized corrective feedback on errors by pointing to the word and saying, “This word is __ [state the word]. What word is this? [student responds]. Yes/That’s right, this word is __ [state the word]. Please reread from here [student reread sentence or part of the sentence in which the word was located]” (p. 642). After this guided practice phase is completed, and the teacher is reasonably sure that the student can do the task, then the learner practices the skill independently. This is sometimes referred to as the “I do, we do, you do” teaching sequence. Although rapid word recognition develops as phonic word recognition improves (Moats, 2010), for children with severe reading difficulties, interventions have been more successful in improving accuracy than rate (Torgesen et al., 2001). Thus, the most promising approaches to increasing sight-­word recognition focus on developing accuracy first and then building rate. Prior to instruction, it helps to set a goal for working on accuracy, rate, or prosody. Explicit Modeling. An example of fluent reading can be provided by the teacher, or other skilled reader, reading an appropriate passage aloud, or by using an audio-­recorded passage. For example, Ms. Mendoza, a special education teacher, was working with Luis, a third-­grade student. After providing a model by reading the passage, she went through the passage again using a “think aloud” procedure to demonstrate to Luis the process of reading fluently. To assist with the development of prosody, she explained, “When I see a question mark, I know my voice should go up at the end to indicate a question. When I see a comma, I pause, and when I see a period, I pause a bit longer.” She also discussed how she combines words into meaningful phrases rather than reading word-­by-­word. She demonstrated this process by sweeping her finger under phrases rather than pointing to each word individually. She then read the passage aloud together with Luis and then had Luis read the same passage aloud. Ms. Mendoza also put in slash marks (/) and explained to Luis that they meant to pause. If a longer pause was needed, such as at the end of a sentence, she put in two slash marks. To work on prosody, she also modeled how expression and emphasis can change in a sentence based upon the context. She then had Luis practice reading the same sentence but with different expression based on the context. Mary liked to eat lobster on Saturday (lobster was her favorite food). Mary liked to eat lobster on Saturday (Saturday was the only day she could eat lobster). Mary liked to eat lobster on Saturday (her sister hated lobster). Explicit modeling demonstrates the end goal, in this case fluent reading, and explains the process of how to accomplish this goal. In the “I do” phase, the teacher provides explicit instruction. Next, in Explicit modeling of fluent reading is one of the most the “we do” phase, the responsibility for performing the task begins to ­effective methods for improving reading fluency. transfer to the student. In the “you do” phase, the student performs the task independently. Rapid Word Recognition Chart. Once the individual can accurately decode or recognize words, rate is increased by providing repeated practices viewing and naming those words quickly in multiple contexts. One method for building rate of sight-­word recognition is using a rapid word recognition chart (Carreker, 2018a). This method is an easy way to improve speed of recognition for words with an irregular element. The chart is similar in format to a rapid automatized naming (RAN) task. The teacher creates a matrix that contains five rows of six exception words (e.g., who, were, said), with each row containing the same six words in a different order (see Figure 11.2). After a brief review of the words and a warm-­up where the teacher points randomly to eight to ten words on the chart and asks the student to read them, the student is timed for one minute while reading the words in the squares aloud. At the end of one minute, the student can then count and graph the number of words read correctly. To finish up, the teacher can then point at random to any words that still require further practice. For easy creation of rapid word charts, the Neuhaus Education Center provides a Rapid Recognition Chart Creator (https://www. neuhaus.org/resources/consumables-­and-­tools/#rapid-­recognition-­chart-­generator). Using an Excel sheet, the teacher enters a list of six

DON’T FORGET

INSTRUCTION IN READING FLUENCY  163

said

who

were

they

could

often

could

were

said

often

who

they

often

they

who

could

said

were

who

often

could

were

they

said

were

who

they

said

often

could

Figure 11.2  Example of a Rapid Word Recognition Chart Using Irregular Words Repeated Reading Chart 100 90

Number of Seconds

70 60 50

5

40

4

30

3

20

2

10

1

0

1

2

3

Trials = errors

4

5

6

Word Recognition Errors

80

0

time

Figure 11.3  Repeated Reading Chart

letters, sounds, or words, and the program develops five rapid recognition charts that present the content in a different order. These charts can be used to promote the instant recognition of high-­frequency and irregular words (Carreker, 2018a). Repeated Readings. To date, repeated readings procedures remain the most widely used and helpful intervention for improving fluency in students with reading difficulties (Hudson et al., 2020; Stevens et al., 2017). Reading a passage aloud several times with a tutor or skilled reader who provides immediate corrective feedback is a potent reading fluency intervention (Therrien & Kubina, 2006). Results from a meta-­analysis indicated that beginning instruction with a listening passage preview in combination with repeated reading (reading the passage at least four times) was most effective for improving the reading fluency of students with reading disabilities (Lee & Yoon, 2017). Although various approaches to repeated readings exist, they typically share the following elements: (1) use a relatively short passage (50–200 words) at the reader’s instructional reading level; (2) provide a model of fluent reading prior to repeated reading practice (Stevens et al., 2017); (3) reader reads the passage aloud while the instructor records time and errors; (4) reader may practice the passage several times (aloud or silently); (5) reader reads the passage aloud again while the instructor records time and errors; (6) reader continues to reread the passage until a predetermined performance goal is met; and (7) words per minute and errors are recorded on a chart for at least four to five readings. Depending on the individual, it may be necessary to use a text at the reader’s independent level, decodable text, or a familiar instructional level text, to ensure that the reader can focus on increasing fluency. Stevens et al. (2017) found that the use of easier level text produced greater gains in accuracy, fluency, and comprehension for most students. The results are then graphed on a chart and discussed with the student. Figure 11.3 illustrates an example of a chart for repeated reading. Different colored dots or pencils or ink can be used to plot the time and the number of errors. Rapid Reference  11.3 summarizes recommendations for improving student performance through repeated readings. Providing immediate corrective feedback is an additional element that increases the effectiveness of repeated readings (Begeny et  al.,  2006;

164  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 11.3 Recommendations for Increasing Fluency through Repeated Readings • Select interesting passages at the instructional level. • Use decodable or independent level texts with struggling readers. • Begin instruction with a listening preview where students follow along with the text. • Have students engage in multiple readings (at least four to five times). • Students can practice reading passages aloud to a more advanced reader. • Trained tutors can provide students with additional practice. • Provide corrective feedback on word errors. Teacher says correct word immediately and the student repeats the correct word or a phrase with the word. • Establish a performance goal or criterion of the number of words per minute (WPM). • Provide feedback on overall performance. Use a repeated reading graph to show how many errors were made and the WPM on each reading. • Provide short, frequent periods of fluency practice several times a week. • Monitor progress by comparing the WPM on the first reading on graphs across time.

Nelson et al., 2004; Stevens et al., 2017). One procedure, called phrase-­drill error correction, requires the instructor to immediately correct any misread or skipped word and then ask the reader to repeat the phrase that contains the misread word. Repeating phrases and providing feedback can also help with prosody. Shhub et al. (2023) found that interventions that included repeated reading and also, modeled reading and provided immediate feedback, had larger effects on prosody compared to interventions that included repeated reading and instruction on a specific prosody component (e.g., syntax and phrasing). For maximum benefit, repeated reading sessions should last 10–20 minutes and occur between three to five times a week (Therrien & Kubina, 2006). For more information on designing repeated readings instruction, Teaching LD.org provides Tutorial #6: Repeated Readings to Promote Fluency by Beth Harn and David Chard. Immediate corrective feedback increases the effectiveness of This tutorial describes several repeated reading strategies that the repeated reading intervention. teachers can use to promote fluency (https://www.teachingld.org/ topics/reading). Continuous Reading. Although fluency can be improved by repeated reading of the same passage, continuous reading of different passages can also increase accuracy, fluency, and vocabulary; ideally, a child should read aloud to an adult for 15 minutes four or five times a week (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). In addition, numerous opportunities to read connected text will increase vocabulary, background knowledge, and reading comprehension. Continuous reading with teacher support can also be an effective method for building fluency (Hudson et al., 2020). For example, Hammerschmidt-­Snidarich et al. (2019) compared repeated readings (reading the same passage three times) with continuous reading (reading three different passages) with 40 students in second and third grades and found that with both procedures the students improved their oral reading fluency, although overall the students preferred the continuous procedure intervention. Similarly, Ardoin et al. (2016) compared three conditions with 168 second-­grade students: repeated reading (reading the passage four times), wide reading (reading passage continuously), and business as usual. Instructional level text was used and the intervention lasted 10 weeks with four sessions each week. Both the repeated reading and wide reading groups outperformed the business as usual group, suggesting that improvement in fluency may have resulted from the additional time both groups spent reading, as opposed to the repeated readings of text. They suggest that practitioners need to consider the benefits and limitations of each approach. Because repeated readings can improve comprehension as well, if the text is something they will need to read for CAUTION class, this may be the preferred procedure. Wide reading, however, Although the procedure of repeated readings has strong exposes students to a broader range of words. For example, the students research support as a method for increasing fluency, other in the repeated readings group were exposed to 9,000 words, whereas the methods may be as effective. wide reading group were exposed to an average of 28,815 words.

DON’T FORGET

INSTRUCTION IN READING FLUENCY  165

Amira. One program, Amira, uses artificial intelligence to listen to students read, assesses their errors and oral reading fluency, and provides students with individualized tutoring. Every time that a student and Amira read together, the program generates diagnostic reports for parents or teachers (https://www.amiralearning.com). The program also includes dyslexia screeners in both English and Spanish which help to identify ­students who are at risk for reading failure. The screener can be administered in school or at home and takes approximately 5–9 minutes. An additional app exists for home use in which Amira listens to the child read aloud, providing interactive tutoring as the child travels through “Story Lands,” defeats the Villain, and increases reading mastery. Amira was created in partnership with Carnegie Mellon University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. We are likely to see more and more applications of artificial intelligence for reading instruction in the coming years. Partner Reading. Partner reading is a strategy designed to increase both reading accuracy and speed. In partner, or paired reading, students read and reread a text with a partner. It is best to assign partners based on reading levels, pairing a student with higher-­level reading skills with a student who has slightly lower-­level reading skills. It is also possible to pair students with similar reading abilities. Further, the partner reading method can be taught to parents or siblings so that the struggling reader can get additional practice at home. The text selected for partner reading should be at the instructional level of the student with lower reading skills. To begin, the more advanced reader provides a model of fluent reading by reading the first paragraph while the reading partner follows along. Then, partners reverse roles, and the less-­skilled reader reads the same paragraph. Next, the partners discuss the paragraph by retelling what happened or identifying the main idea. The partners can ask each other questions such as: “Who (or what) was the paragraph mainly about?” or “What was the most important thing that happened?” These steps are repeated until the passage is completed. An error correction procedure may also be incorporated into partner reading. For example, if the reader makes an error (misreads, skips, or doesn’t know a word), then the partner points to the word and says, “What is this word?” If the student reads the word correctly, the partner says, “Yes, that word is _________. What word? (Pause for a response.) Please reread the sentence.” If the student reads the word incorrectly, then the partner tells the student what the word is, asks the student to repeat the word, and then asks the student to reread the sentence again. Partner reading is frequently used as part of the Peer-­Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), a class-­wide peer-­tutoring program. Research related to PALS provides evidence of the effectiveness of partner reading (Fuchs et al., 2000). PALS was originally designed for students in grades 2 through 6 and has since expanded to separate programs for kindergarten, first grade, and high school. Readers’ Theater. The readers’ theater uses scripts to engage students in practicing and rehearsing printed material to be performed before a group. A script may be selected or developed, and roles are assigned to the students. All students should have a copy of the script with their dialogue highlighted. It is best to begin with a small group and then expand the group size as students become more confident of their abilities. The students must practice repeatedly to develop their oral reading fluency. When performing the script in front of another group, the students read their assigned dialogue; they are not expected to memorize the script. The readers’ theater method is effective for older students struggling with reading fluency because it provides an opportunity for them to have a successful reading experience within a motivating context. Also, when rehearsing and performing for others, readers are motivated to practice enough times to deliver the lines fluently (Rasinski et al., 2005). Fluency Development Lesson. Rasinski and Nageldinger (2016) described a Fluency Development Lesson (FDL) that is similar to readers’ theater and incorporates teacher modeling, choral reading, and independent practice of a poem or short text in a daily 10–30-­minute session. FDL was originally developed in 1994 and should be used in small groups for struggling readers (Rasinski et al., 1994). The teacher reads the text two to three times while the students follow along with the text. The teacher and students then discuss the content of the passage and the quality of the teacher’s reading. Next, the teacher and the students read the text chorally several times. Then, the teacher creates pairs of students to practice reading the passage two to four times (one reads and the other listens, providing support and encouragement). Finally, the students perform the reading, either individually or in small groups, to an audience. Students can then take the passage home to read to a family member and then read the passage to someone the following day. The students and their teacher can also choose four to five interesting words from the text to add to students’ word banks and/or a classroom word wall. Students can then engage in 5–10 minutes of word study activities (e.g., word sorts with word bank words, reading the words on a word wall, defining words, and playing word games). Rapid Reference 11.4 illustrates an example of a typical routine adapted from Rasinski et al. (2015). The routine is repeated each week. Recorded Reading. In addition to repeated reading, assisted reading with recordings or audiobooks can increase fluency in elementary students with learning disabilities (Stevens et  al.,  2017). When using this procedure, sometimes referred to as reading-­while-­ listening or reading with a model, the student reads aloud along with a recording of a fluent reader. Some descriptions of recorded reading suggest that for the first time, the reader follows along in the text while pointing to the words but not reading aloud. Most descriptions state that after the first silent reading, the student reads aloud in a quiet voice rather than just listening to the recording. Students must be closely monitored during this procedure to ensure they are following along with the text. To build fluency, it may

166  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 11.4 Weekly Routine for Teaching Reading Fluency (Rasinski et al., 2015) Monday: Teacher assigns each student or a group of students an interesting text that they will perform at the end of the week. Using copies of the text, the teacher models how the text should be read with individual students, groups, or the entire class. Tuesday: Students read along with the text as they listen to the teacher or another fluent reader read the text. Wednesday: Students continue to practice the text with independent coaching provided by the teacher. Thursday: A dress rehearsal occurs on this day. Friday: The student or students perform their assigned text to an audience of classmates or others.

prove helpful to have recordings at different levels of fluency, adjusting primarily the rate. Initial levels would be at a slower rate so that the reader can keep up with the recording. Then, as fluency builds, the rate can be increased. Prior to using the recording, the teacher should help the student set a realistic fluency goal that identifies words per minute and maximum number of errors. These goals will vary and depend on each student’s reading level. The student then practices reading the passage with the recording until the student feels able to read the passage independently. When the student is ready to try independent reading, the teacher times the reading for one minute and calculates the number of words read in that minute and the number of errors. Then, the teacher involves the student in charting progress and reviewing any errors that were made. Speed Drills. Speed drills are introduced by reviewing with the student the purpose of the drill and the specific skill that will be practiced. The teacher creates a worksheet that contains rows and a total of 60 words. Next, the student is asked to read the words as quickly as possible without making mistakes across each row from left to right. The teacher times the student for 1 minute and records on the copy any errors, hesitations, or self-­corrections. Progress is charted by recording how many words the student read correctly. An initial goal is to read all 60 words in 1 minute with only one or two errors. Once the student achieves this goal, the number of total items can be increased, for example, 90–100 words on the worksheet. High-­frequency word lists (e.g., Dolch or Fry Instant Words), or graded word lists, provide good content for speed drills designed to help build automaticity of word recognition. The individual reads the words aloud for one minute and the teacher or tutor records the number of errors. High-­frequency words typically make up 50%–70% of all written material, so it is important that the individual learns to recognize these words with ease. Another type of speed drill focuses on building automaticity with specific letters, letter combinations, or word parts. Customized to meet the needs of the individual child, the drill worksheets are prepared using content on which the student has received instruction but lacks automaticity. For example, the speed drill may focus on reading words with short vowels, vowel digraphs, consonant digraphs, various syllable types, or common endings. The number of targets used in the drill depends on the individual and the skill to be practiced. Sometimes it may be only five or six different targets, and other times it may be 10–15 targets. In either case, each target is repeated randomly on the worksheet, 10 rows of six targets each, creating a number of opportunities to practice the target skill. Two copies of the worksheet are prepared: one for the student and one for the teacher. Toste et al. (2017) describe a procedure called “speedy read” where older students can practice reading lists of multisyllabic words. Once the lists are passed out, the teacher and students choral read the words, following along with their fingers. Next, students read the words independently for 30 seconds and then record the number of words that they read correctly on their speedy read chart. Choral Reading. As mentioned previously, readers struggling with fluency benefit from hearing a model of fluent reading. Taking turns with the student while reading aloud allows the individual to practice phrasing and improve oral reading prosody, or expression. Echo reading (Heckelman, 1969; Morris & Slavin, 2002) is one simple method for taking turns with the student. The teacher reads a sentence aloud, and then the student reads it back. For choral reading, the teacher or another skilled reader uses a high-­interest book or a content-­area textbook from the classroom and sits next to the student so that both can see the text while reading. The student and the teacher read the text aloud together while the teacher points with the index finger to the words. The teacher reads at a slightly faster pace and encourages the student to try and keep up. When necessary, the teacher reminds the student to look at the words. This activity can be completed in 10–15 minutes each day. Choral reading can also be conducted with a small group or an entire class. The teacher reads a text aloud with the entire class, thus saving struggling readers from the embarrassment of reading aloud (Rasinski et al., 2015). In this way, students can be exposed to grade-­ level or above-­grade-­level content area texts. Choral reading is also an easy method for parents to use at home. First, the parent reads a short passage to their child. Next, the parent and child read the passage together a few times, and then the child reads the passage independently (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020).

INSTRUCTION IN READING FLUENCY  167

Rapid Reference 11.5 Example of Weekly Progress Monitoring Goals Grade

Realistic Goals

Ambitious Goals

1

2.0 words per week

3.0 words per week

2

1.5 words per week

2.0 words per week

3

1.0 words per week

1.5 words per week

4

0.55 words per week

1.1 words per week

5

0.5 words per week

0.8 words per week

6

0.3 words per week

0.65 words per week

Source: Adapted from Fuchs et al. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.

Rapid Reference 11.6 Effective Reading Fluency Interventions • Explicit teacher modeling of expressive fluent reading • Repeated readings (with a listening preview and corrective feedback) • Partner or paired reading • Readers’ theater • Recorded books • Speed drills • Choral reading

One other example is Reading Together (similar to echo reading but with longer passages), which combines the Neurological Impress Method (Heckleman, 1969) and repeated readings (Young et al., 2015). Young et al. found that the treatment group composed of 29 struggling readers in grades 3 to 5 demonstrated increased reading expression, reading rate, and overall reading scores as compared to the control group. For this procedure, the teacher (or trained volunteer) and student each hold a copy of the same text (a paragraph or page) and read aloud together. The teacher reads slightly faster than the student with good expression. After reading together, the student then reads the passage aloud independently. In this study, they continued this process for 20 minutes every school day for one month. Monitor Progress. Enhancing students’ awareness of their own learning is an important part of developing independence and responsibility. One simple way to enhance students’ awareness of their own learning is by charting students’ progress. Students are often motivated by charting their progress, and doing so provides students with a visual representation of their performance. Charting students’ progress provides students with immediate feedback on performance in the current session and allows comparisons to previous performances. In addition, monitoring progress helps adjust goals and instruction so that students can be successful. If a student is making limited progress, then the teacher should create a more realistic goal. If progress is not being made, then it suggests that a change is needed in the instructional approach for that student. Curriculum-­based measures of oral reading fluency are frequently used to monitor progress because they are quick and easy to administer. Rapid Reference 11.5 provides an estimate of realistic weekly p ­ rogress monitoring goals for different grade levels. Rapid Reference 11.6 summarizes effective interventions for improving fluency. Methods that involve teacher modeling, choral reading, and partner reading are effective instructional techniques for improving fluency (Rasinski et al., 2015). All of these interventions involve some form of progress monitoring, which in and of itself has proven to be effective in improving fluency. ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS

Various methods are available that have proven in practice to have beneficial effects for students. These methods, while lacking in research-­based evidence of effectiveness, target specific skills and are helpful when teaching individuals who require instruction in specific skill areas. Additionally, each method includes elements of effective instruction, such as demonstration and guided practice.

168  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Phrase-­Cued Reading Technique. This technique helps overcome word-­by-­word reading. The teacher demonstrates how to group words together while reading sentences by drawing scoops under the phrases or by placing slashes between the phrases. The student is given a copy of the sentences and draws scoops under the words that go together. Next, the student practices reading the sentences using the phrasing that has been identified. For example, in the sentence “The man ran down the street,” a scoop would be drawn under “The man ran” and another scoop under “down the street.” The student reads the scooped words as a phrase with no pauses. Oral practice in written language with phrasing, intonation, and stress can also help students learn to group words into meaningful units (Carreker, 2018a). Alphabet Prosody. This method helps the student understand how punctuation signals expression and removes the pressure to read words (Blevins, 2001; Carreker, 2005). First, write the alphabet, or a portion of the alphabet, with punctuation marks interspersed. Begin by using commonly known punctuation such as periods, commas, question marks, and exclamation points that the student already knows. Next, ask the student to read the alphabet paying attention to the punctuation marks. Robin, a third-­grade student, tended to ignore punctuation while reading, such as not pausing when she came to a period. Her teacher created an exercise like this: ABC. DEF? G! HIJ, KL? MNO. PQR? ST! UVW, XYZ. After modeling the procedure, she had Robin read the alphabet letters using the appropriate expression indicated by the punctuation mark. For example, Robin read ABC and then paused to signal the period; she read DEF? raising her voice at the end of the sequence; exclaimed G!; she then paused briefly after HIJ; raised her voice at the end of KL?; paused after MNO. to signal a period or stop; raised her voice at the end of PQR? to signal a question; exclaimed ST!; paused briefly after UVW; and then stated XYZ. This type of practice helped Robin to see how punctuation contributes to expression and comprehension when reading. For additional practice, students can make up their own alphabet exercises, write them on cards, and trade with a classmate. Practice. To improve fluency, students must practice reading aloud and receive continued exposure to examples of good, fluent reading. At home, parents or older siblings can provide practice by reading aloud to and with younger children. It is important for this practice to be oral reading rather than silent reading. The child must hear the model of fluent reading and then attempt to replicate that model. At school, the child should practice reading orally using one of the methods described previously, such as repeated reading, partner reading, or continuous reading. Rereading text gives children the opportunity to read more words until they become automatic (Uhry & Clark, 2005; Carreker, 2018a). Fluency instruction should be part of teaching the earliest reading skills (e.g., letter sounds, letter names), first establishing accuracy and then building to automaticity (Garnett, 2018). Unfortunately, independent silent reading has not proven to be an effective way to improve reading fluency (National Reading Panel, 2000). Programs such as “sustained silent reading” (SSR) or “drop everything and read” (DEAR) have benefits for fluent readers, but not for those who are struggling with fluency. A better use of time for these students would be guided or assisted oral reading practice with a teacher, skilled reader, or recorded books. Additionally, round robin reading, where each reader takes a turn reading aloud, is ineffective in helping struggling readers to practice oral reading (Hasbrouck, 2006). Depending on the size of the group, each student may get very little chance to practice reading. In addition, the struggling reader may be embarrassed by poor reading and would not provide a good model of fluent reading to the other students in the group. An alternative to round robin reading is cloze reading. The teacher reads the selection aloud while the students follow along in the text. The teacher provides a good model of fluent reading, and CAUTION then stops and omits an important word. The students, as a group, must provide the missing word. While cloze reading does not provide Independent silent reading may not improve the fluency of the individual student with much opportunity to practice oral readstruggling readers. Struggling readers need guided, oral reading practice. ing, it does provide a means to engage students in a text while they listen to a model of fluent reading. Practice Adjusting Reading Rate. Because reading is so effortful, many individuals with dyslexia have not learned how to adjust their reading rates and attempt to read information in an encyclopedia at the same pace that they read a comic book or novel. To learn to monitor reading speed, encourage students to adjust their rate depending on the purposes of reading. Students can practice skimming through a chapter to get a general sense of the information and then moving through the chapter more slowly to study for a weekly quiz. The teacher can model for the students how to change rate of reading for different types of materials. Carver (1990) used the analogy of adjusting one’s reading speed to the shifting of gears in a car. Another analogy could be shifting the gears on a bicycle. First and second gears are the slowest, most powerful gears. First gear is used to memorize materials. Second gear is used to learn material. Third gear is the typical reading rate. The fourth gear, skimming, and the fifth gear, scanning, are the fastest but least powerful gears. These gears are useful when one is trying to locate a specific piece of information or trying to get the general sense of a passage without reading every word. Fluent readers are able to monitor their reading pace and shift gears Fluent readers adjust their rate depending upon the type of depending on the goals. If one is trying to memorize material for a test, reading material and the purpose for reading. then the reading pace is slow and reflective, characterized by s­ topping

DON’T FORGET

INSTRUCTION IN READING FLUENCY  169

and reviewing the material. If one is reading a novel for pleasure, then the pace is steady and fluent. If one is searching for information in a catalog, then the pace is rapid. Skilled readers know how to adjust their reading rate based on the purpose for reading. EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS

Many commercial materials are available for improving reading fluency. Some of these materials have evidence of effectiveness, whereas others do not. Lack of evidence does not mean the materials would not be effective with an individual; it just means that, as of yet, there is no research evidence to document the effectiveness. What Works Clearinghouse (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/), an initiative of the Institute for Education Sciences (IES), provides some information on commercial materials and instructional practice that show some evidence of effectiveness for improving reading fluency. Rapid Reference 11.7 describes several commercial programs, all of which use research-­based approaches, to improve reading f­ luency. The Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org) provides information about how these programs align with current research. Four programs, ClearFluency™, QuickReads, Six-­Minute Solution, and Reading A-­Z, are described briefly. Appendix B describes the remaining four programs with information provided by the publishers or authors of those programs. • ClearFluency™ has a library that provides the student with access to any assigned content. In the Read and Record activity, the student first listens to a fluent reading of the selection, reads the selection aloud and gets feedback on errors, reviews the recording, and obtains a fluency report after completing the reading. A teacher may choose to select either English or Spanish instructional text. • QuickReads provides short texts that are designed to be read in about 1 minute when read fluently. The instructional routine has text passages with repeated readings and monitoring. The routine takes about 15 minutes a day for three to four times per week. • Reading A-­Z provides students in grades K–5+ leveled fluency practice passages for repeated readings. The student reads the passage orally for 1 minute and repeats the reading several times to increase rate, accuracy, and expression. Reading A-­Z also provides two types of fluency assessments: a 1-­minute timed reading to measure the number and accuracy of words read; and a timed reading of a series of sentences followed by answering true/false questions about the sentences. • Six-­Minute Solution provides nonfiction passages for repeated readings by students in grades K–12. Students are paired with another student at the same reading level. Each student reads the passage for 1  minute while the partner notes how many “… there is a common and dangerous pitfall-­the misconcepwords were read correctly and provides feedback after the readtion that fluency work is all about reading faster, which fosters ing. Then, the student partners switch roles and repeat the a hurry-­up, rush-­rush mentality that can throw meaning to the activity. Students then chart their progress. This program supwinds. There is much more to developing fluency than acceleraplements the core curriculum and can be completed within tion” (Garnett, 2018, p. 496). 6 minutes.

DON’T FORGET

Rapid Reference 11.7 Additional Commercial Programs Aligned with Research Program

Grade Range

Website

ClearFluency™

K–12

www.carnegielearning.com

*Great Leaps

K–12

greatleaps.com

QuickReads

2–4

savvas.com/index.cfm?locator=PS35Vh

*RAVE-­O

2–4

Nidolearning.com

*Read Live

K–5

readnaturally.com

Reading A-­Z

K–5+

readinga-­z.com/fluency

Six-­Minute Solution

K–12

voyagersopris.com

*Wilson Fluency Program

K–adult

wilsonlanguage.com

*Appendix B provides a detailed description of the program.

170  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

CONCLUSION

A fluent reader reads accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression. Their reading is essentially efficient and effortless. The reason that fluency is so important is because it frees the reader to think about what is being read, shifting the focus to comprehension. The fluent reader is not using energy to figure out words, but rather applying all energy to understanding the meaning of the text. The fluent reader can maintain or vary rate of reading to fit the content and the situation. Evaluation can pinpoint which aspects of fluency are difficult for the individual. Reading fluency serves as a bridge to comprehension: it is necessary to become an efficient and effective reader. In addition to enhancing fluency, fluency interventions can improve reading comprehension outcomes (Hudson et al., 2020). A focus on increasing fluency is particularly important for students with dyslexia, who often have compromised reading rates and require extended time to complete all of their reading assignments. Although their reading rates may never be on par with their ­classmates, systematic instruction in fluency can help these readers close the performance gap.

  TEST YOURSELF 1. The three primary elements of reading fluency are accuracy, rate, and prosody.True or false? 2. Prosody is

a. b. c. d. e.

reading with good expression. reading with proper phrasing. paying attention to the punctuation. All of the above. None of the above.

3. A distinguishing characteristic of individuals with dyslexia is difficulty with fluent reading.True or false? 4. Fluency is a bridge between word identification and

a. b. c. d.

speed. accuracy. comprehension. expression.

5. When assessing an individual’s reading fluency, it is only necessary to establish rate using words correct per minute.True or false? 6. An effective intervention for building reading fluency is

a. b. c. d.

implicit modeling. repeated readings with error correction. silent reading. All of the above.

7. The first goal of reading instruction is to build accuracy before working on rate.True or false? 8. The accuracy level of an individual who reads 225 out of 250 words correctly is

a. b. c. d. e.

55%. 75%. 90%. 95%. None of the above.

9. An individual should be highly accurate on the text used for increasing rate. In fact, the accuracy level should be at least at

a. b. c. d.

95%. 90%. 85%. 80%.

10. Reading fluency difficulties are relatively easy to remediate.True or false? Answers: 1. True; 2. d; 3. True; 4. c; 5. False; 6. b; 7. True; 8. c; 9. a; 10. False.

Chapter Twelve TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DYSLEXIA

Kathleen Puckett Technology empowers the individual to make the world accessible according to their own needs. —­Dr. David Hayden, 2011 Griffin is a student in Mrs. Brammer’s fifth‐­grade language arts class. He has strong language and social skills and is a naturally popular leader with his classmates. Griffin also has dyslexia. He makes frequent word identification errors and reads slowly, m ­ aking prosody quite difficult for him. He prefers videos over books and can get the gist of what he is trying to learn if it is read aloud, explained, or demonstrated. Griffin needs frequent support with written tasks, primarily when getting started with his ideas and with spelling. Griffin works best when he is able to talk about his answers before writing or when brainstorming with his peers. He meets with a special education teacher twice a week to work on goals related to understanding the structural analysis of words, grade‐­level vocabulary, fluency, and spelling. Just recently, the team added executive functioning goals to his Individualized Education Program (IEP), as he sometimes finds it hard to stay on task at school and procrastinates while doing homework assignments. Mrs. Brammer’s classroom environment is inclusive. She understands that children develop literacy skills at different rates. Her students’ assessed reading levels range from third grade to high school. Students are arranged in seating clusters of 4, which she changes every 4 weeks to encourage socialization and discourage cliques. Her classroom is a happy place with a continuous buzz of activity. The classroom is equipped with 1:1 Chromebooks, an Interactive Whiteboard, and a collection of headsets for students to use as needed. The school has excellent Wi-Fi. Mrs. Brammer uses Google Classroom for assignments and grading and is teaching the ­students how to use Google Docs and Slides for some assignments, with other assignments completed using paper and pencil. While she enjoys planning project‐­based learning activities that integrate language arts, social studies, and science with the other faculty on the f­ifth‐­grade team, those activities are planned for the next grading period. Currently, the class is reading Esperanza Rising, a novel by Pam Muñoz Ryan. Mrs. Brammer uploaded PDFs of individual chapters of the novel and accompanying worksheets to the Google Classroom site as part of the curriculum materials for each of the lessons. These files can be accessed both from school and home. As students with dyslexia advance through the grades, they report spending countless hours on reading and writing tasks. While they continue to struggle with the basic skills of reading—­phonemic awareness, phonological skills, accuracy, and fluency—­their peers are moving on, using an ever‐­developing bank of literacy skills to further increase their vocabulary, general knowledge, and overall comprehension abilities. While it is important to acquire basic reading skills, students with dyslexia must also learn compensatory skills and strategies in order to keep up with the content that reading affords. They also need to develop ways of working that use their strengths and bypass their limitations. This chapter reviews technology that can provide the means for supporting the literacy skills needed to engage with age‐­appropriate reading materials and content in the general education curriculum, allowing students with dyslexia to be equal participants in school‐­ based learning experiences. It highlights tools that are free, or nearly free, and readily available using existing software programs and apps. In addition, Appendix C provides a list of mobile apps and websites to support reading and writing instruction, and Dyslexia Help (http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/tools/apps) also lists numerous apps for individuals affected by dyslexia. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), as amended through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), provides safeguards that protect the rights of students with dyslexia and other disabilities to access the general education curriculum in order to meet the educational standards that apply to all children. The statute and its regulations advance the use of technology as a

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 171

172  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 12.1 UDL Framework and Technology Integration UDL Framework

Potential Student Activities

Flexibility in Representation. Present materials in many different ways, and in multiple formats, including digital media, to give students options for acquiring information and knowledge.

Read digital text with text-­to-­speech (TTS). Use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to present leveled reading selections on content. View a concept map on the topic. Access online vocabulary support. Access internet sites. View videos.

Multiple Means of Expression. Show the students examples or models of what their new learning would look like and give them options for expressing their learning through a variety of media.

Use word processing with speech recognition (SR), TTS, and other writing supports. Use word prediction. Participate in project-­based learning using technology. Create a concept map. Collaborate on projects with peers using Google Classroom tools. Develop a video presentation using multimedia tools (such as slides, PowerPoint, or Lumen).

Multiple Means of Engagement. Attend to student interest, motivation, and engagement by offering choices of tools, adjusted levels of difficulty, and varying levels of support.

Use digital text with TTS. Use electronic literacy supports: notes, highlighting, dictionary, etc. Use online tools for vocabulary support. Determine the amount of text needed in a text compactor. Use a text simplifier to provide alternatives to difficult passages. View or create concept maps. Collaborate in groups with online support via Google Docs.

means of achieving learning goals and encourage the integration of technology, including universally designed technologies, through curricula, services, and assistive technologies. Universally designed (UD) technologies refer to the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design (Center for Universal Design, 1997). UD technologies accommodate individual preferences and abilities and minimize the need for assistive technology (Center for Universal Design in Education, 2022). Notice the UD elements in the multiple functions of computers, tablets, cell phones, and applications that make them accessible to a wide variety of users. ESSA also enshrines Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in K–12 educational policy. UDL is a scientifically valid framework that offers flexibility in how information is conveyed, how learners showcase their knowledge and abilities, and how students participate, serving as a guide for educational practice. UDL guidelines also provide leveled suggestions for increasing access to learning, building learning capacity, and empowerment toward the goal of developing expert learners (CAST, 2018). UDL encourages teachers to plan ahead for the widest possible range of student abilities, minimizing the need to add adaptations after the fact. Technology tools support these concepts (Rao et al., 2023). For example, flexibility in ways that information is presented includes providing content in multiple ways, such as text, audio, or virtual models. Flexibility in expression gives students options for demonstrating what they have learned, such as any combination of text, speech, drawing, or video. Flexible options for engagement encourage interest by providing choices in the level of challenge of a task. This could include encouraging a student to read material in an area of interest that is above their assessed reading level, using technology tools for independent support. Rapid Reference  12.1 provides examples of how a UDL ­framework can be integrated with student activities. PERSONAL, INSTRUCTIONAL, AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

The technology found in schools generally falls into three categories: technology for personal use (e.g., cell phones), technology for instructional use, and technology that assists learners with disabilities. Cell phones are now ubiquitous and multifunctional, providing access to the Internet, media, texting, and an ever‐­increasing array of applications and services. Their companion smartwatches provide an array of services on one’s wrist and are increasingly being used for executive functioning support, such as calendar reminders, text m ­ essages, and focus reminders (Wright et al., 2022). Instructional technology (IT) is a general category of hardware or software available to all students that Assistive technology must be considered for every student is used as a tool for the delivery of instruction (Blackhurst,  2005). with an IEP. Assistive technology (AT) is the hardware or ­software that improves the

DON’T FORGET

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS  173

functional capabilities of an individual with disabilities. AT has a legal definition that is grounded in statute (IDEA) and regulations that state that it must be considered for every student for whom an IEP has been ­developed (Zabala & Carl, 2010). As technology continues to advance, the lines between what might be considered personal use, Instructional Technology­, Assistive Technology, ‐­and software‐­designed, or used for other purposes are blurring. Continuing advancements in readily available devices, software, and web‐­based tools enable students, teachers, and parents to write, read, and access information without having to purchase extra, specialized software that was designed for the disability community. These tools do not have to be categorized as assistive technology in order for them to be beneficial. Consider, for example, the multiple functions of word processing. Text application software on smartphones and tablets allows the user to compose text using voice or a keyboard, take advantage of predictive text, check spelling, and read aloud (text‐­to‐­speech [TTS]). In school, word processing is considered an instructional application, a convenient and efficient way to advance skills in written expression. This same tool would be an AT device if certain features (e.g., speech recognition [SR], spell check, word completion, or thesaurus) were used to “improve the functional capabilities” of a student with dyslexia or other written expression difficulties. School IEP teams and administrators are finding it difficult to differentiate these categories. What technology qualifies as AT (and may be required in the IEP)? What technology is considered instructional and is available and accessible to all, and what tools are considered for personal use and therefore a personal responsibility? Furthermore, the rapid rate with which technology is advancing poses difficulties for both teachers and parents when trying to identify useful technology tools. Edyburn (2000) referred to this dilemma as the “paradox of consideration,” which questions the effectiveness of technology recommendations when the multitude of options available is generally unknown. In other words, how can teachers and parents make recommendations when they are unaware of technological advances and the advantages they can bring to students with dyslexia? Griffin has access to his mother’s computer at home, and they have good internet service. Griffin has his own iPad at home and carries his own cell phone. He keeps asking for a smartwatch, but the family decided that the watch and its service fees are too expensive at this time. Griffin, with his mother’s assistance, lists all his assignments in the calendar feature of his phone as a way of keeping up with his schoolwork. TECHNOLOGY TOOLS FOR STUDENTS WITH LITERACY BARRIERS DUE TO DYSLEXIA

Regardless of whether the technology is considered for assistive, instructional, or personal use, accommodations are available to compensate for the reading and writing difficulties that accompany dysStudents with dyslexia need to try various devices, programs, lexia. Many of these accommodations are simple adjustments and/or and applications to find out what works best for them. ­additions to common applications that are readily available. Others are more robust and adjustable, as a free download or requiring ­additional purchases. Two cautions here: (1) The devices and applications mentioned are offered as representative examples, and not meant as an endorsement of a specific product; and (2) overall, it is important for students with dyslexia to experiment with different tools and strategies to find what works best for them. TTS reads any digital text aloud, whether it is typed or obtained from a website or an electronic book. TTS is particularly appropriate for students with dyslexia who have poor decoding skills and a slow reading rate but typical listening comprehension (Wood et al., 2017). For students with dyslexia, this single feature can represent an accessibility lifeline, enabling them to access information that is beyond their current reading levels and also improve their reading comprehension (Bäck et al., 2023; Edyburn, 2006; Keelor et al., 2023; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Some research suggests that TTS can also serve in a remedial capacity if using this tool promotes the transfer to improved skills in other areas (Silvestri et al., 2022). TTS is also useful for proofreading; the author can hear the text read back and listen for glitches in grammar or typos that have turned into words with unintended meanings. Most TTS programs can be adjusted for speaking rate, voice, and choice of keystrokes used to turn it on. TTS tools will read PDF files if they were created using optical character recognition (OCR). TTS will not read text that is part of a picture. Although text‐­to‐­speech software can be a necessity for students with dyslexia, the more assistive technology is integrated into general classroom routines, the better (Dawson et al., 2019). SR is used in two ways, for voice control of the device and for dictation. Voice control uses spoken commands to run the computer, such as opening files or switching applications. Although this feature was once considered to be solely assistive or access technology (for individuals with limited access to a keyboard or mouse due to physical barriers), it is also a quick and convenient way to handle common tasks. When used as dictation, speech recognition transcribes voice into text in a word processor or other text entry application (e‐­mail, spreadsheet, etc.). SR programs continuously increase the accuracy of dictation as errors are edited and corrected, or if the user creates a profile by reading a series of paragraphs aloud, while interacting with commands. Occasionally, reading these paragraphs is problematic for a student with dyslexia. In such cases, teachers and parents may develop modifications by reading short phrases to the student

DON’T FORGET

174  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

CAUTION Some students with dyslexia will have difficulty reading paragraphs fluently for SR. Practice the paragraphs beforehand or have the student read short phrases.

with the mute button on and then turning the mute button off and recording the student repeating the phrase into the microphone. Voice recognition (VR) is also used as a voice assistant, such as Alexa, Hey Google, and Siri on smart speakers and handheld devices, or as an extension to Google Chrome (using Mote) that provides a way to add voice notes to documents. These options give the user a hands‐­free interface that is needed by some (AT) but useful to all/many (UDL).

Griffin’s task is to read Chapter  4 of Esperanza Rising and complete a worksheet of 5 comprehension questions in complete ­sentences. For each question, he is to cite the page where the answer was found. Griffin will need support in reading the text. He will also need writing support for the comprehension questions. He will need to summarize, offer opinions, and explain his answers about specific scenarios in the chapter. OPERATING SYSTEM FEATURES AND SUPPORTS

Before investing in additional software or devices that would compensate for reading and writing difficulties, it is important to be aware of features and supports that are already available. All computers, tablets, and cell phones have customizable options and settings included as standard features of the operating system. On Mac computers, they are in System Preferences in the Universal Access ­window. In Windows computers, they are in the Settings folder listed as Ease of Access. Accessibility features are also part of the settings on cell phones and tablets. These features go by various names depending on the device and operating system. TTS may be referred to as VoiceOver (Mac and Apple phones) or Narrator (Windows and Android). VR is called Voice Control and Dictation (Mac and iPhones) or Speech Recognition (Windows and Android phones). These accessibility folders house several other customizable options that can make computing life easier. Some examples include text suggestions (sometimes called predictive text), highlighting of misspelled words, using magnification, adjusting the contrast or color display, and changing the speed of the keystrokes and movements of the mouse. Encourage the student to explore the system adjustments that are deemed most useful. Some features are difficult to access or don’t work very well with certain software programs. Other software applications, either added on or as extensions, may allow the user to access these features as needed, and perhaps more conveniently. Additional devices, such as headsets and scanners, will increase the efficiency and convenience of TTS and SR. Headsets. The built‐­in microphone and speakers on many devices enable the use of speech recognition and text‐­to‐­speech. If the student is using these features on a regular basis or in a typical classroom environment, a high‐­quality microphone‐­and‐­earphone ­headset is essential (Bäck et al., 2023). A microphone that can be adjusted for a consistent placement near the mouth will increase the accuracy of dictated speech recognition, and earphones will protect the privacy of text‐­to‐­speech. Scanners. While digitized text is becoming more readily available (online sources, e‐­books, etc.), instructional materials whose only source is print‐­based still exist. If most materials are from printed sources involving numerous pages of text, scanners may be a more efficient use of time. Most multifunction printers and photocopy machines have scan functions, but whether they can be used to produce digital text depends on the appropriate software. Scanners equipped with optical character recognition (OCR) software convert the printed page to digital text that can be accessed by a TTS program. Documents produced as image‐­ based PDFs cannot be read by TTS, but may be converted to digital text using the Scan & OCR tool in Adobe Acrobat. Users can then access TTS in PDFs from the View menu in Adobe’s free Acrobat Reader (https://www.adobe.com/acrobat/hub/how‐­to/ how‐­to‐­read‐­pdf‐­aloud.html). DIGITAL TEXT

Digital text must be obtained or created to use TTS. Legislation requiring that digital text is available to students with dyslexia has been in effect since the reauthorization of IDEA (2004), requiring schools to provide textbooks and other materials in what is termed a specialized format (which includes digital) in a timely manner to students with print disabilities. This legislation references the 1996 Chafee Amendment to the Copyright Law, enabling the distribution of copyright material, and the Library of Congress eligibility criteria (National Library Service, n.d.) to define which students qualify. Individuals with dyslexia qualify as having a print disability and are eligible to obtain textbooks in these formats. Students whose disability does not interfere with the ability to learn to read, such as those with attention‐­deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or behavioral disorders, would not qualify for access to these materials unless there are other qualifying disabilities present. These regulations established a standard file format for instructional materials

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS  175

source files (the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard, or NIMAS) and a repository for distributing these files (National Instructional Materials Access Center, or NIMAC) to state and local agencies. Obtaining Digital Text. The U.S. Department of Education has partnered with Bookshare (www.bookshare.org) and Learning Ally (www.learningally.org), two centers that provide accessible text to students with print‐­based disabilities and their schools. These centers are repositories for textbooks and other literature in accessible formats. The service is available for U.S. students, preschool through higher education, who qualify. Students must become members and provide supporting documentation certifying dyslexia. After ­membership is approved and activated, students (and parents and teachers on their behalf ) may download materials for use at home and school. Membership in Bookshare is free to qualifying U.S. students with dyslexia and the institutions that serve them. There is a nominal charge for qualifying U.S. citizens who are not students, as well as for individuals outside the United States. Bookshare provides a free web‐­based TTS reader that can be read on any computer or mobile device. Learning Ally is a subscription‐­based service, offering annual family memberships and memberships for schools and educators. Learning Ally’s software supports both prerecorded audiobooks and text files using TTS, with human audio descriptions of charts, graphs, and images. Learning Ally also offers a supplemental early reading program and professional learning sessions with a focus on dyslexia. Digital text may also be obtained from a variety of other sources. Digital versions of out‐­of‐­copyright books, books in the public domain, and books where authors or publishers have granted copyright for single use can be obtained free from Project Gutenberg (www.gutenberg.org/). Once text is in a digital format, it can be read by TTS software. Digital books can also be purchased from commercial sources (e.g., Google Books [http://books.google.com/]; iTunes [www.apple.com/itunes/]), many of which are also accessible from mobile devices and have TTS. Electronic Reading and Study Programs. Electronic reading and study programs offer an array of literacy supports in addition to TTS, such as dictionary, thesaurus, and translation capacities. Text highlighting, extraction of key terms, split screen viewing, and text note features enable teachers to devise questions and activities and to implement content‐­based reading ­strategies (Brozo & Puckett, 2009). When digital text cannot be obtained, it can be created. Some electronic reading and study programs work with a scanner or ­dedicated camera to convert books and other print media to digital text using highly accurate OCR software. Kurzweil 3000 (www.kurzweiledu. com) and WYNN (Freedom Scientific, available through https://cecitech.com/en/?product_cat=learning‐­education) are examples of this type of software. As mentioned previously, these programs are most useful when large volumes of text must be digitized. If digital text is generally available, the OCR software feature may not be needed. Other programs offer similar TTS and literacy supports but without the scanning features and at considerably less cost. Consider the needs of the individual, ease of use, cross‐­platform compatibility, and relative cost. Examples include NaturalReader (https://www.naturalreaders.com/), Read&Write (www.texthelp.com), and Speechify (www.speechify.com). Reading Pens. Reading pens, sometimes referred to as scanning pens, are the size of an average highlighter. The device scans printed text using OCR software and reads it back using TTS. Some models have additional features, such as providing dictionary definitions, supporting multiple languages, and storing scanned text that can be downloaded to a computer. The user holds it like a regular pen or highlighter and hovers it over the text. For students needing TTS support, reading pens are a convenient alternative that can promote self‐­reliance and independent reading. Cell Phones and Tablets. High‐­resolution cameras on cell phones and tablets work with apps that scan printed material and have options to convert scans into digital text. Some apps are built‐­in, can be purchased, or can be added on for free (e.g., Microsoft Lens, Voice Dream, or Speechify). These capabilities rival the functionality of scanners and pens with OCR software. Cell phones may indeed be the most convenient alternative for older students, as most students will almost never leave home without them. Rapid Reference 12.2 lists other common apps that provide TTS and electronic study features. ONLINE TOOLS

Google Classroom. One example of an online technology tool that supports literacy strategies is Google Classroom. Google Classroom consolidates a suite of online Google tools (Google Docs, Sheets, Slides, Forms, Jamboard, Sites, Earth, Calendar, and Gmail) in a central location. Teachers and students may access these tools for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, forms to create surveys or tests, drawing, and collaborative whiteboards. As more schools have transitioned to hybrid learning, Google Classroom has had far wider use since it can be accessed from any device with a web browser. Students no longer need to have compatible software on home

176  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 12.2 Representative TTS and Electronic Study Apps • Kurzweil 3000 (www.kurzweiledu.com) is a comprehensive text‐­to‐­speech and study skills program. The TTS has 31 voices in 18 different languages and dialects, the OpenDyslexic font and text magnification, and an OCR that has the ability to read locked text in PDFs and images. Study supports feature the complete American Heritage Dictionary, a picture dictionary, synonym buttons, note tools, note‐­taking support, and built‐­in graphic organizers. Kurzweil 3000 offers a free trial. • WYNN (Freedom Scientific, available through https://cecitech.com/en/?product_cat=learning‐­education) offers two versions: the WYNN Wizard with OCR and scanning and the WYNN Reader, without OCR. The WYNN Wizard works with a dedicated stand‐­alone camera that automatically captures two pages at a time from an open book. • NaturalReader (https://www.naturalreaders.com/) offers free and paid subscriptions for online, mobile, and chrome extensions. • Read&Write (www.texthelp.com) includes text‐­to‐­speech, text and picture dictionaries, vocabulary lists, and grammar and spelling checks. Windows versions have VR capabilities. • Speechify (https://speechify.com/) is a text‐­to‐­speech reader for Chrome, iOS, Android, and Mac. The free version offers a limited selection of human‐­sounding voices; upgrading to premium gives a larger variety of choices. • Microsoft Lens makes images of whiteboards and documents and converts them to PDF, Word, PowerPoint, or Excel files. Available for Android and iPhones through the app store. • Voice Dream (https://www.voicedream.com/) is a text‐­to‐­speech scanner, reader, and writer for the iPhone. It requires an in‐­app purchase.

computers or keep up with storage drives. Reports or presentations can be started at school and finished elsewhere, and peers can be invited to add to or edit the final document. Each of the Google tools can be used independently of Google Classroom. Their biggest advantage is that it gives teachers and students the means to collaborate on projects and assignments in real time, or even offline, uploading edits and changes when a connection is found. Google Docs, Slides, Sheets, and Forms support spelling and grammar checks, translation, and dictionaries. TTS is accessed through the accessibility settings, while SR is only available in Google Docs or as a voice note in Google Slides. Tools that simplify or summarize text use natural language‐­processing algorithms to analyze text and provide simple alternatives. Text summarizers identify the most important information and generate a summary. These tools can be used with any digital text, emails, articles, and web pages. They can save time by identifying the main idea of the text, reducing the need to read lengthy passages. They work best with excerpts from structured formats, such as textbooks and reports. Results from other forms of literature, such as novels, are less impressive. Edyburn (2013) proposed these tools as a metacognitive strategy that students can be taught to use, evaluating their own need for the amount of information that is summarized. The user controls the length of the summary in terms of the percent of the original. Examples include Text Compactor (https://www.textcompactor.com/) and QuillBot (https://quillbot.com/ summarize). Text simplifiers change the text complexity of difficult words by rewording or paraphrasing text to aid in comprehension and vocabulary development. Users paste a block of text into the online app and choose the difficulty level to generate a simplified version that provides easier alternatives for difficult English words. Rewordify (https://rewordify.com/) and Simplish (https:// www.simplish.org/) are representative examples of this tool. Mind Mapping. Although technology that supports reading is important, some students with dyslexia also have difficulty with the big ideas leading to deeper understanding of the text. Mind maps (also referred to as graphic organizers and concept maps) consist of various circles or boxes each containing a concept that is related. They provide students with nonlinear visual ways to understand, produce, and represent knowledge. They can be used to highlight similarities and differences, break down and show different components of an idea, or showcase procedural steps. Mind maps can assist students in organizing and synthesizing information to make the broader connections necessary for reading comprehension and writing assistance, resulting in improved performance in content area instruction (Brozo & Puckett, 2009). MindMup (mindmup.com) is a free and easy‐­to‐­use mind‐­mapping app that can be integrated into one’s Google Drive. Features include the collaborative elements found in Google tools and choices for downloading the work. The resulting map can also be saved as a document outline, which can assist with writing. ReadWriteThink (www.readwritethink.org), a nonprofit website sponsored by technology foundations and literacy professional organizations, offers a collection of free concept map templates that can be used online or downloaded for printing and are simple to use. Kidspiration Maps for the iPad targets grades K–4 and is available for a nominal charge. Rapid Reference 12.3 offers a selection of mind‐­mapping tools. Features within these examples vary. Some are accessible for TTS and VR, and others build mind maps as images that may not be compatible with these features.

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS  177

Rapid Reference 12.3 Mind Mapping, Concept Mapping, and Graphic Organizer Software • Bubbl.us (https://bubbl.us/): Online brainstorming that exports as an image, text, or html. • Gliffy (www.gliffy.com): Online diagramming software, for flowcharts, floor plans, Venn diagrams, and more. • Lucidchart (www.lucidchart.com): Create collaborative flow charts and organizational charts. Lucid charts can be connected to the Google Drive for easy access and filing. • MindMeister (www.mindmeister.com): An online collaborative concept mapping tool, the free version allows three maps per year. • MindMup (www.mindmup.com): MindMup is easy to use, can be connected to Google Drive, and offers choices in downloading to other applications. • ReadWriteThink (www.readwritethink.org): It offers a collection of free and simple‐­to‐­use templates that can be used online or downloaded as PDFs for printing. • Google Drawings: Mind maps can be created using Google Drawings tool and then inserted into Google Docs or Slides. While not as sophisticated as mind‐­mapping software, this is a good alternative for getting started with concept mapping.

WORD PROCESSING

The word processor has perhaps the most adaptable software for students with dyslexia (Bäck et al., 2023; Brozo & Puckett, 2009; Dawson et al., 2019; Phayer, 2010). Standard word processors (Microsoft Word, Google Docs) have features that, when accessed alone or in combination with the device settings, can be used as instructional or assistive technology. Writing Support. Features that support the writing process might seem unimportant to students for whom writing is easy and automatic, but for students with dyslexia, directly pointing out these features and providing instruction in how to use them can mean the difference between feelings of success and continued frustration. Voice recognition, described earlier, works with word processors to transcribe dictation. With a little input, such as reading passages into the profile so the software can learn the voice, correct errors, and idenVR is most useful for students with dyslexia whose oral tify the voiced nuances between natural speech and punctuation com­language ability exceeds their writing ability. mands (e.g., comma, period, new paragraph), the results can be surprisingly accurate. While it can ease the tedium and burden of writing for students with dyslexia, this feature is not entirely a remedy for all written expression difficulties (Bäck et al., 2023). VR is most useful for students whose oral expression exceeds their writing ability and for those who are able to begin learning VR processes during earlier, rather than later, grades (Ok et al., 2022). Students must still learn to use editing skills, correct words that were misidentified, and recognize sentences that ramble; the application may not always insert correct pronunciation as it transcribes everything that is said. Spelling, grammar checking, and thesaurus features may be turned on (the default) or off. With this feature turned on, the student can visually scan the text for notices; a red underline signifies a misspelled word, and a green underline indicates words, phrases, or punctuation that do not conform to standard rules of grammar. A dialog box suggests corrections, and, in the case of grammar notices, explains the rule and suggests alternatives. The thesaurus feature offers synonyms for a chosen word. Students may be encouraged to use these features as they type or compose their work, during the editing process, and during a final revision. Turning these features off enables the teacher to use the word processor for assessments; for example, spelling tests, composing answers to essay questions, or other forms of writing in which access to spelling, grammar, or thesaurus aids would prevent the measurement of a targeted skill. Grammarly (www.grammarly.com) is a software app that is added as a browser extension. It uses artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing to help users improve their writing. It works by analyzing the writing for grammar, punctuation, spelling, and clarity, and makes suggested corrections or improvements. Grammarly works primarily with text‐­based documents, such as Google Docs, MS Word, and email applications. Although it works in PowerPoint, it does not work directly with Google Slides. Autocorrect makes typing easier. When autocorrect is turned on (the default setting), common typing and grammatical errors ­typically made by students with dyslexia are automatically corrected once the space bar is pressed. For example, typing the word “I” as “i” with a space after it will default to the proper form. Similarly, commonly misspelled words autocorrect (e.g., “diferent” a­ utocorrects to “different”). Word prediction (sometimes referred to as text suggestions) is an option that can support spelling or word selection and can speed up the writing process. It is enabled through the device keyboard settings, and, when combined with a word processor, allows users to select from a list of possible words. Predictions are based on the context of other words and the first letters typed.

DON’T FORGET

178  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Templates can structure writing tasks that involve communicating summaries or results. For example, a template may contain stem or starter statements with spaces or blanks for the student to add specific information. Students with dyslexia who have difficulty starting written compositions or who have difficulty remembering the sequence or order of written reports may find this feature useful. MS Office allows files to be saved as templates, and Google tools provide a similar function. Reading Support. In addition to writing, the word processor has features that can be used for reading support. TTS. When text‐­to‐­speech is enabled, the word processor can function as a quickly accessible text reader. The typed text can be read aloud to assist with proofreading skills. Digital text could also be copied into the word processor to be read aloud, assisting with what would otherwise be labored and dysfluent reading. Readability. Knowing the general reading level of a text is important not only in selecting reading passages that are at or near ­students’ reading abilities but also in assessing current reading and writing levels. MS Word assesses the readability of a passage using two measures. The Flesch reading‐­ease test is a 100‐­point scale with scores of 90–100 understandable by average 11‐­year‐­olds, 60–70 understood by 13–15‐­year‐­olds, and 0–30 understood by university graduates. The Flesch–Kincaid formula takes these 100‐­point‐­scaled scores and converts them to U.S. grade‐­level scores. This feature must first be activated by turning on the “show readability statistics” option. Readability is accessed by running a spelling and grammar check; these statistics appear in a dialog box at the conclusion of the check. Google Docs does not include an automatic readability checker, but a similar feature can be accessed by pasting a passage of text into the Readability Analyzer (https://datayze.com/readability‐­analyzer.php), a free online tool. Adjustments to Fonts, Size, and Color. Students may have preferences for the size, color, and shape of the letters. Both Word and Google Docs have settings to make the text easier to read. Preferred fonts can also be added to these programs. For example, OpenDyslexic is an open‐­source (free) font that aims to increase readability for readers with dyslexia. Letters have unique shapes and heavily weighted bottoms that indicate direction, which aids in recognizing the correct letter. Consistently weighted bottoms also help reinforce the line of text. Immersive Reader (Microsoft Office Applications). It is a focused reading and editing tool designed to help improve reading and comprehension skills. It offers TTS customizable for voice and speed, and other features such as font and style adjustments, highlighting text, and a view that breaks the text into syllables. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AI involves the use of computers to perform tasks that traditionally require human intelligence, including the simulation of human interaction by a computer using natural language processing. Speech recognition, word prediction, text summarizers, and text simplifiers, reviewed earlier, are commonly used examples of AI applications. A chatbot is a computer program using AI and natural language processing to understand a question and automate responses. Examples of chatbots are everywhere, from smart speakers to the online chats on commercial websites. Chatbots accept questions, answer them in a conversational way, and then help to refine the search through users’ responses and follow‐­up questions. Bing (Microsoft), Bard (Google), and ChatGPT (Generative Pre‐­trained Transformer from OpenAI) are new AI chatbots with advanced conversational abilities. They are unique because the answers are in a conversational format, similar to how people write and speak. These programs are still in the research phase, but they are open to the public for free and paid subscription versions. Since these programs are, indeed, still in the research phase, they should be used with caution. Users of Bing’s chatbot must be 13 years or older; users of Bard and ChatGPT must be 18 years or older or have parental consent. Khanmigo (https://www.khanacademy.org/khan‐­labs), still in the early stages of testing, is a chatbot designed to offer immediate assistance to K–12 students who are working on Khan Academy content. This chatbot is limited to prompts for questions that are related to specific Khan Academy pages. Unlike search engines, AI chatbots hold conversations using a language model that generates an answer one word at a time, with the most likely next word informed by training data. The answers can become outdated, as its current format has trained data through 2021. AI chatbots cannot provide sources and do not have the ability to replace search terms. In contrast, search engines use indexes to find information from billions of sources and return results in real time. Currently, there is no research or evidence base on the usefulness of these AI tools for students with dyslexia. Anecdotal evidence and suggestions abound in the media, however. Even though these tools have raised quality and integrity questions, teachers cannot ignore AI’s power to support the learning experience for students with dyslexia. AI chatbots provide options for learning that are accessible and efficient for inclusive classrooms. Here are some suggested uses. • AI chatbots can help with writing assistance by generating content based on a given prompt, providing suggestions for grammar, spelling, and sentence structure, and providing suggestions for eloquent and accurate word choices. They can summarize lengthy e‐­mails, generate automatic replies based on the context, and sort e‐­mails into categories.

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS  179

Rapid Reference 12.4 Suggestions for Using AI Tools 1. To get an accurate and helpful response, be clear and specific when asking questions. Providing all the necessary information and context will help the language‐­processing model understand what you need. 2. Verify the information from other trusted sources. Don’t rely solely on the response you get. 3. Understand that language‐­processing models are not perfect and can make mistakes based on the data they are trained on. Their limitations include potential biases or errors. 4. Use critical‐­thinking skills to identify the reasoning behind the response. This will help to better understand the concept and improve problem‐­solving skills.

• AI chatbots can assist in reading by providing text summarization, providing explanations for complex concepts, and explaining certain concepts or terms. • AI can also assist teachers in developing tiered instruction. Zaugg (2023) gave examples of three free AI tools that, when used together, can provide successive levels of grade‐­level content for learners in need of reading and comprehension support. First, ask an AI chatbot to summarize a book. Next, alter the text complexity using an app such as Rewordify (www.rewordify.com). Finally, check the resulting text to determine if it is sufficient for the learner. If needed, paste the resulting text into a text summarizer (such as Text Compactor) to obtain a shortened version. To use language‐­processing AI tools effectively, Rapid Reference 12.4 offers suggestions from the Khan Academy (2023). Griffin is using the accessibility features of Google Classroom with a few add‐­ons to help him with this assignment. In the past, it took some tweaking to get the built‐­in screen reader to work once the PDFs of the chapters and worksheets were opened in Google Docs. Mrs. Brammer downloaded the (free) Read&Write screen reader extension for the Chromebook because it was the easiest tool for Griffin to use independently. For this assignment, he needed some help with brainstorming and talking out his answers before he started to write. Mrs. Brammer assigned class time to teams of students to develop mind maps of Chapter 4. Griffin, Mrs. Brammer, and Mr. Kyle, the special education teacher, looked at a number of free mind‐­mapping programs, including some that work very well with Google Classroom. However, Griffin chose bubbl.us (bubbl.us.com) because it works with SR (accessed from the computer’s system folder) and TTS (using the Read&Write extension for Chrome) and can be saved as a text file. Griffin then CAUTION copied the resulting text file from the mind map into Google Docs and used SR to complete the worksheet questions. He is also When using AI, students must verify information and underusing Grammarly because he likes its suggestions for spelling and stand the limitations of the AI tools employed. ­rewording sentences. CHOOSING THE “RIGHT” TECHNOLOGY TOOL

While UDL (presented earlier) can guide teachers in pre‐­planning for student choice in accessing content, expressing what they have learned, and engaging with interest, teachers and students must still Remember to use the SETT Framework when thinking about decide which technology tools would best support those efforts. As the selection of technology for an individual student with illustrated through Griffin’s story, there are a number of technology dyslexia. tools that Griffin could have used. But, given this assignment, and with the help of his teachers, he decided on just a few tools that could be deployed as needed, considering the resources at hand, his preferences, and the task. The SETT Framework, a model developed by the late Joy Zabala (1995) to guide decision‐­making when considering assistive technology, guided this example of Griffin’s journey. SETT stands for student, environment, tasks, and tools, which are the four components that should be considered when planning for any technology use. By considering each of these four components, the SETT Framework provides an approach for recommending technology for a given student. It helps ensure that the technology is compatible with the student’s needs, interests, and abilities, and that it will be used effectively in the context of the environment and assigned tasks.

DON’T FORGET

180  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

The student component refers to the individual who will be using the technology. It involves considering the student’s strengths, needs, preferences, goals, and emotional reactions to using technology to determine the most appropriate applications. In Griffin’s case, a student with difficulty in reading fluency still needed to access grade‐­level reading assignments. The environment component involves assessing the context where the student will use the technology. This includes factors such as the location (home or school), availability of Wi-Fi, the noise level, or just‐­in‐­time support from parents, teachers, and peers. For example, Griffin’s teacher recognized that classroom noise could make TTS and SR inaccurate and frustrating, so she provided the option of headsets. The strong Wi-Fi available in Griffin’s home and in his school made working with Google Classroom and its ­accessibility options a feasible choice. The tasks component refers to the specific activities and tasks that the student will need to complete using technology tools. This involves identifying areas where the student may be struggling and determining how technology can be used for support. For example, an assignment to write a summary of a chapter may be problematic for a student who reads slowly and has difficulty putting thoughts on paper, as was the case for Griffin. The tools component involves selecting the most appropriate tool for the student based on the information gathered in the previous three components. This includes evaluating the features and capabilities of various software applications and devices and determining which ones will best meet the student’s needs. In Griffin’s example, using Read&Write to access TTS in PDFs allowed more independence than having to work with his teachers or peers for help in converting documents to OCR. He preferred bubbl.us for mind ­mapping because it was easy for him to use with TTS and VR. Other examples of selecting an appropriate tool might include using a text‐­ summary generator as a metacognitive strategy at the beginning of a long reading assignment. A cell phone used to scan a page of text for “AT is not a replacement for effective intervention strategies TTS would be useful for real‐­time support. As stated earlier, students in reading and writing. In fact, a comprehensive program must with dyslexia need to experiment with different tools and strategies to include both intervention strategies and AT implementation” find what works best for them wherever and whenever literacy sup(Dawson et al., 2019, p. 237). port is needed.

DON’T FORGET

CONCLUSION

This chapter has provided an overview of technology tools and applications for students with dyslexia, along with broad category suggestions for technology support. As technology continues to advance, tools that support literacy are becoming more readily available, which can help to address implementation issues such as cost, teacher knowledge and training, and low rates of assistive technology use among students with disabilities (Atanga et al., 2020; Bouck & Long, 2021; Chambers et al., 2022; Edyburn, 2022). In addition, professional development is needed to address gaps in teachers’ knowledge of technology and increase their technical skills and understanding of how technology can enhance content for students with dyslexia (Bice & Tang, 2022). Integrating technology tools for reading and writing support does not, however, replace the need for instruction in the processes and strategies involved in comprehending what is read and writing clearly and expressively (Bäck et al., 2023; Brozo & Puckett, 2009). Technology use should be integrated into the curriculum in conjunction with grade‐­level academic standards, or to support the goals of a student’s IEP, and not seen as a stand‐­alone solution. Nevertheless, our notions of what students need to know, do, and perform are changing, and digital source materials are transforming the learning experience and challenging our conceptions of literacy to fit modern means of gaining information.

  TEST YOURSELF 1. What is one benefit of using text‐­to‐­speech (TTS) technology for students with dyslexia?

a. b. c. d.

It helps them develop better writing skills. It allows them to access information beyond their current reading level. It automatically corrects grammar and typos. It can read text that is part of a picture.

2. What is one use of speech recognition (SR) technology for individuals with dyslexia?

a. b. c. d.

It can be used to control the device with spoken commands. It can be used to automatically generate outlines for essays. It can be used to correct grammar and punctuation errors. It can be used to create virtual reality experiences.

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENTS  181

3. What is the purpose of the legislation requiring digital text to be available to students with dyslexia?

a. To make digital books more widely available. b. To create a new standard file format for instructional materials source files. c. To ensure that schools provide textbooks and other materials in a specialized format to students with print disabilities in a timely manner. d. To define which students qualify for access to digital textbooks. 4. Which of the following statements is true about obtaining digital text from Bookshare?

a. b. c. d.

Membership is free for all U.S. citizens. Members must provide supporting documentation certifying ADHD. Bookshare provides a free web‐­based TTS reader that can be read on any computer or mobile device. Learning Ally is the only center that provides accessible text to students with print‐­based disabilities and their schools.

5. What is the benefit of using Google Classroom for literacy strategies?

a. b. c. d.

It provides access to a suite of online tools in one location. It simplifies difficult English words. It generates summaries of text passages. It helps students evaluate their own need for information.

6. Which of the following best describes the function of text summarizers?

a. b. c. d.

They identify the main idea of a text and generate a summary. They simplify difficult English words. They provide easier alternatives for difficult vocabulary. They help students evaluate their own need for information.

7. What is one benefit for using autocorrect in a word processor?

a. b. c. d.

To make writing faster. To enable text‐­to‐­speech. To structure writing tasks. To enable readability assessment.

8. What is the purpose of word prediction in a word processor?

a. b. c. d.

To enable text‐­to‐­speech. To provide writing support. To structure writing tasks. To enable readability assessment.

9. What is a chatbot?

a. A computer program using AI and natural language processing to understand a question, automate responses, and simulate human conversation. b. A tool that generates search results in real time. c. A tool that provides text summarization and explanations for complex concepts. d. A tool that generates content based on a given prompt and provides suggestions for grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. 10. What is the difference between search engines and AI chatbots?

a. AI chatbots use indexes to find information from billions of sources and return results in real time. b. AI chatbots hold conversations using a language model that generates an answer one word at a time, with the most likely next word informed by training data. c. Search engines are limited to prompts for questions that are related to specific pages. d. AI chatbots provide sources and have the ability to replace search terms. 11. What is the SETT Framework?

a. b. c. d.

A model for grading student writing. A framework for selecting appropriate technology for a student. A method for organizing classroom supplies. A guide for classroom management.

182  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

12. According to the text, what should be considered when selecting technology tools for a student with dyslexia?

a. b. c. d.

The student’s academic achievements. The availability of technology in the classroom. The student’s strengths, needs, preferences, and goals. The cost of the technology tool.

13. Mary is a 14‐­year‐­old student who is in the seventh grade, having been retained twice in lower grades due to reading difficulties related to dyslexia. She is still much below grade‐­level standards in word recognition, vocabulary, and fluency, but comprehends grade‐­level text when it is read to her. The IEP team is struggling with what to recommend next. Based on the concepts in this chapter, which recommendation would give Mary the best options?

a. b. c. d.

Continue with remediation programs that focus on word recognition and fluency. Focus entirely on digital texts and other compensatory strategies. Move her immediately to the ninth grade. Teach her how to use grade‐­level digital books, word processors, TTS, and SR, pairing these tools with strategies for word study, comprehension, and writing, while continuing remediation in word recognition and fluency.

14. Technology is changing concepts of teaching and learning

a. b. c. d.

to a growing emphasis on high performance in individual skill areas. to the development of independent learning opportunities. toward the development of competence through forming connections and sharing experiences. toward reliance on clearly stated goals and objectives.

15. If used properly, technology tools can replace the need for instruction.True or false? Answers: 1. b; 2. a; 3. c; 4. c; 5. a; 6. a; 7. a; 8. b; 9. a; 10. b; 11. b; 12. c; 13. d; 14. b; 15. False.

Chapter Thirteen DYSLEXIA IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND ENGLISH LEARNERS

Martha Youman and Emily Mather If I do not understand the letter or symbol and its correlation to the sounds of the language, then I have a problem, no matter the language. —­Dr. Elsa Cárdenas-­Hagan, 2022 Until recently, it was believed that dyslexia was a disorder that only affected English speakers; therefore, much of what we know about dyslexia comes from research conducted in English (Caravolas, 2007). In the last few decades, however, studies of reading in a number of languages have demonstrated that dyslexia occurs across languages (e.g., Davies & Cuentos, 2010; Paizi et al., 2010; Su et al., 2010). Because the way we read depends on the nature of the language we speak, the complexity of the language dictates which characteristics of dyslexia will be most significant. It is estimated that by 2030, nearly 40% of all students in the United States will come from non-­ English-­speaking home environments and learn English as a second language (Solari et al., 2014). Therefore, it is becoming increasingly important that educators and evaluators develop the ability to accurately identify English learners (ELs) who may be experiencing reading difficulties associated with dyslexia versus ELs who may be experiencing reading difficulties associated with second language acquisition. In the first section of this chapter, the language features that affect reading development and the characteristics of dyslexia in different languages are discussed. In the second section, the complex nature of reading and dyslexia in ELs is analyzed, and information that may help distinguish second-­language-­related reading difficulties from those associated with dyslexia is presented. Finally, potential methods of assessment and intervention for struggling ELs are presented and discussed. ORTHOGRAPHY IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES

Orthography, or how a language is represented in writing, impacts both reading and spelling development and can present varying difficulties to individuals with dyslexia (Rothe et al., 2015). In fact, a Dyslexia is a neurobiological disorder that occurs across meta-­analysis recently found that orthography plays an important languages. However, dyslexia affects individuals differently role in how the symptoms of dyslexia are expressed in different landepending on the characteristics of the language they speak guages (Reis et  al.,  2020). The most common orthographies today and read. can be classified into alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic writing systems. Figure 13.1 provides examples of writing in languages that use each of these orthographic systems. It is important to understand the features of different orthographies because even though it is known that dyslexia results from neurobiological differences, the characteristics of each orthography affect how dyslexia is manifested in reading; orthography may be considered a central environmental difference that influences how one acquires reading and spelling skills and how dyslexia manifests (Borleffs et al., 2019). Simply put, although brains are similar across cultures and languages, orthographies are not, and this changes how dyslexia affects individuals who come from different language backgrounds.

DON’T FORGET

ALPHABETIC ORTHOGRAPHIES

Alphabetic orthographies use symbols or letters to represent different sounds of speech, or phonemes, in writing. In the simplest a­ lphabetic systems, such as Turkish and Finnish, each symbol or grapheme is used to represent a single phoneme (McDougall et al., 2010). This one-­to-­one correspondence between letters and sounds is unusual, however, with most alphabetic orthographies presenting a ­number of

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 183

184  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION Alphabetic

Logographic

Syllabic

Spanish

Chinese Symbol Meaning human mountain fire

Japanese Kana Symbol Syllable sa no he

Letter a b c

Sound /a/ /b/ /c/ /s/

ch

/ch/

boat

su

d

/d/

to read

te

Figure 13.1  Types of Orthographies This figure illustrates the three different types of orthographies: alphabetic, logographic, and syllabic. In alphabetic orthographies, each symbol or combination of symbols represents a sound. In logographic orthographies, symbols or combinations of symbols represent whole words. In syllabic orthographies, each symbol represents a syllable. Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese Kana offer examples of each of these writing systems.

English

French

Dutch

Portuguese

German

Italian Spanish

Greek

Deep Finnish

Shallow

Figure 13.2  Examples of Shallow and Deep Alphabetic Orthographies This figure represents the classification of alphabetic orthographies along an orthographic depth continuum. In shallow orthographies, such as Finnish and Greek, there is nearly a one-­to-­one correspondence between letters and sounds (i.e., grapheme–phoneme). Grapheme–phoneme correspondence decreases in deep orthographies, such as English and French. In these orthographies, multiple combinations of letters can represent the same speech sounds.

irregularities that make reading unpredictable and challenging. The term orthographic depth is often used to describe the degree of correspondence between the sounds in a language and the letters that represent these sounds in writing (Frost, 2007). Under the umbrella of orthographic depth, languages that map each sound to a specific letter are known as “shallow” or “transparent” orthographies. In contrast, orthographies with multiple mappings between sounds and letters are known as “deep” or “opaque” orthographies (Brunswick, 2010). Figure 13.2 lists several alphabetic languages and illustrates how they can be classified according to their sound-­to-­print correspondences along a shallow to deep orthography continuum. A language with a shallow orthography, such as Finnish, shows a nearly perfect relationship between letters and the sounds they represent. Emergent readers learning to read in Finnish and other shallow orthographies can successfully sound out and pronounce all of the words that they read once they learn the sound that each letter represents. On the other hand, emergent readers of languages with deep orthographies, such as English and French, must learn a number of irregular patterns and are less able to rely on the consistency of the sounds that letters represent. For this reason, emergent readers of languages with deep orthographies often acquire fluent and accurate decoding skills at a slower rate than emergent readers of languages with shallow orthographies, and emergent readers of languages with deep orthographies often require more instruction in foundational reading skills than those with shallow orthographies (Petscher et al., 2020). Rapid Reference 13.1 provides several examples in English to demonstrate the complexity of learning to read a deep orthography. In some languages with deep orthographies, irregular phoneme–grapheme correspondence is further complicated by complex ­syllable structures. In particular, unlike most Romance languages, such as Italian and Spanish, that often comprise simple syllables (e.g., one consonant and one vowel, as in casa), Germanic languages, such as English and German, tend to show complex syllable ­patterns (e.g., several consonants within the same syllable as in crunch). Research has shown that readers of languages with deep orthographies and/or complex syllable structures learn to read at different rates (Borleffs et al., 2019; Goswami, 2008; Seymour et al., 2003). Specifically, phonological awareness, a key early prerequisite for reading, is developed more easily in languages with shallow o­ rthographies and/or simple syllable structures (Borleffs et al., 2019). See Chapter 7 for a discussion of phonological awareness. LOGOGRAPHIC ORTHOGRAPHIES

Languages that use pictures or symbols to represent writing, such as Chinese, are referred to as logographic orthographies. In this type of writing system, a specific symbol represents individual words or word parts. Thus, native speakers of languages that use logographic systems must memorize thousands of individual characters in order to become literate. For example, a review of reading instruction in China reported that children must learn to read 2,570 different characters by the end of the sixth year of reading instruction (Shu

DYSLEXIA IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND ELLS  185

et al., 2003). Because of the complexity and the extensive number of characters that must be learned, learning to read logographic orthogCAUTION raphies is much more difficult than learning to read alphabetic Few languages today are purely logographic or simply based orthographies. Few languages today, however, are purely logographic, on pictures to represent words. Instead, modern logographic and the symbols used in logographic orthographies often include languages often include phonetic and semantic components phonetic and semantic features that support reading. For example, in that support reading. Chinese Mandarin, about 80 to 90 percent of words are compound characters that include a semantic element, called a “radical” element, that provides information about the word’s meaning and a phonetic element that provides information about the word’s pronunciation (McDougall et  al.,  2010). Figure  13.3 illustrates examples of Chinese compound characters. The word volcano 火山, which is made of the symbols for fire 火 and mountain 山, provides an example of a purely logographic Chinese character. By contrast, the word uncle 伯 illustrates a compound Chinese character that has a radical component, 亻“a person,” to ­indicate meaning and a phonetic component, 白 “bo,” to indicate how the word is pronounced.

Rapid Reference 13.1 Examples in English that Demonstrate Common Irregularities in Deep Orthographies • Several letters (graphemes) can represent one single phoneme (e.g., fight, might, night where the grapheme ght represents the sound /t/). • Different spelling possibilities can represent words that sound the same but have different meanings (i.e., homophones; e.g., to, two, too and there, their, they’re). • Identical words can change meaning depending on the context in which they appear (e.g., “She cannot bear to see her father in pain.” “The bear surprised the campers.”). • Single letters can represent multiple sounds (e.g., cone and pot where the letter o represents both the sounds /ō–/ and / ŏ/; cup and pencil where the letter c represents both the sounds /k/ and /s/). • The same morpheme can be pronounced differently (e.g., -­ed suffix indicates past tense and is pronounced as painted /ed/, played /d/, and liked /t/). • Phonemes can be spelled in several different ways (e.g., the sound /f/ can be spelled with f as in fog, ph as in phone, ff as in stuff, gh as in cough, and lf as in calf).

Fire /huo/

Mountain /shan/

Volcano Pronounced/huoshan/

Semantic Component Indicates “ a person”

Phonetic Component Pronounced /bo/ uncle Pronounced /bo/

Figure 13.3  Examples of Chinese (Logographic) Writing This figure provides examples of logographic writing in Chinese. (top) The symbols for fire and mountain are logographic characters that together form the word volcano. The logographic symbol for uncle is made of a radical, semantic component on the left and a phonetic component on the right. The semantic radical indicates “a person,” and the phonetic component indicates how the word is pronounced: “bo.”

186  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

SYLLABIC ORTHOGRAPHIES

Syllabic orthographies, including Japanese Kana and Cherokee, use symbols to represent combinations of vowel–consonant sounds in writing. Emergent readers of syllabic orthographies learn symbols that represent syllables in their language and use these symbols to decode words in a similar manner as readers learning alphabetic orthographies. For example, in Japanese Kana, a component of Japanese language used to translate foreign words and names of places, each symbol represents a syllable. As illustrated in Figure 13.4, each syllable in the word America is represented by a symbol for the syllables a-­me-­ri-­ka. Studies of reading in syllabic orthographies are uncommon because most languages that use syllabic writing today do so in conjunction with logographic or alphabetic orthographies. However, studying specific features of syllabic orthographies can help us understand the role of phonological awareness, word recognition, and fluency in other languages. For example, Perea and Perez (2009) conducted research that explored transposition effects in reading (e.g., reading casual for causal) using Japanese Kana. The results of the study revealed that even in syllabic ortho­ Research suggests that poor reading skills, such as transposgraphies, poor readers tend to transpose symbols when reading ing letters within words (e.g., causal for casual), occur across ­similar words, even if the smallest unit represents an entire syllable ­different types of orthographies. rather than a single sound.

DON’T FORGET

DYSLEXIA ACROSS DIFFERENT ORTHOGRAPHIES

The difficulties that readers with dyslexia experience correspond to the complexity of the language they speak (Borleffs et al., 2019; Caravolas, 2007). Factors such as syllabic complexity, morphological complexity, and orthographic transparency contribute not only to how learners acquire reading but also to how the symptoms of dyslexia manifest within learners (Borleffs et al., 2019); variations in these factors further translate into different prevalence estimates of dyslexia across different orthographies (Hoeft et al., 2015). A few key deficiencies related to language and reading, however, have been found in readers with dyslexia across languages. For example, recent research has shown how observable deficiencies in phonological processing exist in individuals with dyslexia, regardless of their native language (Vender & Melloni, 2021). In addition, studies of readers across languages suggest that readers with dyslexia demonstrate increased morphological deficits when compared to readers without dyslexia (Borleffs et al., 2019). Most notably, a very significant characteristic that readers with dyslexia show across languages is slower reading speed (Carioti et al., 2021). Rapid Reference 13.2 summarizes universal characteristics found in individuals with dyslexia. The information presented is derived from various studies of dyslexia in different languages including Chinese (Ho & Bryant, 1997; McBride-­Chang et al., 2011; McBride et al., 2022), Dutch Symbol

Syllable

a

me

ri

ka

Figure 13.4  Example of Japanese Kana (Syllabic) Writing This figure illustrates the word America written in Japanese Kana, a syllabic language used for foreign names and translations. Each symbol on the top ­represents the syllable at the bottom.

Rapid Reference 13.2 Universal Characteristics of Dyslexia across Languages • Slower than average reading speed/reading fluency • Slower performance on measures of Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN—­best predictor of reading fluency skills; see Chapter 5 for more information on RAN) • Deficiencies in phonemic awareness prior to reading instruction (best predictor of later spelling skills) • Less accurate detection and production of rhymes • Initial difficulty with phonological processing (often measured through reading of nonsense words [pseudowords], e.g., flib, cotch) • Inaccurate spelling • Poor verbal memory

DYSLEXIA IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND ELLS  187

(Bekebrede et al., 2010), Greek (Porpodas, 1999), Finnish (Leppänen et al., 2006), Italian (Paizi et al., 2010; Taha et al., 2022; Vender & Melloni, 2021), Japanese (Koeda et al., 2011; Seki et al., 2008), Malay (Lee & Wheldall, 2011), Spanish (Álvarez-­Cañizo et al., 2023; Jimenez & Ramirez, 2002), and Turkish (Babayiğit & Stainthorp, 2011). DYSLEXIA IN LANGUAGES WITH DEEP ORTHOGRAPHIES

The complexity of the writing system in deep orthographies causes readers with dyslexia problems in accurate and fluent reading and spelling. In fact, reading accuracy is often the key feature that distinguishes dyslexia in deep orthographies (Caravolas, 2007). In a deep orthography like English, about 1,100 possible letters or letter combinations represent the 44 sounds of the spoken language. Since the sounds that letters or letter combinations represent in English often vary between words, and some letters are even silent (e.g., the g in design), “… many English words cannot be sounded out accurately if the word is not part of the reader’s vocabulary” (Borleffs et al., 2019). In contrast, in a shallow orthography like Spanish, 34 letters or letter combinations represent the 41 possible sounds. Thus, an individual with dyslexia will have much more difficulty reading and writing in English than an individual with dyslexia reading and writing in Spanish. In fact, young readers of shallow orthographies, such as Spanish, acquire sight words and basic decoding skills much faster than young readers of deep orthographies, such as English (Borleffs et al., 2019). Simply stated, for individuals with dyslexia, languages with deep orthographies are more challenging than languages with shallow orthographies. Another characteristic that distinguishes individuals with dyslexia in deep orthographies is the persistence of poor phonemic awareness, even after years of reading instruction (Brunswick, 2010). For a discussion of phonemic awareness and other features of dyslexia in In languages with deep orthographies, the key features that English, see Chapters  5 and  7. Similar findings to those discussed distinguish individuals with dyslexia from other readers in  these chapters have been found in other languages with deep include inaccurate and slow word reading, poor spelling, and orthographies, including French (Martin et  al.,  2010) and Danish the persistence of poor phonological skills. (Olofsson, & Niedersøe, 1999).

DON’T FORGET

DYSLEXIA IN LANGUAGES WITH SHALLOW ORTHOGRAPHIES

Dyslexia in shallow orthographies is typically characterized by slow, but not necessarily inaccurate, reading (Borleffs et al., 2019; Davies & Cuentos, 2010). Once readers with dyslexia master the letters and corresponding sounds of the alphabet, the one-­to-­one correspondence between sounds and letters facilitates their reading and spelling (Borleffs et al., 2019). Although they may not have difficulty with accuracy, their reading speed and fluency may never reach the level of their peers, and they may consequently experience problems with reading comprehension (Zoccolotti et al., 1999). In addition, emergent readers of shallow orthographies who have dyslexia may show initial deficiencies in phonological processing, but then they typically appear to “overcome” their phonological impairments after a few months of reading because the transparent orthography helps them “assemble” phonemes while they read (Caravolas,  2007; Porpodas,  1999). Their reading, however, remains slow and lacks fluency and automaticity (Carioti et al., 2021). Researchers are still debating over the role of phonological deficits in individuals with dyslexia in shallow alphabetic orthographies. It is possible that phonological deficits manifest differently in readers of languages with shallow orthographies. For example, a study of Finnish-­speaking adults with dyslexia showed accurate but delayed recognition and manipulation of sounds in words (Lindgren & Laine, 2011). Thus, while a struggling reader of English (deep orthography) will make more errors in identifying phoneme–grapheme correspondences than a struggling reader of Finnish (shallow orthography), the reader of Finnish will take more time to identify ­phoneme–grapheme correspondences but be more accurate than the reader of English. For this reason, with the exception of the beginning stages of reading, it is not advisable to rely on reading accuracy measures (including nonsense word reading measures), as described in Chapter 6, for the diagnosis of dyslexia in languages with shallow orthographies. In fact, although some readers of shallow orthographies may struggle with reading accuracy, accuracy measures in languages with shallow orthographies rarely provide useful diagnostic information (Borleffs et al., 2019; Parrila et al., 2020). Further, use of reading-­level match designs, often used in studies of struggling readers of English, may not be effective in identifying children with dyslexia in shallow orthographies (Parrila et al., 2020). Instead, the most reliable assessment methods include Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and reading fluency measures (Borleffs et al., 2019; Paizi et al., 2010); measures of RAN prove particularly important in the early assessment of dyslexia (Bar-­Kochva & Nevo, 2019; Borleffs et al., 2019). For assessments of dyslexia in older students, analysis of spelling errors may prove to be the best evidence of dyslexia. In one study that examined the spelling abilities of Spanish-­speaking children with dyslexia, it was found that students with dyslexia experienced greater difficulty when spelling words with consonant clusters than their peers without dyslexia (Borleffs et al., 2019). Also, ­individuals

188  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

with dyslexia often continue to spell very common words ­incorrectly, even after years of reading and writing instruction. Figure 13.5 provides a writing sample of Olivia, a Spanish speaking student in third A very common feature of individuals with dyslexia in shallow grade with dyslexia. She writes the very common word “que” (that in orthographies is spelling common words (e.g., “ce” for “que”) Spanish) as “ce.” Other errors include a letter reversal (e.g., “j” backincorrectly. wards) and ignoring word boundaries (e.g., “asice” for “asi que” [so in Spanish]). Some findings in studies of dyslexia in shallow orthographies have also revealed reading errors associated with word “stress” (Paizi et al., 2011). Most words in English are “stressed,” or pronounced with emphasis, on the first syllable. In languages such as Spanish and Italian, however, words tend to have stress in varying parts of the word. Readers with dyslexia in shallow orthographies tend to produce stress errors in the words they read, particularly if the words are unfamiliar. Thus, a Spanish reader with dyslexia will likely be able to decode the word cuchara (spoon) accurately because of the transparency of the language. The student may, however, place stress on the wrong syllable by reading /cuchará/ instead of placing the correct stress on the second syllable /cuchára/. When a child is having trouble learning to read English, it is important to determine if the child has dyslexia, a developmental lanCAUTION guage disorder, or both. Speechlanguage pathologists are trained to use several tools to diagnose language disorders, one of which is analyAfter a few years of reading, accuracy tests, such as nonsense word reading and tests of phonological awareness, provide litsis of language samples. The unique challenge with EL students is in tle information for the diagnosis of dyslexia in languages with determining if their pattern of errors is the result of a language disorshallow orthographies. der or is due to the child being in the process of learning English. The

DON’T FORGET

Figure 13.5  Writing Sample of a Spanish-­Speaking Child with Dyslexia This figure illustrates examples of spelling errors that Spanish-­speaking children with dyslexia may produce. Notice the reversal of “j” in “pajaro” (bird), the use of “ce” for “que” (that), and the blending of “asi que” (so) as “asice.” Writing sample provided by Irene Gonzalez.

DYSLEXIA IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND ELLS  189

Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) computer software addresses this problem for native Spanish speakers. It has three different databases based on the level of English acquisition: English A slow reading rate, rather than accuracy of word readFluent, Bilingual English-­Spanish and Monolingual Spanish. There ing, distinguishes readers with dyslexia from their peers in are online tutorials in different formats to elicit the language samples, ­languages with shallow orthographies. transcribe, and then code the results. The results are then compared to the appropriate database and a report is generated that indicates whether the results are typical for children in the different stages of English acquisition or, if atypical, provide support for a language disorder. This software is available from: https://www.saltsoftware.com/

DON’T FORGET

DYSLEXIA IN NONALPHABETIC LANGUAGES

Although research in nonalphabetic orthographies is still in its early stages, the characteristics of dyslexia in nonalphabetic languages are as complex as the characteristics that make up their orthographies. For example, individuals with dyslexia learning to read in Chinese often show signs and symptoms similar to those observed in English. Like their peers who are learning to read deep alphabetic orthographies, their reading tends to be both slow and inaccurate. Additional signs and symptoms may manifest in their writing, however, and they often show poor character formation, greater character size, irregularity in their strokes, and inaccurate placement of radical and phonetic components within each character (Lam et al., 2011; Leong et al., 2000). Children with dyslexia learning to read in Chinese have also shown deficiencies in recognizing the tones of spoken language (Goswami et al., 2011). This trait is specific to learners of tonal languages, and it is strikingly similar to deficits in phonological awareness in deep alphabetic orthographies, such as English and French, and deficits in word-­stress recognition in shallow alphabetic orthographies, such as Spanish and Italian. In contrast to logographic orthographies, which tend to present challenges similar to deep orthographies, syllabic orthographies, such as Cherokee and Japanese Kana, may provide struggling readers with an opportunity to decode phoneme–grapheme correspondences and read accurately. Still, readers of syllabic orthographies will experience challenges similar to those seen in shallow alphabetic orthographies, mainly in a slow reading rate that affects or hinders comprehension (Seki et al., 2008). Future research will probably define more clearly how dyslexia is manifested in nonalphabetic orthographies. For now, it appears that dyslexia can affect reading in nonalphabetic orthographies, even if the writing systems rely more on memorization than phonetic decoding (Caravolas, 2007). DYSLEXIA OR SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING?

Other chapters in this book have highlighted the complex nature of dyslexia, which makes identification quite a challenging process. This identification process becomes even more difficult when assessing individuals who are learning English as a second language. Indeed, differentiating between reading struggles that ELs may experience due to insufficient language proficiency and reading struggles that may be due to a core reading impairment can prove a demanding task, but doing so is necessary in order to provide ELs with the supports that they truly need (Kishchak et al., 2023; Solari et al., 2014). Early identification of ELs with reading difficulties is a vital first step in providing these students with the explicit and systematic literacy instruction that they need to master foundational reading skills (Solari et al., 2022). Research suggests that struggling readers who are learning English as a second language are less likely to be identified as having dyslexia than their monolingual peers but are more likely to be identified as requiring special education (International Dyslexia Association [IDA], 2023). Millions of ELs attend school in the United States and the number of ELs in schools will continue to grow. Consequently, it is imperative that teachers and evaluators understand the challenges that they may face when attempting to identify dyslexia in EL students (IDA, 2023). As noted by Capin et al. (2020), ELs “… in the U.S. may have fewer opportunities to access instruction, texts, and literacy experiCAUTION ences that contribute to successful literacy acquisition,” making them Many early reading and spelling behaviors of ELs resemble especially vulnerable to reading difficulties. One crucial detail to keep those of readers with dyslexia. It may take several years for in mind, however, is that individuals who are reading in a language these similarities to fade, even after intensive English as a different from their native language will, at least for some period of second language (ESL) instruction. second language learning, show evidence of poor reading skills (Everatt et al., 2010). Further, research suggests that some ELs will encounter academic difficulties despite receiving exceptional instruction and educational supports (Cho et. al, 2021). The following section provides information that can help teachers and evaluators differentiate between readers with dyslexia and inexperienced second language learners. Several suggestions are provided regarding interventions that may help struggling ELs of different ages.

190  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Both vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness tend to be highly correlated with success in reading. For younger readers who enter school with limited or nonexistent literacy skills in their native language (i.e., first language or L1) and low vocabulary in English (i.e., second language or L2), the lack of these prerequisite skills becomes an obstacle that hinders reading development. These unique environmental conditions should not, however, be confused with the reading difficulties of dyslexia. Young ELs in monolingual settings are often learning to read a language that they do not speak, and they may initially struggle to form mappings between the words they read and their meanings. Even in bilingual settings, these young learners have to cope with the demands of two languages simultaneously and often fall behind their monolingual peers (Wilkinson et al., 2006). Linguistic conditions should also be taken into consideration. For example, a Japanese L1 child “… may find it difficult … to read English words that contain the letter r,” and a Spanish L1 child “… may find it difficult to read English words that contain short vowel sounds, such as ‘pit,’ … or to differentiate between long and short vowel sounds in minimal pairs such as ‘sheep’ and ‘ship’” (Geva & Ramírez, 2015). On occasion, a student may be mistakenly placed in a bilingual setting. For example, Rudy Hernandez was working with his special education teacher, Ms. Chavez. Ms. Chavez asked Rudy how his Algebra class was going. He responded that he was having a hard time understanding anything. Ms. Chavez asked further about which math concepts he was finding confusing. Rudy responded, “It’s really not the math. Nearly all of the instruction is in Spanish, and I don’t speak Spanish.” Because of his surname, the registrar had m ­ istakenly placed him in a bilingual math class. Rudy had been in the class for two weeks before he finally said anything to his special education teacher! Recent research suggests that a number of evidence-­based methods of reading instruction that have proven effective in helping struggling English L1 readers, such as explicit phonics instruction, are also effective in helping struggling ELs (Capin et al., 2020; Petscher et al., 2020; Schwartz, 2022). When learning to read in English, however, many young ELs struggle with basic phonemic awareness skills, such as sound blending, and their reading difficulties are often amplified by a lack of L2 vocabulary knowledge (Brice & Brice, 2009). Thus, unlike interventions that focus mainly on the development of phonological and phonic skills for monolingual English readers with dyslexia (see Chapters 7–10), a key intervention for young, struggling ELs must also include phonemic awareness, vocabulary development, and literacy skills in L1 and L2 (Ashby et al., 2023; Atwill et al., 2010; Geva & Ramírez, 2015). Young ELs particularly benefit from instructional techniques that include explicit vocabulary instruction and structured discussions that promote the use of academic language and development of reading comprehension skills, such as the ability to use context clues (Capin et al., 2020; Geva & Ramírez, 2015; Schwartz, 2022). In fact, ELs need to know at least 98% of the words in a passage to be able to fully comprehend the text without assistance, so the development of a strong vocabulary knowledge proves crucial in helping ELs find success in reading English (Schmitt et al., 2011). One great way for teachers to provide young ELs with explicit vocabulary instruction is through repeated read-­alouds, which require that the same text be read aloud to students three or more times to establish target words (Geva & Ramírez, 2015). Rapid Reference 13.3 provides examples of effective, evidence-­based strategies for teaching reading to young Spanish L1 children. As noted by Solari et al. (2014), “The early grades are when intensive instruction in critical literacy skills that have been shown to ameliorate reading risk such as basic reading skills, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and decoding is traditionally provided,” and “… data demonstrate that it is increasingly difficult to remediate reading difficulties after third grade” (p. 345). Failure to provide young ELs with high-­quality literacy instruction may “… [have] ramifications that are persistent throughout [the students’ educational careers]” (Solari et al., 2014, p. 344). Therefore, educators must be equipped to provide effective instruction to all students, including ELs (Schwartz, 2022; Solari et al., 2022). The book, Literacy Foundations for English Learners: A Comprehensive Guide to Evidence-­Based Instruction (Cárdenas-­Hagan, 2020), is an excellent resource for current and future educators of ELs. The contents are aligned with the International Dyslexia Association’s Knowledge and Practice Standards. It covers the skills and knowledge that teachers need to help ELs achieve academic success. It discusses an array of systemic, evidence-­based language and literacy instructional methods that educators may use when working with ELs in Pre-­K through sixth grade. The book outlines typical language and literacy development of ELs and provides strategies for teaching phonological awareness, phonics, spelling, writing, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Further, the book provides strategies for integrating technology. Another excellent resource is the Reading League Compass which provides resources and guidance for working with ELs and Emergent Bilinguals (https://www.thereadingleague.org/compass/). A different picture emerges with older ELs, who are often literate in L1 prior to receiving reading instruction in L2. Rather than interventions that emphasize vocabulary development and phonemic awareness, these readers particularly benefit from interventions that focus on the development of cognitive strategies and reading comprehension (Capin et al., 2020). Also, instructors of these ­students must take the phenomenon of language transfer into consideration. For these older ELs, vocabulary development in L1 may positively influence cross-­language transfer of reading skills (e.g., phonological awareness), thus helping reading fluency in L2 (Ashby et al., 2023; Atwill et al., 2010). On the other hand, a negative transfer of first-­language knowledge may affect reading development in English. A few specific examples of this negative transfer of L1 into L2 are highlighted in Rapid Reference 13.4. These native-­language-­specific

DYSLEXIA IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND ELLS  191

Rapid Reference 13.3 by Irene González Strategies for Teaching Reading to Children Whose L1 is Spanish • Activities to develop vocabulary • Activities to develop phonological awareness: • Identify the initial, middle, and final sound • Delete the initial, middle, or final sound • Change a sound for another to create a new word • Blend and segment the sounds of a word • Instruction in letter names • Explicit teaching of phoneme–grapheme associations (phonics) • Demonstrate the mouth position when teaching the sound each letter represents • Instruction in letters that follows a systematic progression: • Begin with vowels and then introduce consonants, such as M, N, S, L, P, F • Start with CV words and then VC, CVC, CCV, CCVC words • Once mastered, gradually introduce additional letters • Instruction in how to join two sounds to read a syllable, and then read the complete word • Practice reading decodable text that includes the letters that the student has learned (a good practice book for students is the “Fonética,” a curriculum program designed to teach phonics in Spanish to kindergarten and first-­grade students, by Dr. Doris Baker). Website: https://bookshop.org/p/books/fonetica-­phonics-­a-­spanish-­and-­english-­workbook-­primer-­a-­tercer-­grado-­r-­solski/18322140 • Instruction in reading fluency: • Begin by reading combinations of syllables, then words, phrases, and sentences • Then use passages • Instruction in comprehension strategies (e.g., using background knowledge to understand a text) • Integration of reading and writing activities • Daily and repetitive practice

Rapid Reference 13.4 Examples of Common Reading and Spelling Mistakes in ELs • If Spanish is L1: • Pronunciation errors due to Spanish phonological influence (e.g., reads drogstore for drugstore). • Spelling errors due to Spanish phonological influence (e.g., writes rack for rock, mekin for making, clin for clean, chi lismi for she lets me) • Limited knowledge of double consonants (e.g., writes botle for bottle) • Errors due to pronunciation of sounds nonexistent in Spanish (e.g., v for b or vice versa, writes cavul for cable; j for s, writes mejure for measure; ch for sh, writes chow for show; y for j, writes yaw for jaw; es for s, writes estop for stop) • If Arabic is L1: • Lack of /p/ sound in Arabic results in confusion of /b/ and /p/ (e.g., reads or writes bicture for picture) • If Chinese is L1: • Poor performance in nonsense word spelling and reading (i.e., pseudowords) but not in real word spelling • Reading and spelling errors in words with th and sh (e.g., sink for think; sort for short) • If Japanese is L1: • Confusion of l with r in reading, speaking, and spelling (e.g., sarary for salary)

192  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

characteristics, adapted from an extensive review of error analysis studies by Figueredo (2006), are often seen in children and adults who learned to speak English after becoming literate in their native Teachers should make every effort to employ instructional ­language. Although similar to characteristics often found in monolintechniques that draw attention to the similarities between gual English readers with dyslexia, these characteristics occur as a English and the L1 whenever possible (IDA, 2023). result of L1 interference and should not be used to diagnose ELs with dyslexia. Teachers may facilitate a positive transfer of L1 skills by providing ELs with explicit L2 spelling instruction that aids in the mastery of phoneme–grapheme correspondences, highlighting any and all similarities, especially phonological similarities, between the L1 and the L2, and providing students with explicit instruction in the linguistic constraints of the L2 (Ashby et al., 2023; Geva & Ramírez, 2015; Tribushinina et al., 2021). Blevins (2023) stresses the importance of teachers learning the confusing sounds for each of the languages that the students in their classrooms speak. For example, he notes that Spanish speakers often replace the /b/ sound when they read words that begin with the letter v, whereas students who speak Asian languages often replace the long-­e sound with the short-­i sound, which is more familiar. He  includes a language chart that shows the similarities and differences between English sounds and spellings and several other l­anguages (Spanish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Hmong). The American Speech–Language–Hearing Association (ASHA) has compiled a wonderful set of resources that teachers may use to familiarize themselves with the phonemic inventories and cultural and linguistic influences of over 20 different languages and dialects. (https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/phono/). The website includes an array of information regarding languages’ unique phonemes, sound patterns, and rules of pronunciation. The provided resources can help teachers identify potential challenges that their EL students may face when learning to read and write in English. Further, the resources may help teachers tailor their instruction to meet the diverse needs of their EL students. By honing their knowledge of the phonemic inventories of different languages, teachers will have the ability to provide effective instruction in phonemic awareness to all EL students (Ashby et al., 2023). Indeed, prior to the identification of dyslexia in ELs, screening procedures must rule out instructional differences, language differences, or language disadvantages that have resulted in low reading performance (IDEA, 2004). The book Focus on Reading (Geva & Ramírez, 2015) describes the multiple skills and factors that are involved in second language reading development for foreign l­anguage learners from the ages of 5–18. It emphasizes practical skills for both assessment and instruction of second language learners. The book reviews research and provides numerous examples and activities for teachers to implement in the classroom. Additional online resources, The pronunciation of certain sounds can be confusing for such as sample pages, a glossary, and weblinks, can be found at: www. students who speak different languages. oup.com/elt/teacher/for.

DON’T FORGET

DON’T FORGET

ASSESSMENT OF DYSLEXIA IN ENGLISH LEARNERS

Although most reading difficulties in ELs are the result of limited language skills, evidence from cross-­linguistic studies of dyslexia suggests that some ELs do, in fact, struggle with reading because they have dyslexia. How can language deficiencies be ruled out when screening ELs for dyslexia? This basic question has puzzled parents, teachers, administrators, and researchers in both academic and clinical settings. Unfortunately, there is no established procedure for evaluating ELs who are suspected of having dyslexia. IDA (2023), however, indicates that an effective evaluation should include measures of spelling, decoding, rapid naming, reading fluency, phonological awareness, oral language, and use and understanding of language (especially the language of instruction). Also, measures of the EL’s skills and progress in L1 should be noted and monitored, because “The key to an accurate diagnosis of dyslexia for an [EL] is ensuring that the [difficulties that they experience with reading exist] in both the native and the second language” (IDA, 2023). A number of options are available to evaluators, who must ultimately use clinical judgment, to determine the cause of reading difficulties in ELs. The following common evaluation practices are adapted from Ortiz (2011) to provide readers with an idea of the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Modified or Adapted Tests. A common practice when assessing EL children who are suspected of having a learning disability, such as dyslexia, often involves changing standardized procedures to meet the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse learners. Some evaluators may choose to eliminate test items that are considered culturally biased, repeat directions, accept responses in L1 or L2, administer only portions of standardized tests that do not rely on oral comprehension, and/or extend or eliminate time constraints. These practices are aimed at allowing learners from diverse backgrounds to perform at their full potential. Unfortunately, when any of these practices takes place during evaluation of ELs, the norms of each test can no longer be considered valid. Because the test was not administered using the standardized procedures, the results do not provide information on how the examinee c­ ompares to peers in the

DYSLEXIA IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND ELLS  193

norm group. In addition, each evaluator may modify testing differently, therefore removing the ­objectivity of the test. In other words, because of the modifications chosen by an evaluator, a child may be diagnosed with dyslexia; however, a different evaluator, who chose different modifications, may not reach the same conclusion. Another modification may include using an interpreter or translator to make sure the examinee understands the questions being asked CAUTION and the items being administered. This practice is problematic because it assumes that if ELs understand the directions of the test, Standardized tests that are changed to meet the needs of ELs they will be able to perform equally to their monolingual peers. are no longer objective. The validity of the results depends on However, even after understanding what is being asked, an EL may adhering to the test’s standardized administration procedures. not have the necessary language to respond or may be confused by the test content. Nonverbal Testing. In the past, some evaluators have chosen to use nonverbal tests to assess ELs. The directions and answers in these types of tests are given visually or via gestures, thereby eliminating the need for oral language. Unfortunately, these types of assessment procedures have little use for the diagnosis of dyslexia. From nonverbal assessments, an evaluator may be able to pinpoint memory or processing deficiencies, but these may have little to do with reading. Simply put, it is difficult to assess a reading disorder without taking measures of reading-­related abilities and reading. At a minimum, the assessment should include measures of phonemic awareness, RAN, vocabulary, reading, and spelling. Native Language Testing. A number of assessment batteries have been translated into various languages and are often used in school and clinical settings to evaluate ELs. Native-­language testing, however, may not provide an accurate description of a student’s skills. In particular, these tests may provide useful information about monolingual individuals in the language of the test, but may provide inaccurate information about an individual who is learning a second language. The individuals included in the norming of these tests are usually monolingual, learning to read in their native language, and growing up with monolingual parents. For example, most Spanish translations of tests used in U.S. schools were normed on individuals in Mexico or other Spanish-­speaking countries. While these tests may be appropriate to diagnose dyslexia in monolingual Spanish speakers, they may not be appropriate for diagnosing dyslexia in Spanish-­speaking children who are learning to speak, read, and write in English. English Language Testing. In many settings, ELs are evaluated for dyslexia and other learning disabilities exclusively in English. Compared to previously discussed methods, this type of assessment is Evaluation of ELs exclusively in English is likely to produce the likely to yield the most biased results. Research reveals that, on avermost biased results. age, ELs tested in English perform significantly below their monolingual English-­speaking peers (Wilkinson et  al.,  2006). This is likely due to the deficiencies in vocabulary and phonemic awareness frequently experienced by young ELs in both L1 and L2. On the other hand, older ELs who learned to read in their native language before learning to read in English are likely to transfer phonemic awareness and other phonological skills, but may still show vocabulary deficiencies in English. Furthermore, they may experience language interference of L1 when learning L2, so reading difficulties may be the result of language learning rather than dyslexia. Suggested Best Practice. Currently, researchers are exploring best practices for the accurate diagnosis of dyslexia and other disabilities in ELs. Although there is no one definite, agreed-­upon best practice, a one-­time assessment likely will not provide the most accurate picture of the individual. In fact, the IDA (2023) recommends an assessment approach that uses several testing formats and takes a number of variables into consideration. The evaluator must ensure that the struggling EL is not experiencing difficulty as a result of lack of proficiency or insufficient language instruction in the L1 and/or L2. Also, the evaluator should collect and analyze samples of the EL’s work in order to monitor progress and identify any error patterns that could stem from transfer of the L1 to the L2. Further, the evaluator should try to compare the EL’s performance to that of peers with the same L1 and background experiences, especially in the absence of a standardized test that includes a relevant norm group. Finally, the evaluator should consider the EL’s family history, as genetic factors contribute to dyslexia, and any environmental factors that could affect the EL’s reading abilities. Because a relationship exists between reading and writing, when attempting to identify an EL with dyslexia, it proves worthwhile to assess writing skills in addition to reading skills (Zhang & Wang, 2023). One study of Spanish L1, English L2 children with dyslexia observed that the students’ writing skills in L1 were similar to their writing skills in L2 (Álvarez-­Cañizo et al., 2023). In other words, the students performed similarly when producing written composition in both English and Spanish, suggesting that difficulties with L2 may be explained by difficulties with L1 (Álvarez-­Cañizo et al., 2023). Another method to distinguish an EL student with dyslexia from an EL student who is purely going through the process of second language acquisition may be to observe how the student performs on language-­dependent tasks, such as nonsense word repetition, sentence repetition, and phonological awareness, versus language-­ independent tasks, such as beat synchronization, auditory reaction time, and RAN. For example, Taha et al. (2022) found that struggling

DON’T FORGET

194  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 13.5 by Irene González Examples of Effective Programs for Spanish L1 Children with Dyslexia 1. JEL: This program, developed in Argentina, is for children 6–13 years old. It begins with a standardized test in phonological abilities and reading fluency (words and nonsense words), and includes a training program in reading strategies that uses manipulative materials and interactive software. Website: http://blog.jel-­aprendizaje.com/productos/ 2. JEL K: This program, developed in Argentina, provides instruction in phonological awareness and letter recognition for children 3–6 years old. It includes a standardized test about the reading predictors and includes instructional materials and interactive software for teachers to use with the students. Website: http://blog.jel-­aprendizaje.com/productos/ 3. Read Naturally Live—­Español: This is the Spanish version of Read Naturally Live which develops the literacy skills of multilingual readers. This reading program supports native Spanish speakers to improve their basic reading skills and develop their reading fluency while reading Spanish texts. Website: https://www.readnaturally.com/product/read-­naturally-­live-­spanish 4. GraphoGame: This program is an educational reading game for teaching letter-sound knowledge, decoding, and fluency. It was created at the University of Jyväskylä (Finland) and the Institute Niilo Mäki (Finland). The Spanish version was developed by CEDETi UC. Website: https://graphogame.com/es/el-­juego 5. Esperanza Program: This program is a Spanish multisensory structured language approach for reading, writing, and spelling. The goal of this program is to provide multisensory, sequential, and systematic instruction in Spanish. Website: https://www.valleyspeech.org/esperanza https://ampliolearning.com/programs/learning-­disability/dyslexia-­curriculum-­spanish-­esperanza/ 6. Dytective by Change Dyslexia: This is a game that helps students with dyslexia to improve their reading and writing while having fun playing. Website: https://www.changedyslexia.org/en

L2 Italian readers underperformed L2 Italian good readers on language-­dependent tasks, but both groups performed similarly on language-­independent tasks, suggesting that poor performance on language-­dependent tasks could indicate reading difficulties. A meta-­analysis that surveyed the effectiveness of reading interventions for ELs found that high-­quality reading interventions can, in fact, improve ELs’ learning outcomes and reading abilities (Cho et al., 2021). Therefore, as with monolingual individuals, early identification of dyslexia is important so that appropriate reading interventions can be provided. Rapid Reference 13.5 discusses several effective programs specifically designed to aid in reading interventions for Spanish L1 children with dyslexia. If, however, the source of reading difficulties is a lack of exposure to English, ELs should not be prematurely labeled with dyslexia. Thus, when an EL student experiences reading difficulties, whether due to second language learning or dyslexia, the evaluation should begin with early reading intervention and periodic measures of progress in reading and oral language (Wilkinson et al., 2006). Oral language skills are highly correlated with English reading proficiency in Spanish L1 ELs (Zhang & Wang, 2023). If reading continues to lag behind oral language for an extended period of time, formal assessment procedures should be employed to determine the existence of dyslexia. In addition to standardized tests, however, the evaluation should include interviews with family members and teachers, measures of reading performance in both languages, and accurate measures of English language proficiency. After careful assessment, a multidisciplinary team should make the final determination; this team should ideally include a member fluent in the native language of the individual being evaluated and/or a member familiar with evaluating individuals from diverse backgrounds (IDA, 2023). CONCLUSION

Dyslexia is a neurobiological disorder that affects individuals of all ages across different languages. This chapter provided a summary of how dyslexia manifests in different written language systems. Individuals with dyslexia learning to read in deep alphabetic orthographies, such as English and French, typically demonstrate poor reading fluency and accuracy, and weak phonological skills tend to persist. On the other hand, individuals with dyslexia learning to read in shallow orthographies, such as Spanish and Italian, often experience early reading deficiencies in phonological skills and reading accuracy but tend to “overcome” these deficiencies after a few

DYSLEXIA IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND ELLS  195

years of reading instruction. Their reading, however, remains slow and laborious, thereby affecting reading fluency and comprehension. For individuals with dyslexia learning to read logographic and syllabic orthographies, the difficulties that they experience depend on the complexity of the written language system. As noted by Cho et al. (2021): “Language interventions for [ELs] have become one of the most important issues in the U.S.” (p. 7). For ELs and other bilingual readers, identification of dyslexia becomes a challenging process that requires the consideration of multiple factors and the unique characteristics of each case. In general, for young ELs who are learning to read and write primarily in English, reading lags behind because of limited vocabulary in L1 and L2. These young learners should receive language instruction, preferably in both the native language and the second language, along with an evidence-­based reading intervention prior to considering a diagnosis of dyslexia. In older readers, who often have established reading skills in their native language, reading skills tend to transfer from their L1 to English. A lack of vocabulary knowledge and the effects of native language transfer, however, may cause an evaluator to encounter difficulty when distinguishing between the symptoms of second language learning and dyslexia. With these experienced readers, interventions should focus on second language development, and diagnosis should include measures of reading in both the native language and English. Ultimately, regardless of the demands of each language and the complexity of the orthography, the result is still the same: readers with dyslexia struggle in reading and spelling. People read to obtain meaning from text, and readers with dyslexia often fail to achieve this goal because they read inaccurately, slowly, or both. Early identification and intervention are important so that these individuals have a chance to develop their reading skills and, ultimately, become literate in a second language (IDA, 2023). Parents, teachers, evaluators, and researchers must take special precautions when identifying dyslexia in ELs. Rather than speculating on the causes of reading failure and waiting to see if poor reading performance is because of dyslexia, interventions should be provided early, and each student’s reading progress should be monitored carefully.

  TEST YOURSELF 1. Dyslexia affects individuals differently depending on the complexity of the language they speak and read.True or false? 2. English is considered a deep orthography because

a. b. c. d. e.

it is usually learned as a second language. it has irregular letter–sound (i.e., grapheme–phoneme) correspondence. it has a larger number of symbols represented in the alphabet. All of the above. None of the above.

3. Logographic writing systems often include semantic and phonetic components that together provide information about meaning and pronunciation.True or false? 4. Readers with dyslexia in shallow orthographies tend to “overcome” initial deficiencies in phonological skills and reading accuracy because

a. b. c. d.

they receive intensive reading instruction during the first years of schooling. they recognize the letters of the alphabet more easily. the transparency of their language helps them assemble phonemes while they read. All of the above.

5. The universal characteristics of dyslexia include

a. b. c. d.

slower than average reading speed, slow RAN performance, and initial difficulties in phonological skills. persistent lack of phonemic awareness, use of invented spelling, and problems in simple math facts. reversals of numbers and letters, poor memory, and lower cognitive performance. limited prereading vocabulary, slow processing speed, and oral language articulation problems.

6. Reading accuracy tests, such as nonsense word reading and tests of phonological awareness, are useful during all stages of ­reading development in all languages to diagnose dyslexia.True or false? 7. The two key features that help identify dyslexia in deep orthographies are

a. b. c. d.

slow reading and letter reversals. memory deficiencies and slow processing speed. RAN tasks and letter transposing (e.g., casual for causal). poor phonemic awareness and inaccurate word reading and spelling.

196  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

8. The reading difficulties of readers with dyslexia in nonalphabetic orthographies

a. b. c. d.

are identical to those experienced by English readers of dyslexia. depend on the complexity of the language. result from decreased memory abilities. All of the above.

9. ELs whose L1 is a language with a shallow orthography are not likely to have dyslexia.True or false? 10. The best assessment procedure for ELs who are suspected of having dyslexia is

a. b. c. d. e.

native language testing. nonverbal testing. English language testing. modified testing. None of the above.

11. Common reading and spelling difficulties in ELs from Spanish speaking backgrounds include

a. b. c. d.

pronunciation and spelling errors due to Spanish phonological influence. limited knowledge of double consonants. errors in pronunciation and spelling of sounds nonexistent in Spanish. All of the above.

12. Limited vocabulary and literacy skills in the native language can affect an EL’s reading development in English.True or false? 13. In a school setting, for an EL who is struggling with reading, the first step should be

a. b. c. d.

formal assessment of cognitive skills and achievement in the native language. an appropriate intervention with careful data collection to assess progress. testing of cognitive and achievement skills using an interpreter. diagnosis of dyslexia by a physician.

14. Complex syllable structures (e.g., CCCVVCCC as in straight) present challenges for emergent readers, as well as those with dyslexia.True or false? 15. Older ELs, who are fluent readers in their native language, often

a. b. c. d.

transfer their basic reading skills to English. show the same deficiencies as younger ELs. read faster than they can speak. All of the above.

Answers: 1. True; 2. b; 3. True; 4. c; 5. a; 6. False; 7. d; 8. b; 9. False; 10. e; 11. d; 12. True; 13. b; 14. True; 15. a.

Chapter Fourteen DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS

To teach in a manner that respects and cares for the souls of our students is essential if we are to provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and intimately begin. —­bell hooks, 1994, p. 13 The best way to advocate for a child with dyslexia is to be so well-­trained that no one can (or wants to) argue with you. —­Dr. Kelli Sandman-­Hurley Oftentimes, dyslexia is first noticed after a child enters school. Because the early grades focus on teaching children how to read, problems with matching sounds and symbols, decoding, or spelling words are often noted during the first year of schooling. For some children, however, the problems are not apparent until second grade. These children may have strong verbal skills and good memory for words, so they simply memorize words in the early grades. By second grade, the amount of reading increases, so the memorization of words is no longer feasible, and problems with decoding or encoding become more apparent. Reading is a gateway skill. In other words, the ability to read is fundamental to and facilitates all academic learning. When reading development lags behind classmates, a student is at a disadvantage not only in reading, but also in writing, math, and other content areas. It is often said that children learn to read from K–3 and then read to learn after that. If children have not developed reading proficiency by third grade, regardless of how intelligent they may be, they will fall further and further behind classmates who are proficient readers. Reading is the focus of educational reforms and legislation, precisely because it is so important to academic success. LEGISLATION IMPACTING SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS WITH DYSLEXIA

General education at both the elementary and secondary levels is governed by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act known currently as Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which was signed into law by President Obama on 10 December 2015. The previous version of the law was the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). As with NCLB, the intent of ESSA is to promote student achievement and ensure equal access. The purpose of Title 1 of this act is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain high-­quality education and to reach, at a minimum, proficiency on state achievement standards and state academic assessments. ESSA specifies accountability measures, teacher training, instructional materials that align with state standards, and numerous resources (https://www.ed.gov/esea). Rapid Reference 14.1 provides a brief summary of the provisions governing general education and some relevant special education websites. School-­age children with disabilities have rights and protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-­446, IDEA, 2004). For example, a local education agency (LEA) must make available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children with disabilities who are at least 3 years old but not yet 21 years old and who have not graduated from high school. FAPE includes special education and related services that are free and are provided through an individualized education program (IEP). This applies to school-­age children identified with dyslexia who are found eligible for special education services. For more information about IDEA 2004, see https://idea.ed.gov/. Two antidiscrimination laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section  504 of the Rehabilitation Act, provide legal ­protections to individuals with disabilities, but, unlike IDEA 2004, do not provide funding for programs. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a component of the U.S. Department of Education, enforces these laws. Under Section  504, a student with a

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 197

198  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 14.1  ESSA Federal Provisions Governing Education General Education: • Upholds critical protections for America’s disadvantaged and high-­need students. • Requires that all students be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them for college and careers. • Requires annual statewide assessments that measure students’ progress toward those high standards. • Helps to support and grow local innovations. • Increases access to high-­quality preschool. • Focuses on creating positive change in our lowest-­performing schools. Examples of Special Education Websites Recommended by ED.gov You can access many of the following websites through the home page for IDEA: https://sites.ed.gov/idea. Choose the relevant tab to access the specific topic. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) https://sites.ed.gov/idea The official website for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). About IDEA https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-­idea (or choose the About tab from IDEA home page). Describes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a law ensuring that services are provided to children with disabilities throughout the nation. IDEA News and Media—­Individuals with Disabilities Education Act sites.ed.gov/idea/category/newsupdates/ (or choose the News & Media tab from the IDEA home page). Provides access to IDEA news updates, social media, and newsletters. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/index.html (or choose the Office of Special Education Programs [OSEP] tab on the IDEA home page). The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is dedicated to improving results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. Sec. 300.39 Special Education—­Individuals with Disabilities Education Act sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.39 Explains special education. National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) www.ies.ed.gov/ncser/ Reviews reading research and reading interventions.

­ isability may have a 504 Plan that guarantees equal access to education and allows for certain accommodations or modifications. d Unlike IDEA 2004, Section 504 has no requirement for an IEP and has fewer procedural safeguards. As of December of 2015, 28 states had some type of dyslexia law. By 2022, all 50 states had some type of dyslexia law. Differences in the state legislation, however, can create some confusion among school personnel (Rice & Gilson, 2023). Many of these laws require public schools to screen children for dyslexia during kindergarten, first, or second grade. A few of the states require that teacher training colleges offer courses on dyslexia and that teachers receive in-­service training. Some states, such as California, provide detailed guidelines for educators, parents, and legislators (e.g., https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/lr). Thus, it is important to check the legislation in your state regarding dyslexia and familiarize yourself with it. In Chapter 1, Rapid Reference 1.1 provides websites that describe the components of all the state dyslexia laws. In addition, as a resource for parents, the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) provides a handbook about dyslexia regarding what families should know and expect throughout the school years (https://dyslexiaida. org/ida-­dyslexia-­handbook/). Even though all states have some type Many states currently have specific laws mandating screening of dyslexia law, it still appears that, overall, students with dyslexia are for dyslexia during the first years of school. being underidentified (Phillips & Odegard, 2017).

DON’T FORGET

DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS  199

THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL IN DIAGNOSING DYSLEXIA AND PROVIDING SERVICES

As can be seen from the brief review of federal legislation, public schools play an important role in identifying and serving children who may have dyslexia or other learning disabilities. The laws do not, however, mandate diagnosing any particular disability; they simply mandate that schools determine the presence of a disability and whether or not the student is eligible for special education services. Therefore, testing in schools may focus more on determining eligibility than diagnosing dyslexia. Although dyslexia is the most common type of specific learning disability, a student with dyslexia may not qualify for special education services depending on what criteria are used for determining eligibility. Unfortunately, many students with dyslexia and/or developmental language disorders are still not receiving specialized support services, despite having persistent reading difficulties (Duff et al., 2023). Current federal law allows eligibility determinations for students with learning disabilities to be made in several ways or through use of a combination of methods: a discrepancy between the individual’s ability (usually based on an IQ score) and achievement (usually based on scores from an individually administered, norm-­referenced test of achievement); a research-­based method, which is often described as a pattern of strengths and weaknesses among an individual’s cognitive and achievement scores, that suggests the presence of a specific learning disability; or failure to respond to instruction (in schools using a response-­to-­intervention [RTI] model). Each state has specific rules and regulations that govern the implementation of the federal mandates, so it is important to check the website of the appropriate state department of education to determine which method or methods are being used within the schools for learning disability identification. One major problem with an ability–achievement discrepancy is that it often prevents early identification, as children are not yet far enough CAUTION behind to have a significant discrepancy. Thus, it has been referred to An evaluation conducted by school personnel may tend as a “wait-­to-­fail” model. Ozernov-­Palchik and Gaab (2016) described to focus more on determining eligibility than diagnosing a what they called the “dyslexia paradox,” whereas dyslexia is typically student’s reading difficulties as dyslexia. not identified until a child is in second grade and has not learned to read as expected. The paradox is that early intervention is most effective when provided from Pre-­K to grade 1, prior to reading failure. Before a student is referred for a comprehensive evaluation, most schools try to intervene with additional reading support for the student. That is, when concerns first arise about a child’s reading perforOnce a child is found eligible for special education services, the mance, the teacher attempts to address the issue within the classroom. school is responsible for planning and providing appropriate If concerns continue, then the teacher may turn to a student support supplemental reading instruction. team for help. These teams have many different names, such as pupil services teams, teacher assistance teams, or instructional support teams. The teams are composed of other ­educators in the school and may include the principal and any relevant specialists (e.g., reading specialists or speech–language pathologists). Recommendations are made and implemented based on the team’s review of the student’s performance and instructional history. If the student continues to struggle with reading, then a comprehensive evaluation should be conducted to determine if the child has a reading disability and is eligible for special education services. Once a child is identified as having a learning disability, the school is responsible for planning and providing the child with appropriate, systematic reading instruction, as well as monitoring the student’s progress. Currently, many schools are implementing an instructional model known as RTI. An RTI process is typically implemented within a multi-­tiered system of support (MTSS). While there is not one standard way to implement RTI, typically three or four tiers are ­provided with increasing levels of support and intervention. Figure 14.1 illustrates a three-­tier RTI model. Within the first tier of the RTI model, all students receive high-­quality core curriculum instruction in the general education classroom, and achievement is ­universally checked at three points throughout the school year. Students who are struggling in the core curriculum begin to receive supplemental instruction, which is usually delivered in small group settings; this is tier 2. Progress is monitored more frequently at tier 2 to determine if the student needs to continue with the supplemental instruction, needs a change in instruction, or requires more intensive intervention. If the student fails to make adequate progress at tier 2, then instruction is intensified (tier 3) and may include one-­to-­one instruction from a reading specialist. In some RTI environments, tier 3 includes a comprehensive evaluation to determine the need for special education. In other RTI environments, an evaluation would occur at tier 4. RTI is designed to provide high-­quality instruction to all students and immediate additional instruction to students who are behind their classmates. There is no need to wait for a diagnosis of dyslexia to help a student who is struggling to learn to read. RTI models provide early interventions that may help students overcome academic difficulties before they fail. Exclusive use of RTI models, however, could bring negative consequences to struggling readers. Low reading performance alone is insufficient for the identification of dyslexia within an RTI model because poor reading may be present in individuals for a variety of reasons (Berninger, 2011).

DON’T FORGET

200  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Tier 1 All students Core curriculum

Tier 2

20% –30% of students Supplemental instruction

Tier 3 5% –10% of students Intensive instruction

Figure 14.1  Typical Three-­Tier Response-­to-­Intervention (RTI) Model

In particular, when a student is failing academically, RTI does not help us understand the reasons why a student is struggling. Numerous reasons exist for why a student may struggle with reading, and not all Students with dyslexia require daily systematic ­interventions of them are because of a disability. A student’s reading can be impaired from highly trained teachers using empirically validated due to an inadequate oral language base or a developmental language ­methods. disorder; perhaps the student has generally low performance across all areas, or maybe the student has not received appropriate instruction. In addition, any student with severe reading difficulties should be fast-­tracked to tier 3 to receive intensive remediation. This should include a minimum of 45 minutes a day of intervention from a dyslexia or reading specialist (Cárdenas-­Hagan, 2019). RTI does not diagnose a disability; it only documents a lack of adequate progress. RTI addresses the needs of the group of students, so individual differences may be ignored and all struggling students may be treated as if they struggle for the exact same reason and require the exact same intervention. Clearly, this is not the case. Individual differences do matter, and students with dyslexia do require the educational rights and protections guaranteed by federal law. The results from a comprehensive evaluation are often needed to pinpoint the specific reasons for the student’s reading and spelling difficulties, as well as specific interventions. Another area of concern regarding the exclusive use of RTI relates to its focus on all students rather than on those who truly need special education services in order to achieve academic success. For this reason, some fear that RTI may delay the process of diagnosis and appropriate service delivery for children with dyslexia; this, of course, is not the intent of an RTI process. On January 21, 2011, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a memorandum to State Directors of Special Education regarding the use of an RTI process to delay or deny an evaluation for eligibility under IDEA, writing: “It has come to the attention of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that, in some instances, Local Education Agencies (LEAs) may be using Response to Intervention strategies to delay or deny a timely initial evaluation for children suspected of having a disability. States and LEAs have an obligation to ensure that evaluations of children suspected of having a disability are not delayed or denied because of an RTI strategy” (retrieved from: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-­files/osep-­memo-­11-­07-­response-­ to-­intervention-­rti-­memo/). On 29 April 2016, OSEP released a similar memo to address concerns regarding the use of RTI to delay or deny timely evaluations and special education services for preschool children (retrieved from: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ idea-­files/osep-­memo-­16-­07-­response-­to-­intervention-­rti-­and-­preschool-­services/). Finally, research in real-­ world settings has revealed serious limitations regarding the implementation of RTI programs in ­ CAUTION schools, finding insignificant or even negative effects on achievement, especially in the early grades. In addition, as with the abilRTI is an instructional model, not a diagnostic model. RTI ity–achievement discrepancy procedure, many struggling students does not tell us the reasons why a student is failing to make adequate reading progress. fail to meet cut points for service provision (Balu et  al.,  2015). Because effective interventions for children with dyslexia are ­expensive and often not available in schools, RTI continues to be used despite its documented shortcomings for struggling readers (B. A. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020).

DON’T FORGET

DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS  201

DOES THE STUDENT HAVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A STUDENT WITH DYSLEXIA?

Today, the term “dyslexia” is being used in some schools. This label not only helps students to receive the services and accommodations that they need and are legally entitled to, but it also helps students to understand that their reading struggles are not their fault (Malchow, 2014). Other schools, however, use terms like “specific learning disability in the area of reading.” IDEA 2004 identifies eight areas of eligibility for the category of a specific learning disability: basic reading skills, reading fluency, reading comprehension, math calculation skills, math problem-­solving, written expression, oral expression, and listening comprehension. The most likely areas of eligibility for a student with dyslexia are basic reading skills and reading fluency with secondary problems in reading comprehension and written expression. Although nearly all individuals with dyslexia have weaknesses in spelling, spelling falls under the broader ­category of written expression. Although some public schools do not use the term “dyslexia,” all school personnel should be familiar with the characteristics of dyslexia CAUTION and know how to provide students with help. Initially, close monitorThe term “dyslexia” is still not used in some public schools. ing of the child’s reading performance in relation to classmates is needed. The earliest warning signs may be noticed in the child’s oral language performance, such as difficulty producing speech, or in the child’s struggle learning to rhyme words. Also, a child with dyslexia may not want to look at print when a caregiver is reading a book. Once letters are introduced, the child may exhibit little interest in learning the letters and may demonstrate poor knowledge of letter sounds and letter names. When the student is expected to read and spell, difficulties with both tasks may be noted. As time goes on, the student will lack speed when reading and writing, demonstrating limited fluency. A comprehensive evaluation is needed to determine if the student displays a pattern of ­performance that suggests the presence of a specific learning disability, such as dyslexia. Dyslexia is a complex condition with multiple and variable symptoms (Pennington et al., 2019). Some students with dyslexia have specific linguistic risk factors, such as poor phonological awareness or slow rapid automatized naming (RAN), that may affect reading and/or spelling development. Some students may demonstrate areas of strength, such as in oral language, reasoning, and/or mathematics. Evaluators must also be alert for secondary issues, such as problems with reading comprehension due to poor decoding or problems in written expression due to poor spelling. As described in Chapters 5 and 6, Rapid Reference 14.2 lists important areas to consider and evaluate when determining whether a student has dyslexia. Careful consideration of each individual’s symptoms is essential for diagnosing dyslexia. Special considerations are also needed when evaluating gifted students for dyslexia or students who are English learners (ELs).

Rapid Reference 14.2 Relevant Areas to Evaluate When Determining the Presence of Dyslexia Linguistic Risk Factors 1. Phonological awareness. 2. Orthographic processing. 3. Rapid automatized naming. 4. Processing speed. 5. Working memory. Reading and Spelling 1. Phoneme–grapheme knowledge. 2. Word decoding (real word and pseudoword reading—­untimed and timed). 3. Reading fluency. 4. Spelling. Possible Cognitive and Academic Strengths 1. General intelligence. 2. Oral language (oral expression and/or listening comprehension). 3. Reasoning. 4. Mathematics (calculation and/or mathematic problem-­solving).

202  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 14.3 Characteristics of Twice-­Exceptional Students • Superior oral vocabulary. • Advanced ideas and opinions. • High levels of creativity and problem-­solving ability. • Extremely curious, imaginative, and questioning. • Discrepant verbal and performance skills. • Clear peaks and valleys in cognitive test profile. • Wide range of interests not related to school. • Specific talent or consuming interest area. • Sophisticated sense of humor.

Gifted Students with Dyslexia. Gifted students who also have dyslexia are often described as being twice-­exceptional learners. Although they may struggle in high school, many of these students are quite successful in postsecondary settings as long as advisors help them to select courses that align with their strengths (McClurg et al., 2021). Unfortunately, when a student is gifted and also has ­dyslexia, it is possible to miss either the dyslexia or the giftedness. A gifted student with dyslexia may still excel in some subject areas, such as in math. It is important to ensure that students who are gifted in mathematics are not penalized by their lower reading skills (Bell et al., 2015). Rapid Reference 14.3 presents many of the characteristics of twice-­exceptional students as described in a resource by the IDA (2020, p.2). In some cases, the difficulties that twice-­exceptional students experience with reading are completely overlooked. Their reading comprehension may appear intact because the student can use language and good reasoning skills to guess words that make sense when decoding. These bright individuals with dyslexia use their strengths in oral language and knowledge to compensate for their weak decoding skills (Uhry & Clark, 2005). They may even skip numerous words while reading, but they are smart enough to still get the gist of the passage. Any difficulties noted in their decoding or spelling are often attributed to other factors, such as carelessness, inattention, or limited motivation. So, these individuals are often told by a well-­meaning parent or teacher that they should try harder or that they are not working up to their potential. Experts recognize that these students may have a unique set of needs that cannot be adequately explained by either their ­giftedness or dyslexia; this interaction is characterized by masking where the students’ weaknesses are often hidden by their giftedness (Hays et al., 2017). Thus, their difficulties with reading can go undetected until upper elementary school or even later. This masking of ability and disability warrants concern if RTI is used as the only protocol for the identification of dyslexia (Crepeau-­Hobson & Bianco, 2011). In most cases, twice-­exceptional students are more accurately identified using an ability– achievement discrepancy rather than an RTI process (Pennington et al., 2019). The term “stealth dyslexia” has also been used to describe these highly intelligent children who compensate for their reading Be alert to possible secondary symptoms such as reading ­challenges with their advanced oral language and good memory. The comprehension and written expression difficulties resulting following two websites provide further descriptions of the characterfrom poor decoding and encoding skills. istics of stealth dyslexia:

DON’T FORGET

https://www.mnneuropsychology.com/articles/Stealth_Dyslexia.html and https://jimforgan.com/what-­is-­stealth-­dyslexia/ On the other hand, some gifted individuals have severe problems in spelling and decoding. These individuals may be identified as having dyslexia, but their giftedness is overlooked. Further, depending on the criteria established for determining eligibility, the reading performance of the gifted student may not be low enough to meet eligibility criteria. For example, in some situations, a score falling below the normal range (standard score less than 85) may be required to establish eligibility. On untimed tests, a gifted student with dyslexia may have performance falling within the average range, particularly if the student has received tutoring in reading. S. Shaywitz and Shaywitz (2020) explain: “There is no one single test score that ensures a diagnosis of dyslexia. It is the overall picture that matters. An extremely bright child who has a reading score in the average range but who struggles and cannot learn to read fluently … has dyslexia” (p. 166).

DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS  203

It is important, then, to consider the effect of prior interventions as well as to assess accuracy, reading rate, and oral reading when diagnosing gifted students with dyslexia. In addition, in order to identify students who are twice-­exceptional, a measure of cognitive abilities must be administered. This information will provide teachers and parents with an understanding of the variations among the students’ cognitive, linguistic, and academic abilities. To meet the needs of twice-­exceptional learners, it is necessary to create a balance between attention to strengths and weaknesses within an authentic, challenging curricula (Crepeau-­Hobson & Bianco, 2011). Truly, parents and teachers of these students must ensure that both the ability and the disability are addressed (IDA, 2020). Within an RTI-­ only framework, these students will be overlooked (Ofiesh, 2006). For further information, the 2e Newsletter provides bimonthly articles for teachers and parents that address issues related to twice-­exceptional students (https://www.2enewsletter.com/topic store_ subscribe.html). Students with Dyslexia Who Are Also English Learners. ELs present and face unique challenges when learning to read in English. (See Chapter 13 of this book for detailed information about ELs and dyslexia). At times, their struggles with learning to read are attributed to lack of English language proficiency. In this situation, valuable time may be lost before appropriate interventions are employed. Research indicates that ELs are identified as having a learning disability 2–3 years later than most English-­only students (McCardle et al., 2005). It is important to consider students’ proficiency and instructional history in their first language (L1) to more clearly understand what is happening in the second language (L2). For example, if individuals manifest reading problems in L1 and L2, then they may have dyslexia. Conversely, if the individual has strong oral language and reading in L1, then it would seem those skills should transfer to L2. This may not always be the case, however, depending upon the type of script and regularity of the student’s L1 and L2. Just as for English-­only students, early identification and intervention are critical for EL students with dyslexia. Unfortunately, despite the substantial numbers of language minority students attending schools throughout the world, little empirical research exists to support the practice of identifying disabilities in these students (Francis, 2019). ACCOMMODATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS

Students with dyslexia will often require accommodations and modifications in their schoolwork and school assignments, and these are often written on their IEPs or 504 plans. The difference between accommodations and modifications is that accommodations do not alter the essential elements of the task, whereas modifications alter the task demands in some way. For example, an accommodation would be allowing a student with dyslexia to listen to a book rather than read the book. A modification would be assigning a student with dyslexia an easier book to read or only assigning a certain number of pages to read. When adjustments in schoolwork are written on these plans, students are provided with legal protections; that is, the accommodations and/or modifications are nonnegotiable. For example, a Accommodations and modifications that are written on IEPs and 504 plans must be provided. teacher cannot refuse to provide a student with an oral examination if this accommodation is part of the IEP or 504 plan. Sometimes, however, teachers might not be aware that they must provide these accommodations, or they may not know what accommodations are listed on an IEP. For example, Matthew, a fourth-­grade student with memory problems affecting both reading and math had an accommodation on his IEP saying that he could use a calculator for solving math calculations. His teacher felt that he would never learn his math facts if he relied on a calculator all of the time. Matthew asked his teacher if he could use a calculator for his math homework. She replied, “Yes, as long as you show your work.” How do you show your work when you are using a calculator? Figure 14.2 illustrates the paper he handed in the next day. One has to appreciate his literal understanding of his teacher’s request. When considering the unique characteristics of each student, the first goal is to identify specific strengths and how those strengths CAUTION can be used to enhance the student’s performance; the second goal is to identify the weaker areas and abilities so that appropriate Accommodations and modifications are designed to “level accommodations and modifications can be developed and implethe playing field” and provide equal opportunity to students with dyslexia, not to provide an unfair advantage. Students mented. In order to be successful, many students with dyslexia will with dyslexia are provided with extra time because they need need both accommodations and modifications in both in-­school this extra time to demonstrate their knowledge. and homework assignments throughout their school careers. Rapid Reference 14.4 provides examples of appropriate accommodations and modifications. The most critical accommodation for a person with dyslexia is extended time because dyslexia robs a person of time (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020). Ideally, individuals with dyslexia should always be provided with enough time to finish exams. Gernsbacher et al. (2020) provided the following four reasons why students with disabilities should not be given time-­limited tests. Time-­limited exams

DON’T FORGET

204  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Figure 14.2  Matthew’s Math Homework

Rapid Reference 14.4 Examples of Accommodations and Modifications Accommodations Extended time. Oral examinations. Books on CD or partner reading. Use of a word processor. Use of a scribe for recording answers. Speech-­to-­text applications. Text-­to-­speech applications. Modifications Shortened assignments. Books selected based upon the instructional reading level. Spelling words based on present performance level or common words misspelled in writing. Use of a spelling flow list. Alternate assignments (e.g., build a model rather than write a report). Course substitutions (e.g., computer class to replace a foreign language class).

are: (1) not a valid reflection of knowledge and mastery; (2) less reliable, and the estimates of the reliability are artificially inflated due to artifactual consistency in students’ rate of work rather than authentic consistency in their level of knowledge; (3) less inclusive, as they exclude students with documented disabilities who are provided with additional test-­taking time from participating in test-­taking classrooms; and (4) less equitable, as they can affect students who are learning English, students from underrepresented backgrounds, and students with dyslexia who do not have documentation of diagnosis because of stigma or the financial expense of an evaluation. EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF DYSLEXIA

Although dyslexia is not an emotional disorder, it can create profound social and emotional difficulties for an individual. In fact, Fernald (1943) believed that the emotional impact of a reading disorder was as problematic as the disorder itself. An individual with dyslexia may experience anxiety, anger, depression, or suffer from lack of self-­esteem. Findings from a longitudinal study indicated that increased anxiety was significantly associated with reduced academic performance over time in students with reading disabilities (Hossain et al., 2021). In addition, these emotional difficulties can lead to peer-­related problems, such as bullying and teasing, both in the classroom and on the playground.

DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS  205

Consider Aiden, a bright, verbal child who seemed to have typical-­to-­advanced development prior to entering school. When r­ eading instruction began, Aiden struggled for possibly the first time. He thinks, “I’ve always been able to understand things; why can’t I get this? I thought I was smart, but maybe I’m not. Maybe I’m dumb.” And so it begins. Parents and teachers who know that Aiden is quite bright may make the assumption that he is just not trying. Aiden knows that he has failed to meet the expectations of these important adults, leading to emotional pain and frustration. Further complicating things, Aiden will, at times and on certain tasks, such as mathematics and science projects, do well, exceeding expectations. His high performance, co-­existing with his unexpected low performance on reading and spelling tasks, is puzzling and frustrating not only for Aiden, but also for his parents and teachers. Children with dyslexia experience a wide range of emotional responses at school, including feelings of indifference, inferiority, ­loneliness, and isolation (Morgan & Klein,  2000). As an individual with dyslexia continues through school, feelings of shame and embarrassment may intensify due to the ongoing difficulties that the individual experiences with reading and spelling. The individual tries to hide the reading problem and may end up acting out or withdrawing. These serious short-­and long-­term effects of dyslexia are documented by a growing body of evidence (Rose, 2009). The following quotes from people with dyslexia provide insight into the emotional impact dyslexia may have on a person’s life. “A teacher sent the following note home with a six-­year-­old boy: ‘He is too stupid to learn.’ That boy was Thomas A. Edison.” —­Thomas Edison, inventor “My childhood was extremely lonely. I was dyslexic and lots of kids made fun of me. That experience made me tough inside, because you learn to quietly accept ridicule.” —­Tom Cruise, actor “If I wasn’t dyslexic, I probably wouldn’t have won the games. If I had been a better reader, then that would have come easily, sports would have come easily … and I never would have realized that the way you get ahead in life is hard work.” —­Caitlyn Jenner, Olympic athlete “I couldn’t read. I just scraped by. My solution back then was to read classic comic books because I could figure them out from the context of the pictures. Now I listen to books on tape.” —­Charles Schwab, entrepreneur “When I had dyslexia, they didn’t diagnose it as that. It was frustrating and embarrassing. I could tell you a lot of horror stories about what you feel like on the inside.” —­Nolan Ryan, major league baseball pitcher “Kids made fun of me because I was dark-­skinned, had a wide nose, and was dyslexic. Even as an actor, it took me a long time to realize why words and letters got jumbled in my mind and came out differently.” —­Danny Glover, actor “At the age of 12, I was considered uneducable mentally retarded. At the age of 38 I could score 169 on the IQ test but I couldn’t read a menu in a restaurant. What the average person could read in 5 minutes would take me an hour.” —­Ronald Davis, author “I was in special ed classes from the time I flunked the second grade. It didn’t help my self-­esteem growing up with the stigma of being ‘learning handicapped.’ Even though deep inside I knew I was smart, I just couldn’t prove it through the ‘normal’ channels of testing the way other kids could.” —­Stacey Poulos, author “When I was in the fourth grade, my self-­esteem was down around my ankles. And I couldn’t read. It’s still difficult for me to spell, to do math, so I always thought it was important to help young people understand that they were great just the way they were. Self-­esteem is the beginning and the end of living.” —­Henry Winkler, actor Early identification of dyslexia is critical so that the individual not only learns to read, but also understands why reading is hard, so that these social and emotional difficulties can be mitigated. If students understand what dyslexia is and how it affects their reading and

206  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

spelling development, then they can learn to be self-­advocates. Parental support is another key factor that helps children develop a healthy perspective of self; parents or guardians can advocate for their children in school and provide emotional support (Wiener, 2003). As we noted in Chapter 4, parents of children with dyslexia may also have reading problems, and therefore, may experience difficulty in assisting their children with school and homework (Bonifacci et al., 2014). In addition, classroom teachers can be instrumental in helping and supporting students with dyslexia. Clemens and Vaughn (2023) explain: “Classroom teachers are often their primary reading teachers as well as the educators who have the most influence on their self-­worth. Classroom teachers can be a tremendous source of social–emotional and educational support for students with dyslexia. Armed with the knowledge and skills of effective reading i­ nstruction, classroom teachers can alter the learning and life trajectories of students with dyslexia” (p. 186). Attributes such as having a sense of control, growth mindset, and hopeful thinking, as well as solid friendships and supportive classrooms, can help students with dyslexia develop socio-­emotional resilience (Haft et  al.,  2016). Emotional and self-­ esteem support, Without systematic intervention and home and school supintervention and academic support, and early diagnosis are critical for port, dyslexia can lead to serious short-­and long-­term social reducing the negative impact that dyslexia can have on both social and emotional problems. and emotional development (Livingston et al., 2018).

DON’T FORGET

IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER TRAINING

Most people have heard the saying, “If you can read this, thank a teacher.” Unfortunately, the truth is that many teachers are not adequately prepared to teach reading. They may even have been taught that dyslexia does not exist, or children will outgrow their reading difficulties (Seidenberg,  2017). Too many teachers are still not receiving adequate training in evidence-­based reading instruction. National findings from the Teacher Prep Review (Ellis et  al.,  2023) that included 693 programs in 50 states and the District of Columbia found that: (a) only 25% of programs adequately addressed all five core components of reading instruction, (b) phonemic awareness received the least attention across programs, (c) nearly one-­third of programs did not provide teachers with any practice, and (d) programs provided little preparation for teaching reading to English learners, struggling readers, and speakers of English language varieties. Not only are most teacher preparation courses lacking, but also there is a scarcity of professional growth opportunities available to teachers once they graduate and are employed in the schools. Consider the following quotation from Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., of North Carolina: “Professional learning in its current state is poorly conceived and deeply flawed. Teachers lack time and opportunities to view each other’s classrooms, learn from mentors, and work collaboratively. The support and training they receive is episodic, myopic, and often meaningless” (Darling-­Hammond et al., 2009, p. 2). This problem is universal. Results from a survey of elementary teachers in Australia indicated that teachers believed that their most common source of knowledge about reading instruction was from their own personal research rather than their university teacher education (Smith et al., 2023). Rapid Reference 14.5 lists several key findings from Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad published by the National Staff Development Council and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University (Darling-­Hammond et al., 2009). More recently, the Research Partnership for Professional Learning published a guide on promising features of professional learning that improve teacher practices and student performance (Hill & Papay, 2022). Rapid Reference 14.6 provides a brief overview of their recommendations. For children with dyslexia, Moats (1999) observed: “Teaching reading IS rocket science.” Over 160 years ago, Carlyle said that it was the business of schools to teach children to read (Stanger & Donahue, 1937), and teachers must be reading experts to accomplish this daunting task. Unfortunately, even today, many teachers lack the necessary knowledge of language structure and the components

Rapid Reference 14.5 Select Key Findings About Professional Development for Teachers (Darling-­Hammond et al., 2009) • While teachers typically need substantial professional development in a given area (close to 50 hours) to improve their skills and their students’ learning, most professional development opportunities in the United States are much shorter. • Teachers in the U.S. say that much of the professional development available to them is not useful. • U.S. teachers, unlike many of their colleagues around the world, bear much of the cost of their professional development. • Sustained and intensive professional development for teachers is related to student achievement gains.

DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS  207

Rapid Reference 14.6 Research Partnership for Professional Learning: Recommendations for Teacher Training (Hill & Papay, 2022). 1. Time for teachers to collaborate around instructional improvement. 2. One-­to-­one coaching where coaches provide direct feedback to teachers. 3. Follow-­up meetings to address teacher’s concerns and questions. 4. Focus on subject-­specific instructional practices rather than just content knowledge. 5. Provision of concrete assessment and instructional materials. 6. Provision of professional development that focuses on building relationships with students.

of effective reading instruction, and they do not know how to analyze the meaning of errors in student work samples (e.g., Moats, 1994, 2009; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Spencer et al., 2008). In one study, elementary school teachers displayed implicit skills related to certain basic language concepts (i.e., syllable counting), but failed to demonstrate explicit knowledge of others (i.e., phonics principles). In addition, teachers did not understand that poor phonological awareness was a major contributing factor to dyslexia (Washburn et al., 2011). Also, many teachers do not have a good understanding of morphology. Washburn and Mulcahy (2019) found that both general and special education teachers, at both elementary and secondary levels, had difficulty identifying morphemes in both simple and complex words. Cohen et al. (2017) compared teachers from two schools based on their use (n = 60) or nonuse (n = 54) of a code-­based reading program. The majority of teachers in both conditions did not possess the necessary knowledge or application skills to effectively teach struggling readers. These findings suggest that the use of a scripted, code-­based reading program does not ensure that the teachers who are implementing the methodology have an understanding of language structure, phonics, and other code-­based concepts. Without this type of knowledge, it proves difficult for teachers to provide feedback and supplemental instruction when needed. Perhaps of greater concern is that most teachers also lack knowledge regarding the characteristics of students with dyslexia. White et al. (2020) administered the Knowledge and Insights of Dyslexia Survey (KIDS) to 243 university students. The survey responses of 154 students majoring in degrees in education were compared with the responses of 89 students majoring in architecture. There were no significant differences in knowledge between the students in the two majors. In addition, participants knew the least about the treatment of dyslexia and demonstrated confusion about the characteristics of dyslexia, with most believing that individuals with dyslexia “see and read backwards.” In another study, Peltier et al. (2022) found that teachers’ confidence and amount of previous training significantly predicted their knowledge of dyslexia, but their years of teaching experience did not. They concluded that teachers’ understandings of dyslexia are complicated, as they hold scientific conceptions alongside misconceptions. Overall, current research around the world suggests that there is a universal need for the provision of explicit teacher training on the characteristics and treatment of dyslexia (Mather et al., 2020; Washburn et al., 2014; Yin et al., 2020). Teachers need specific knowledge of the science of reading as well as language structure, including phonology, orthography, and morphology, in order to teach reading effectively. Fortunately, teachers may enroll in specific training, such as that provided by Wilson Language Training® (wilsonlanguage.com), or they can take specific online courses on language structure from organizations and publishers such as the International Dyslexia Association (dyslexiaida.org), Neuhaus Education Center (neuhaus.org), The Reading League (thereadingleague.org), MindPlay (mindplay.com), and AIM Academy (aimpa.org). AIM offers a variety of professional development courses, including Pathways to Proficient Reading, Pathways to Proficient Writing, Steps to Literacy® online training modules, and course bundles, including Growing Proficient Readers with Dr. Linnea Ehri. In-­depth teacher training is also provided through the Lexia LETRS® (Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling) training program (www.lexialearning.com). The Reading League Compass also provides resources and information for educators, administrators, and policy makers regarding professional preparation programs and evidence-­aligned reading instruction (https://www.thereadingleague.org/compass/). To address the inadequacy of teacher preparation in reading, the IDA developed the Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (IDA, 2010, 2018; Moats et  al.,  2010). The 2018 revision was led by Jule McCombes-­Tolis, Ph.D., the Chief Academic Officer of Educator Training Initiatives at IDA, and Louisa Moats, Ed.D., who was the chair of the original standards development committee. It presents five main standards. Standard 1 addresses foundational concepts about reading development and difficulties. Standard 2 covers knowledge of different reading profiles, including dyslexia. Standard 3 pertains to assessment knowledge. Standard 4 addresses Structured Literacy teaching, offering detailed guidance for providing effective instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics,

208  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

Rapid Reference 14.7 Principles of Effective Instruction for Students with Dyslexia Reading and spelling skills are taught explicitly and directly. Demonstration, guided practice, feedback, and independent practice are provided. Instruction is sequential with careful planning and pacing. Instruction is built around small steps that connect old learning to new learning. Systematic review is provided to ensure mastery of previously learned material. Multimodal instruction is provided if needed. Progress is monitored and evaluated frequently. Affective factors are addressed.

word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, listening and reading comprehension, and written expression. Standard 4 also offers guidance for teachers engaged in fieldwork or practicum (e.g., interpreting assessments, planning differentiated instruction, designing lessons, and providing corrective feedback). Standard 5 delineates professional ethical standards. The complete document is available online at https://dyslexiaida.org/knowledge-­and-­practices/. Children with dyslexia require intensive, systematic instruction by highly qualified teachers to make progress in learning to read (Binks-­Cantrell et al., 2020; Budin et al., 2010; Moats, 1994, 2009, 2019). Rapid Reference 14.7, adapted from Uhry and Clark (2005), provides a reminder of the principles of effective instruction for students with dyslexia. Research has identified effective methods for teaching reading and spelling (see Chapters 7–11), and numerous effective commercial programs exist for helping children with dyslexia improve their skills (see Appendix B). Much is known about reading and how to teach it effectively to students with dyslexia. With strong policies, states can improve the quality of teacher preparation for reading instruction (Ellis et al., 2023). Teachers who are prepared to implement systematic, explicit instructional approaches will reduce the prevalence of children who struggle to learn to read (Al Otaiba et al., 2019). Catts and Petscher (2022) noted:“The most notable factor that can have a positive impact on risk for dyslexia is instruction” (p. 176). Betsy started her teaching career as a second-­grade teacher. After several years, she got a master’s degree in special education and then CAUTION became an elementary special education teacher for 30 years. She decided that, prior to retiring, she wanted to go back and teach second-­ “The primary job of teaching a dyslexic child to read should grade for another few years. We asked Betsy, “If everyone had your not be left to classroom aides, peer tutors, or teachers who kind of training, would we really need special education teachers?” She do not possess the necessary knowledge or experience” (S. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2020, p. 283). replied, “Absolutely. I know exactly what each child in this classroom needs, but I don’t have the time or resources to address all of those needs.” As Betsy explained, the challenges for our educational systems are to ensure not only that teachers receive the necessary training but also that they have enough time to teach children how to read. Carreker (2018a) states: “A student’s ultimate success in reading is predicated on Students with dyslexia need highly trained reading teachers. knowledgeable and skilled teachers who explicitly and systematically teach reliable language patterns and structures using research-­based instructional practices” (p. 378). Both researchers and teachers must contribute to closing the gap between research and practice to enhance teacher training and knowledge (Binks-­Cantrell et al., 2020). Children who are behind in reading contend daily with the tyranny of time as the pedagogical clock continues to tick mercilessly (Kame’enui, 1993). These children require reading instruction that is more explicit, more comprehensive, more intensive, and delivered by trained teachers (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). Because of their challenges with reading and spelling, students with dyslexia often experience frustration, depression, reduced motivation, and anxiety. Not surprisingly, as a student’s academic performance improves over time, their anxiety decreases (Hossain et al., 2021). Thus, it is important to address the reading difficulties, as well as any emotional or behavioral problems a student experiences, and ensure cooperation exists among the child, teacher, and parents in both assessment

DON’T FORGET

DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS  209

Rapid Reference 14.8 Seven Instincts that Increase the Chance of School and Life Success (Goldstein & Brooks, 2021) 1. Intuitive optimism is the belief that gratifying and successful outcomes can be achieved despite existing challenges. 2. Intrinsic motivation posits that children are motivated to engage in tasks when certain inner needs are being met without the presence of contingent rewards. 3. Compassionate empathy is composed of two main dimensions: empathy is the ability to understand the world of another person both on an affective and cognitive level, while compassion involves using that understanding to initiate actions that express caring toward others. 4. Simultaneous intelligence is how different pieces of information fit together into a whole in order to understand, interpret, and solve problems. 5. Genuine altruism is an unselfish concern for others, represented by acting to alleviate their distress with no expectation of reciprocation. 6. Virtuous responsibility is the ethical and moral responsibility we have to enhance the lives of family, friends, and members of our society. 7. Measured fairness is an important foundation of morality and the evolution of cooperation in human beings.

and support planning (Aro et al., 2022). Both parents and teachers must help children build resilience and maintain their motivation and desire to learn. Results from a meta-­analysis indicate that, in addition to reading interventions, the inclusion of motivational strategies, such as ­having students set goals and monitor their progress, improves outcomes in word reading (Cho et al., 2023). These findings remind us of the importance of addressing the motivational challenges of students with dyslexia. In their book, Tenacity in Children, Goldstein and Brooks (2021) described seven instincts that have existed for thousands of years and are central to shaping child development and helping all children make a successful transition into adulthood. These instincts are described as an intuitive way of thinking that increases the chances of both school and life success. They explain how parents and teachers can nurture the development of each one. Rapid Reference 14.8 provides brief definitions they used to describe these seven traits. For the well-­being of students with dyslexia, additional factors of the utmost importance include parental support, friendships, and school-­connectedness (Wilmot et al., 2023). The following quotes from individuals with dyslexia provide hope and inspiration for positive outcomes. “I didn’t succeed despite my  dyslexia, but because of it. It wasn’t my deficit, but my advantage. Although there are ­neurological trade-­offs that require that I work creatively [and] smarter in reading, writing, and speaking, I would never wish to be any other way than my awesome self. I love being me, regardless of the early challenges I had faced.” —­Scott Sonnon, martial arts world champion “The advantage of dyslexia is that my brain puts information in my head in a different way.” —­Whoopi Goldberg, actress and singer “Dyslexia is not a pigeonhole to say you can’t do anything. It is an opportunity and a possibility to learn differently. You have magical brains, they just process differently. Don’t feel like you should be held back by it.” —­Princess Beatrice of the British royal family “It is more common than you can imagine. You are not alone. And while you will have this the rest of your life, you can dart between the raindrops to get where you want to go and it will not hold you back.” —­Steven Spielberg, award-­winning director “If anyone ever puts you down for having dyslexia, don’t believe them. Being dyslexic can actually be a big advantage, and it has certainly helped me.” —­Richard Branson, Virgin CEO

210  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

“The real fear that I have for dyslexic people is not that they have to struggle with jumbled input or that they can’t spell, but that they will quit on themselves before they get out of school. Parents have to create victories whenever they can, whether it’s music, sports, or art. You want your dyslexic child to be able to say: ‘Yeah, reading’s hard. But I have these other things that I can do.’” —­Stephen J. Cannell, Emmy-­winning TV producer “Dyslexic kids are creative, ‘outside-­the-­box’ thinkers. They have to be, because they don’t see or solve problems the same way other kids do. In school, unfortunately, they are sometimes written off as lazy, unmotivated, rude, or even stupid. They aren’t. Making Percy dyslexic was my way of honoring the potential of all the kids I’ve known who have those conditions. It’s not a bad thing to be different. Sometimes, it’s the mark of being very, very talented.” —­Rick Riordan, American author “When a child knows that he or she is dyslexic, that it’s the way their brain is programmed, and it’s not their fault, that makes all the difference in the world.” —­Philip Schultz, American author “Remember to look up at the stars and not down at the feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life may seem, there is always something you can do and ­succeed at. It matters that you don’t just give up.” —­Professor Stephen Hawking Adapted from: https://www.understood.org/en/articles/great-­quotes-­about-­dyslexia https://www.readandspell.com/us/quotes-­about-­dyslexia https://www.therandomvibez.com/dyslexia-­quotes/ CONCLUSION

Schools and teachers play an essential role in identifying children with reading difficulties, including dyslexia, and are responsible for teaching them to read. As described by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 2022), success with this important goal has been limited (retrieved from: nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/). In the most recent report, approximately 39% of all fourth graders read at a “below basic” level. Reading scores declined compared to 2019 and were no different than the scores in 1992. Clearly, many students struggle with reading, and these struggles impact all academic areas. In addition, many short-­and long-­ term emotional and social issues arise when students struggle with reading, especially when they lack a clear understanding of why reading is so difficult. Whereas federal and state laws mandate certain rights and protections for individuals with disabilities, including those with dyslexia, schools have focused more on eligibility determination than on diagnosis and treatment. Times are beginning to change. Research is informing instruction. Educators are implementing effective methods and programs. High-­ quality instruction can prevent some reading problems and reduce the impact of more severe reading difficulties. The challenge is to ensure that teachers really know the science of reading and the elements of effective instruction so that they can teach children with dyslexia how to read. To meet the needs of students with dyslexia, it is necessary to (a) identify their difficulties at a young age; (b) implement targeted, intensive, systematic instruction that represents evidence-­based best practices; (c) monitor progress frequently and adjust instruction as needed; (d) ensure that teachers have the requisite skills and knowledge to deliver high-­quality instruction; and (e) provide a language-­ rich, safe, motivating environment for learning to read (Mather & Urso, 2008). With the proper help and support, many individuals with dyslexia have successful careers and lives. Hallowell (2003), a  ­well-­known psychiatrist, recalled how he struggled to learn to read in first grade. As he tried to pronounce the words, his teacher, Mrs. Eldredge, put her arm around him protectively and took away his fear of learning to read. He still recalls the power of her arm and the effect it had on his development: “None of this would have happened had it not been for Mrs. Eldredge’s arm. That arm has stayed around me ever since first grade. Even though Mrs. Eldredge resides now in heaven, perhaps reclining on an actual cloud as I write these words, she continues to help me, her arm to protect me, and I continue to thank her for it, almost every day” (p. 7).

DYSLEXIA IN THE SCHOOLS  211

  TEST YOURSELF 1. Dyslexia is often first noticed after a child enters school.True or false? 2. Regardless of intelligence, a child who hasn’t developed proficiency as a reader by the end of third grade will fall behind in all academic areas because

a. b. c. d.

children have difficulty learning to read after they reach the third grade. reading weaknesses may not be evident after third grade. the ability to read is fundamental to and facilitates all academic learning. reading is not explicitly taught after third grade.

3. Public schools do not have a legal obligation to identify and serve children with specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia. True or false? 4. Which is not a method being used to determine eligibility for services under the specific learning disabilities category in schools?

a. b. c. d.

A discrepancy between ability (IQ) and achievement. A pattern of strengths and weaknesses among cognitive or achievement scores. Informal measures of phonemic awareness, basic reading skills, and spelling. Evidence of failure to respond to a targeted intervention (under RTI models).

5. Which of the following statements about response-­to-­intervention (RTI) is not accurate?

a. b. c. d.

RTI is an instructional model that helps prevent learning failures. RTI provides high-­quality instruction to all students. RTI usually consists of several tiers of intervention. An RTI process alone can accurately diagnose dyslexia.

6. The term dyslexia is not used in some public schools.True or false? 7. A student’s reading development can be affected by

a. b. c. d.

an inadequate language base. the lack of appropriate instruction. low overall cognitive skills that affect all academic areas. All of the above.

8. An individualized education program (IEP) is required for students

a. b. c. d.

identified as having a disability under Section 504. failing to respond to instruction in districts implementing RTI. found eligible for special education services under IDEA 2004. who have dyslexia but are not eligible for special education.

9. A student who has dyslexia and is gifted

a. b. c. d.

may be eligible for special education services. may only be perceived as having dyslexia, with giftedness being overlooked. may only be perceived as gifted, with dyslexia being overlooked. All of the above.

10. As a result of having dyslexia, an individual may experience short-­and long-­term social and emotional difficulties.True or false? 11. The earliest warning signs of dyslexia may be noticed in the child’s

a. b. c. d.

low motivation. oral language performance, such as difficulty with speech or trouble learning to rhyme. refusal to complete academic work related to reading and writing. inability to write in full sentences.

12. Students who have dyslexia may demonstrate areas of strength, such as strengths in oral language, reasoning, and/or mathematics. True or false? 13. Which of the following is true about teaching reading?

a. b. c. d. e.

Many teachers are not trained to teach reading to children with dyslexia. It is important to understand the science of reading in order to teach it. Knowledge of language structure is important for teaching children with dyslexia. All of the above. Both b and c.

212  ESSENTIALS OF DYSLEXIA ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION

14. A reading specialist has knowledge and understanding of

a. b. c. d. e. f.

phonology. orthography and morphology. semantics. syntax. All of the above. Only a and b.

15. Children with dyslexia require intensive instruction from highly qualified teachers.True or false? Answers: 1. True; 2. c; 3. False; 4. c; 5. d; 6. True; 7. d; 8. c; 9. d; 10. True; 11. b; 12. True; 13. d; 14. e; 15. True.

Appendix A DESCRIPTIONS OF TESTS

Appendix A provides examples of tests that can be helpful when evaluating an individual for dyslexia. Each assessment measures one or more important aspects of linguistic processing, reading, and spelling that are typically impacted in individuals with dyslexia. This list is not intended to be exhaustive but only to provide descriptions of tests that can be useful in dyslexia evaluations. In most cases, the information presented here was provided by one of the authors of the test or the publisher. Test Title (listed in alphabetical order)

Age/Grade Range

Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, 4th rev. (Arizona-­4)

A: 1–6 to 21–11

Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, 2 ed. (CASL-­2)

A: 3–0 to 21–11

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2nd ed. (CTOPP-­2)

A: 4–0 to 24–11

Early Reading Assessment (ERA)

A: 4–0 to 7–11

EarlyBird Dyslexia and Early Literacy Screener

Gray Diagnostic Reading Tests, 2nd ed. (GDRT-­2)

A: 4 to 6 G: PreK–1 A: 4 to 21 G: PreK–College A: 4 to 21 G: PreK–College A: 6–0 to 13–11

Gray Oral Reading Test, 5th ed. (GORT-­5)

A: 6–0 to 23–11

nd

Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR) Feifer Assessment of Writing (FAW)

Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT)

A: 7–0 to 25–11

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd ed. (KTEA™-­3)

A: 4 to 25 G: PreK–12 A: 14–0 to 24–11 G: High school–College A: 5–0 to 21–11

Nelson–Denny Reading Test, Forms I & J (NDRT) Oral Passage Understanding Scale (OPUS) Oral and Written Language Scales, 2nd ed. (OWLS-­II)

Pages

Phonological and Print Awareness Scale (PPA Scale)

A: 3 to 21 (Listening Comprehension/Oral Expression) A: 5 to 21 (Reading Comprehension/Written Expression A: 3–6 to 8–11

Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST)

G: K–Adult

Process Assessment of the Learner, 2 ed.: Diagnostic Assessment for Reading and Writing (PAL™-­II RW) Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Tests (RAN/RAS) Reynolds Dyslexia Risk Assessment (RDRA)

G: K–6

nd

Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™ Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language and Literacy, 3rd ed. (SPELL-­3)

A: 5–0 to 18–11 A: 4–0 to 7–11 G: PreK–2nd A: 5–9; 14–65; 18–68 (Corrections Form) G: K–3 G: 2–12 and adults (continued )

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 213

214  APPENDIX A

Test Title (listed in alphabetical order)

Age/Grade Range

Star Phonics Tests of Dyslexia (TOD) Test of Early Reading Ability, 4th ed. (TERA-­4) Test of Orthographic Competence, 2nd ed. (TOC-­2) Test of Reading Comprehension, 4th ed. (TORC-­4) Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency, 2nd ed. (TOSCRF-­2) Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency, 2nd ed. (TOSWRF-­2) Test of Word Reading Efficiency, 2nd ed. (TOWRE-­2) Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th ed. (WIAT-­4)

G: 1–6+ A: 5–0 to 85–11 A: 4–0 to 8–11 A: 8–0 to 24–11 A: 7–0 to 17–11 A: 7–0 to 24–11 G: 1–12 A: 6–3 to 24–11 A: 6–0 to 24–11 A: 4 to 50 G: PreK–12 A: 5 to 85 G: K–12 A: 4–6 to 79–11 G: K–12 A: 2 to 90+ G: PreK–College+ A: 2 to 90+ G: PreK–College+ A: 2–6 to 7–11 (8 and 9 with delays) A: 2 to 90+ G: PreK–College+ A: 7–0 to 18–11

Wide Range Achievement Test, 5th ed. (WRAT5) Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, 3rd ed. (WRMT-­III) Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH) Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG) Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development (WJ IV ECAD) Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL) Word Identification and Spelling Test (WIST)

Pages

Test Name: Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Revision Authors: Janet B. Fudala, Ph.D. and Sheri Stegall, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Sheri Stegall, Vice President of R&D at WPS Appropriate for Ages: 1–6 to 21–11 Description: The Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Revision (Arizona-­4) measures speech intelligibility, ­articulatory impairment, and phonological impairment in one easy-­to-­use assessment. It features enhancements that add to its effectiveness in identifying individuals who have speech sound disorders. The Arizona-­4  has two forms—­a Record Form for administering Word Articulation and Sentence Articulation and a Coding Form for coding and scoring Phonology based on information obtained during the administration of Word Articulation. The Record Form also facilitates the administration of supplemental qualitative tasks. It is administered via a paper-­and-­pencil form, which can be scored either by hand or electronically using the WPS Online Evaluation System (OES) free online scoring. Administration also requires the use of a Test Easel, which is available in print form, or Digital Stimulus Images With Administration Guide, which is an alternative to the Test Easel to facilitate electronic administration. The results of the Arizona-­4 can be used for many purposes: (a) to understand and describe an individual’s level of articulatory ability and overall speech intelligibility in both single-­word and connected speech; (b) to compare single-­word and connected-­speech articulatory abilities; (c) to determine the extent to which phonological impairment may contribute to an individual’s articulatory deficits, and describe the specific types of phonological error patterns that are displayed; (d) to facilitate early identification of speech sound development concerns and determine whether an individual may benefit from treatment services; (e) to identify and prioritize speech targets for individualized intervention through analysis of the examinee’s specific articulatory/phonological deficits and relative strengths, including the production of consonants, consonant blends, vowels, and vocalic /r/; (f ) to monitor improvement in an individual’s speech sound production over time; (g) to evaluate the degree of consistency in an individual’s production of misarticulated sounds, the impact of speech sound deficits in continuous language and everyday speech, and the need for further language assessment or intervention; and (h) to describe and understand the speech of adults of all ages through the interpretation of assessment results that are not age-­normed.

APPENDIX A  215

SUBTESTS

The Arizona-­4 consists of three individual subtests. • Word Articulation is measure of articulatory ability (the ability to correctly produce speech sounds) as expressed in the production of single words. • Sentence Articulation is a connected-­speech task that measures an examinee’s articulatory ability as expressed in the production of sentences that include the same target speech sounds as in Word Articulation, enabling direct comparisons between the ­examinee’s productions of the Arizona-­4 target sounds at the word and sentence levels. • Phonology is a measure of phonological impairment (impairment in producing certain classes of speech sounds) as coded from speech sound errors recorded during Word Articulation. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The Arizona-­4 provides a variety of scores to aid in the interpretation of results. Standard scores (mean of 100, standard deviation of 15) for Word Articulation, Sentence Articulation, and Phonology enable comparison of an examinee’s performance to that of typically ­developing individuals of the same age and are interpreted as severity ranges of levels of articulatory or phonological impairment. Interpretation is further supported by confidence intervals, percentile ranks, age equivalent scores, and a Word–Sentence Articulation Critical Difference Score to determine whether the differences between an examinee’s obtained Total Scores on Word Articulation and Sentence Articulation are statistically significant and clinically meaningful. Additional interpretive insights can be gained through item-­ level analysis and administration of supplemental qualitative tasks and through examining which specific phonological error patterns best describe the examinee’s misarticulations (e.g., percentage of occurrence). Change in Arizona-­4 scores can be evaluated over time with reference to standard scores and Total Scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 3,192 individuals, aged 1 year, 6 months through 21 years, 11 months. • Reliability: The Arizona-­4 internal consistency coefficients for Word Articulation, Sentence Articulation, and Phonology are uniformly high, ranging from 0.87 to 0.98, and are consistent throughout the age range of the tests. Two-­week test–retest correlations are also uniformly high, with reliability coefficients greater than or equal to 0.94 across all three tests. Inter-­rater reliability estimates were obtained through several methods, and results for all methods indicated excellent inter-­rater reliability for Word Articulation, Sentence Articulation, and Phonology. Intra-­class correlation coefficients range from 0.85 to 1.00, depending on the specific sample used for analysis. • Validity: Strong support is provided for the content validity of the Arizona-­4, including its relevance, breadth of coverage, and developmental appropriateness for measuring the constructs of articulation and phonology. Construct validity is supported through analysis of developmental progressions of speech sound mastery, intercorrelations of Arizona-­4 tests, and expert judgement of speech intelligibility. Convergent validation data further supported the measurement equivalence between the Arizona-­3 and Arizona-­4, as well as its comparability to other established measures. Most importantly, validity evidence based on clinical groups indicated that Arizona-­4 scores can be used to distinguish those who have articulation and phonological disorders from those who do not, with large effect size for all comparisons, indicating that the statistically significant differences between groups were clinically meaningful as well. Results of conditional probability analyses indicated that Word Articulation (area under receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve = 0.986, p < 0.001), Sentence Articulation (area under ROC curve = 0.980, p < 0.001), and Phonology (area under ROC curve = 0.962, p < 0.001) all provided statistically significant improvement over chance in detecting speech sound disorders. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Speech sound disorder and dyslexia are highly comorbid. Many children with word-­reading deficits have a history of speech production or oral language difficulties. Speech production is heavily reliant on a strong phonological system. Even children with subclinical speech sound deficits (i.e., phonological confusion resulting in mispronunciation of words) may be at risk for dyslexia. A clear understanding of speech production skills can help with the development of intervention strategies. The Arizona-­4 is a comprehensive assessment of articulation and phonology that will help professionals accurately determine the nature and impact of articulation and phonology issues for an individual who is suspected of having or has been diagnosed with dyslexia.

216  APPENDIX A

Contact and Ordering Information WPS 625 Alaska Ave. Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 800-­648-­8857 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wpspublish.com/arizona-­4 REFERENCES

Cabbage, K., Farquharson, K., Iuzzini-­Seigel, J., Zuk, J., & Hogan, T. P. (2018). Exploring the overlap between dyslexia and speech sound production deficits. Speech Pathology and Audiology Faculty Research and Publications, 48. https://epublications.marquette.edu/spaud_fac/48 Fudala, J. B., & Stegall, S. (2017). Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, 4th Edition. (Arizona-­4) [Manual]. Western Psychological Services.

Test Name: Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, Second Edition Author: Elizabeth Carrow-­Woolfolk, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Amber Klein, Ph.D., Vice President of R&D at WPS Appropriate for Ages: 3–0 to 21–11 Description: The Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, Second Edition (CASL-­2) is an in-­depth evaluation of an individual’s oral language skills. This assessment is based on the four linguistic categories based on the author’s Integrative Language Theory (ILT): Lexical/Semantic, Syntactic, and Supralinguistic. It is available in paper-­and-­pencil form, which can be scored by hand using the manual and record forms, or electronically using the WPS OES free online scoring. The CASL-­2 can address a variety of referral questions, such as determining language delays or oral language disorders, evaluating English language competence in those who are learning English as a second language, and identifying specific aspects of oral language that may be impacting classroom learning or interpersonal communication. TESTS

The CASL-­2 contains the following 14 tests: 1. Receptive Vocabulary: The examiner instructs the examinee to point to the one picture from a set of four pictures that best depicts a target word. 2. Antonyms (ANT): The examiner says a word and instructs the examinee to say a different word that means the opposite of the target word. 3. Synonyms (SYN): The examiner says a target word, and then instructs the examinee to choose, from a series of four words, the one word that means the same as the target word. 4. Expressive Vocabulary (EV): The examiner reads a sentence while leaving out the last word. The examinee must respond with a single word that meaningfully completes the sentence. 5. Idiomatic Language (IL): The examiner reads a sentence that includes an idiom with some of the words left out. The examinee must respond with a word or phrase that appropriately completes the idiom. 6. Sentence Expression (SE): The examiner points to a picture and asks the examinee to answer a question about the scene depicted. The examinee must say a phrase or sentence as the response. 7. Grammatical Morphemes (GM): The examiner reads a sentence, leaving out the last few words. The examinee must say a word or phrase that appropriately finishes the sentence. 8. Sentence Comprehension (SC): For Items 1–42, the examiner reads a sentence and instructs the examinee to point to the one picture from an array of four pictures that best matches the sentence. For Items 43–56, the examiner reads two sentences and the examinee must say “yes” or “no” to indicate whether the two sentences mean the same thing. 9. Grammaticality Judgment (GJ): The examiner reads a sentence that may include an error. The examinee must try to fix the sentence by adding, removing, or changing one word. 10. Nonliteral Language (NL): The examiner reads a sentence and asks the examinee what the sentence means. The examinee must say a word, phrase, or sentence to describe the nonliteral meaning of the sentence. 11. Meaning from Context (MC): The examiner reads a sentence containing an uncommon word that is most likely unknown to the examinee. The examinee must explain the meaning of the uncommon word by using context clues within the sentence.

APPENDIX A  217

12. Inference (INF): The examiner reads a few sentences, leaving out part of the story, and asks a question. The examinee must say a word, phrase, or sentence that appropriately finishes the story by using context clues. 13. Double Meaning (DM): The examiner reads a sentence that can have two different meanings and asks the examinee to give the two meanings of the sentence. The examinee must say two words, phrases, or sentences to describe the meanings of the sentence. 14. Pragmatic Language (PL): The examiner reads a few sentences describing a short story or scenario. The examiner then asks a question about the story, and the examinee must say a word, phrase, or sentence as an answer. INDEXES

The CASL-­2 has 6 index scores that are derived from combining the results of the tests to express the examinee’s ability in broader areas of oral language functioning. • The General Language Ability Index (GLAI) score indicates the examinee’s general spoken language skill. An overall score of this type is sometimes used for eligibility purposes and is comparable to the Core Composite score of the original CASL. • The Receptive Language Index score indicates the examinee’s overall skill in auditory comprehension, across the categories of linguistic structure. Standard scores for the tests that measure listening comprehension (Receptive Vocabulary, Synonyms, Sentence Comprehension, and Meaning from Context) combine to yield this index. • The Expressive Language Index score indicates the examinee’s overall skill in oral expression, across the categories of linguistic structure. Standard scores for some of the tests that require an expressive response (Expressive Vocabulary, Sentence Expression, Grammatical Morphemes, Inference, and Pragmatic Language) combine to yield this index. • The Lexical/Semantic Index score indicates the examinee’s overall word knowledge, across both receptive and expressive formats. Standard scores for the Receptive Vocabulary, Antonyms, Synonyms, Expressive Vocabulary, and Idiomatic Language tests ­combine to yield this index. • The Syntactic Index score indicates the examinee’s overall ability to understand and use grammatical structures, across both ­receptive and expressive formats. Standard scores for the Sentence Expression, Grammatical Morphemes, Sentence Comprehension, and Grammaticality Judgment tests combine to yield this index. • The Supralinguistic Index score indicates the examinee’s overall ability to understand the deeper meaning of vocabulary and ­syntax in order to use language flexibly, across both receptive and expressive formats. Standard scores for the Nonliteral Language, Meaning from Context, Inference, and Double Meaning tests combine to yield this index. It is available only for ages 7 to 21, as there is only one test (Inference) available for ages 3 to 6 years. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The CASL-­2 yields a standard score (mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15) for each of the 14 tests and 6 indexes. The standard scores are used to generate descriptive ranges, percentile ranks, test-­age and grade equivalencies, and upper and lower confidence intervals. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 2,394 individuals. • Reliability: Average subtest reliability range 0.85–0.99; average index reliability range 0.95–0.99. Test–retest coefficients for subtests (range 0.73–0.94) and composites (range 0.88–0.96) indicate high degree of consistency. • Validity: The CASL-­2 test intercorrelations were in the moderate to high range, from 0.42 to 0.93. The CASL-­2 tests and index scores correlate in expected ways with the CASL (0.51–0.90), OPUS (0.56–0.77), OWLS-­II (0.61–0.89), and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 5th edition (CELF-­5; 0.89), thereby yielding evidence of convergent validity. Results indicated that the CASL-­2 GLAI score (area under ROC curve = 0.891, p < .001) provided statistically significant improvement over chance in detecting clinical disorders. Finally, the CASL-­2 standard scores distinguish typically developing individuals from clinic-­referred individuals, including those with expressive and/or receptive language disorder (effect sizes 0.76–2.17), hearing impairment (effect sizes 0.76–1.94), autism spectrum disorder (effect sizes 0.87–1.74), social (pragmatic) communication disorder (effect sizes 0.69–2.38), intellectual disability (effect sizes 1.85–2.83), learning disability (0.37–1.87), and developmental delay (0.37–1.43).

218  APPENDIX A

RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Oral language development is one of the biggest factors in determining the successful development of reading. It is very important to understand an individual’s language development when examining reading and writing skills, including when determining whether a child has dyslexia. Sometimes a child may have had difficulty with language development, which can impact their ability to read and write. Other times the child may have intact language skills, but struggle with reading comprehension. In the case of dyslexia, this may occur because the child is struggling to decode text; therefore, the comprehension issue is secondary to the decoding issues. It is important to understand whether the comprehension issue is due to dyslexia as a secondary issue or due to a language impairment, which is interfering with their ability to comprehend language or express themselves. The CASL-­2 offers a comprehensive assessment of spoken language that will help with making the determination if language development is an underlying factor in difficulties with reading development. Contact and Ordering Information WPS 625 Alaska Ave. Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 800-­648-­8857 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wpspublish.com/casl-­2 REFERENCES

Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL). American Guidance Service. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2011). Oral and Written Language Scales, 2nd Edition (OWLS-­II). Western Psychological Services. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2011). Foundations of Language Assessment. Western Psychological Services. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2017). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, 2nd Edition (CASL-­2) [Manual]. Western Psychological Services. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E., & Klein, A. (2017). Oral Passage Understanding Scale (OPUS). Western Psychological Services. Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 5th Edition (CELF-­5). NCS Pearson.

Test Name: Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-­2) Authors: Richard K. Wagner, Ph.D., Joseph K. Torgesen, Ph.D., Carol A. Rashotte, Ph.D., Nils A. Pearson, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Elizabeth A. Allen, Ph.D., Director of R&D, PRO-ED Appropriate for Ages: 4–0 to 24–11 Description: The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, Second Edition (CTOPP-­2) was designed to identify individuals from kindergarten through college who may profit from instructional activities to enhance their reading-­related phonological skills. It is available as paper-­and-­pencil version with one form for ages 4 through 6 years and one form for ages 7 through 24 years. The test can only be manually scored. The results of the CTOPP-­2 can be generally used (a) in identifying individuals who are significantly below their peers in important phonological abilities, (b) to determine strengths and weaknesses among developed phonological processes, (c) to document progress in phonological processing as a consequence of special intervention programs, and (d) to serve as a measurement device in research studies. SUBTESTS

• Elision (Core, 4–24 Years): This 34-­item subtest measures the extent to which an individual can say a word and then say what is left after dropping out designated sounds. • Blending Words (Core, 4–24 Years): This 33-­item subtest measures an individual’s ability to combine sounds to form words. • Sound Matching (Core, 4–6 Years): This 26-­item subtest measures the extent to which an individual can match sounds. • Phoneme Isolation (Core, 7–24 Years): This 32-­item subtest measures an individual’s ability to identify target sounds in words. • Memory for Digits (Core, 4–24 Years): This 28-­item subtest measures the extent to which an individual can repeat a series of numbers ranging in length from two to eight digits. • Nonword Repetition (Core, 4–24 Years): This 30-­item subtest measures an individual’s ability to repeat nonwords that range in length from 3 to 15 sounds. • Rapid Digit Naming (Core, 4–24 Years): This 36-­item subtest measures the speed with which an individual can name numbers. • Rapid Letter Naming (Core, 4–24 Years): This 36-­item subtest measures the speed with which an individual can name letters.

APPENDIX A  219

• Rapid Color Naming (Core, 4–6 Years): This 36-­item subtest measures the speed with which an individual can name the colors of a series of different colored blocks. • Rapid Object Naming (Core, 4–6 Years): This 36-­item subtest measures the speed with which an individual can name a series of objects. • Blending Nonwords (Supplemental, 4–24 Years): This 30-­item subtest measures an individual’s ability to combine speech sounds to make nonwords. • Segmenting Nonwords (Supplemental, 7–24 Years): This 31-­item subtest measures an individual’s ability to say the separate phonemes that make up a nonword. COMPOSITES

• Phonological Awareness Composite Score (PACS): For 4–6-­year-­olds, Elision, Blending Words, and Sound Matching are the core subtests that are used to form the PACS. For 7–24-­year-­olds, Elision, Blending Words, and Phoneme Isolation are the core subtests used to form the PACS. • Phonological Memory Composite Score (PMCS): For all ages, Memory for Digits and Nonword Repetition are the core ­subtests that form the PMCS. • Rapid Symbolic Naming Composite Score (RSNCS): For 4–24-­year-­olds, Rapid Digit Naming and Rapid Letter Naming are the core subtests for the RSNCS. • Rapid Non-­Symbolic Naming Composite Score (RNNCS): For 4–6-­year-­olds, Rapid Color Naming and Rapid Object Naming are the core subtests for the RNNCS. These subtests are not to be used with older individuals. • Alternate Phonological Awareness Composite Score (APACS): For 7–24-­year-­olds, an alternate phonological awareness ­composite score can be formed by adding the scaled scores from the Blending Nonwords and Segmenting Nonwords subtests. This quotient is not available for individuals 4–6 years old. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The CTOPP-­2 yields six types of normative scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, subtest scaled scores, composite scores, and developmental scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 1,900 individuals. • Reliability: Average coefficient alphas for the subtests range from 0.77 to 0.93 and from 0.85 to 0.93 for the composites. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the Rapid Letter Naming subtest was 0.85, for the Rapid Digit Naming subtest was 0.87, for the Rapid Object Naming subtest was 0.86, and for the Rapid Color Naming subtest was 0.91. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the Rapid Symbolic Naming composite was 0.92 and for the Rapid ­Non-­Symbolic Naming composite was 0.91. Reliability across gender, race, ethnicity, and subjects diagnosed with a learning disability ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 for the subtests and from 0.92 to 0.97 for the composites. Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.73 to 0.92 for the subtests and from 0.76 to 0.86 for the composites. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average correlations between the Phonological Awareness subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.49 to 0.70 and were 0.73 for the Phonological Awareness composite. Average correlations between the Phonological Memory subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.60 to 0.65. Average correlation between the Phonological Memory composite and criterion measures was 0.74. Average correlations between the Rapid Naming subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.70 to 0.84. Average correlation between the Rapid Symbolic Naming composite and criterion measures was 0.76 and between the Rapid Non-­Symbolic Naming composite and criterion measures was 0.69. Confirmatory factor analysis results support the construct validity of the CTOPP-­2. Average correlation between the composites and reading measures was 0.48 for Phonological Awareness composite, 0.34 for the Phonological Memory composite, and 0.45 for the Rapid Symbolic Naming composite. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Strong research evidence supports that phonological processing abilities, phonological memory, and rapid automatized naming are important risk factors that can affect reading and writing development. One or more of these linguistic abilities are often low in individuals with dyslexia.

220  APPENDIX A

Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2013). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2nd Edition (CTOPP-­2): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Early Reading Assessment Authors: Donald D. Hammill, Ed.D., Nils A. Pearson, Ph.D., Wayne P. Hresko, Ph.D., John J. Hoover, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Jodie D. Martin-­Gutel, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 4–0 to 7–11 Description: The Early Reading Assessment (ERA) focuses on measuring print competence pertaining to the alphabet, word identification, and word comprehension using both silent and oral formats that are appropriate for children ages 4 through 7. It is available as paper-­and-­pencil version with one form for all ages. The test can only be manually scored. The results of the ERA can be generally used to identify young children who are significantly behind their peers in print knowledge, to determine the degree of problems in print knowledge in children who perform poorly on the assessment, and to serve as a measurement device in research studies. SUBTESTS

• Written Word Vocabulary: The child is shown a stimulus (a letter or picture) accompanied by an array of five choices (printed letters, numerals, symbols, or words) and asked to point to the choice in the array that is most closely related to the stimulus. • Rapid Orthographic Naming: The child is shown a sequence of pictures, letters, numerals, symbols, or words and asked to name as many of these graphic symbols as possible in 60 seconds. • Silent Orthographic Efficiency: The child is asked to match as many stimuli with their look-­alikes in 1 minute. Children indicate their choice by drawing a line over the matched choice. • Phonological Awareness: In this supplemental subtest, the child deletes phonemes, affixes, or words from words spoken by the examiner. • Receptive Vocabulary: This supplemental subtest uses the “point to the word I say” technique. After showing the child an array of four pictures (e.g., a peach, a pear, an apple, a lemon), the examiner says, “Point to the apple.” COMPOSITE

Early Reading Index: Scores for the Written Word Vocabulary, Rapid Orthographic Naming, and Silent Orthographic Efficiency are summed to form the composite Early Reading Index. This index is the most clinically useful score on the ERA because it is the most reliable score on the test. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The ERA yields four types of normative scores: age equivalents, percentile ranks, subtest scaled scores, and a composite, the Early Reading Index. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 1,001 individuals. • Reliability: Average coefficient alphas for the core subtests are 0.96, 0.81, and 0.88. Average coefficient alphas for the ­supplemental subtests are 0.94 and 0.81. The average coefficient alpha for the composite is 0.88. Reliability across gender, race, and ethnicity ranged from 0.77 to 0.98 for the subtests and from 0.96 to 0.97 for the composites. Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.73 to 0.92 for the core subtests and were 0.80 and 0.70 for the supplemental tests. Test–retest reliability for the ­composite was 0.86.

APPENDIX A  221

• Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Correlations between the core Written Word Vocabulary subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.72 to 0.81 and averaged 0.77. Correlations between the core Rapid Orthographic Naming subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.56 to 0.68 and averaged 0.66. Correlations between the core Silent Orthographic Efficiency subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.51 to 0.58 and averaged 0.56. Correlations between the Early Reading Index and criterion measures ranged from 0.69 to 0.82 and averaged 0.76. Correlations between the supplemental Phonological Awareness subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.36 to 0.74 and averaged 0.62. Correlations between the supplemental Receptive Vocabulary subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.32to 0.53 and averaged 0.42. Intercorrelations for the core subtests ranged from 0.46 to 0.54. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Meta-­analytic studies (Georgiou et al., 2021) indicate that students with dyslexia are equally deficient in their orthographic knowledge, rapid naming, and phonological awareness skills. The ERA measures all of these skills. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCES

Georgiou, G. K., Martinez, D., Vieira, A. P.A., & Guo, K. (2021). Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-­analysis. Annals of Dyslexia, 71, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­021-­00220-­6 Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., Hresko, W. P., & Hoover, J. J. (2012). Early Reading Assessment (ERA): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: EarlyBird Dyslexia and Early Literacy Screener Authors: Nadine Gaab, Ph.D. and Yaacov Petscher, Ph.D. Information Provided By: EarlyBird Education Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 4 to 6; PreK–1st (2nd and 3rd grades in development) Description: The EarlyBird assessment is a gamified iPad and Chrome browser app that is easy, quick, accessible, and child-­ centered, and can be completed prior to formal reading instruction. It is self-­administered in small groups with teacher oversight, and, depending on the subtests administered, takes 20–50  minutes per child. The assessments address literacy milestones that predict ­reading success in subsequent grades. No trained adult administration is needed. Scoring is largely automated. EarlyBird includes screening for severe reading risk (Dyslexia Screener) and moderate reading risk (Potential for Word Reading [PWR] Screener). In the game, the child goes on a journey along a path through a city culminating in a stop at the pond where they get to sail their toy sailboat. The child is paired with a feathery friend, named Pip, who will travel with them and demonstrate each assessment before the child attempts them. At the end of each game, the child is rewarded with a virtual prize, traveling along the path and getting closer to their final destination at the lake. When the child finishes the game, a score report is created on the teacher’s web-­based dashboard. It’s not unusual to hear a child complete the EarlyBird game and say, “I like Pip! Can I play again?”—­unusual for a comprehensive assessment. All subtests can be administered in fall, winter, and spring with the specific subtests carefully selected based on skill development for a child given the time of year and grade. To empower educators with appropriate instructional guidance, each child-­specific report provides recommendations on which skill areas to focus on. The EarlyBird “Next Step” resources provide the lesson plans, activities, and demonstration videos to make it easy for educators to answer that “what now” question. An exciting expansion is that EarlyBird is now available directly for families, providing both assessment and instruction. More information can be found on our website at www.earlybirdeducation.com. SUBTESTS

The EarlyBird assessment includes the critical subtests measuring skills in the areas of phonemic/phonological awareness, oral language comprehension, sound/symbol correspondence, and rapid automatized naming. Currently, these subtests include Rhyming, First Sound Matching, Blending, Deletion, Nonword Repetition, Word Matching, Oral Sentence Comprehension, Following Directions, Vocabulary, Letter Name, Letter Sound, Rapid Automatized Naming, and Word Reading (and we are continuously expanding and improving the assessment).

222  APPENDIX A

COMPOSITES

The Potential for Word Reading score is the probability, expressed as a percentage, that a student will reach grade-­level expectations in word reading by the end of the year. The Dyslexia Risk Flag indicates the likelihood that a student will be at risk for severe word reading struggles at year end without remediation. Each skill subtest yields a nationally normed percentile score. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The PWR score is a multifactorial calculation that involves a selection of the most predictive subtests and an aggregation and weight averaging of that data according to degree of predictability to generate a single output score. The dyslexia calculation involves a selection of our most predictive subtests and an aggregation of that data to generate a single output score which is conveyed as a “flag.” Subtest scores are presented as percentile ranks from 1 to 99. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: The first phase of predictive validation assessed 419 children in 19 schools and eight states in every region of the country. Follow-­up data were collected from 219 participants in 19 schools and eight states. Data were calibrated against a sample of 2,400 kindergarten students across multiple districts in Florida. Subsequent validation studies with nationally representative samples have yielded additional data used to update norms and algorithms and expand into new grades. • Reliability: Marginal reliability for the computer-­adaptive tasks was quite high, ranging from 0.85 for Letter Names to 0.99 for Blending. • Validity: The validity of subtest scores compared to the selected outcome measures was addressed through a series of linear and logistic regressions, run two ways. First, a correlation analysis was used to evaluate the strength of relations between and among each of the EarlyBird Assessments and norm-­referenced tests. Second, a multiple regression was run to find the fewest number of tasks that maximized the percentage of explained variance in the outcome measures. Multiple correlations for the final models range from 0.60 to 0.73, depending on grade and testing period. The final classification accuracy models have sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) lower bound estimates ≥ 0.70 (with several >0.80). RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

EarlyBird assesses multiple skills that contribute to a child’s risk for dyslexia. This risk calculation is based on a compilation of research conducted by the authors and other leaders in the field, revealing that those with severe word reading risk profiles are likely to have dyslexia. How it works: An analysis was done to determine which subtest scores are most predictive of the targeted performance at the end of the year. For the purposes of this analysis, severe word reading difficulties are defined as performing at or below the 16th percentile on the outcome measure. The calculation involves a selection of our most predictive subtests and an aggregation and weight averaging of that data according to degree of predictability to generate a single output score which is conveyed as a “flag.” That flag indicates the likelihood that a student will score poorly on the outcome measure. Any child flagged for dyslexia risk is at high risk for low reading proficiency by year end and needs supplemental and/or intensive instruction targeted to the student’s skill weaknesses. Contact and Ordering Information EarlyBird Education Inc. 163 Highland Avenue, Suite 1067 Needham, MA 02492 Phone: 833-­759-­2473 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.earlybirdeducation.com Test Name: Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR) Author: Steven G. Feifer, D.Ed., ABPdN Information Provided By: Steven G. Feifer Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 4 to 21; PreK–College Description: The FAR is a comprehensive reading test designed to examine the underlying cognitive and linguistic processes that support proficient reading skills. The test comprises 15 individual subtests measuring various aspects of phonological development, orthographical processing, decoding skills, morphological awareness, reading fluency, and comprehension skills. The FAR is unique in

APPENDIX A  223

that it helps users determine not only the presence of a reading disorder but also the specific dyslexia subtype as well. The test classifies reading disorders into four unique subtypes and offers targeted intervention strategies for each subtype on the PARiConnect scoring platform. For examinees in prekindergarten, the full FAR battery consists of eight subtests and takes approximately 35 minutes to administer. For examinees in kindergarten to grade 1, the full FAR battery consists of 11 subtests and takes approximately 60 minutes to administer. For examinees in grade 2 to college, the full FAR battery consists of 14 subtests and takes approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes to administer. Examiners can choose to administer the full battery or, for a shorter administration time, only the subtests associated with an individual reading index (i.e., Phonemic Index, Fluency Index, Comprehension Index, Mixed Index). Lastly, the FAR screening battery consists of the Phonemic Awareness (PA), Rapid Automatic Naming (RAN), and Semantic Concepts (SC) subtests and requires approximately 15–20 minutes to administer. A FAR Remote Screening battery can be administered on-­line and consists of just the Phonemic Awareness and Semantic Concepts subtests. Electronic stimulus books are also offered. TESTS AND COMPOSITES

The FAR yields an overall or Total Index score, along with four composite index scores. A brief description of the four indexes and subtests that compose each follows: • Phonological Index: A measure of a student’s phonological awareness and decoding skills to identify words in isolation and in context. Lower scores suggest difficulty with reading accuracy and sequencing sounds to identify words. • Phonemic awareness—­a series of four tasks arranged in a hierarchy of increasing difficulty measuring rhyming, blending, segmenting, and manipulating sounds. • Positioning sounds—­a phonemic localization task requiring the student to determine the missing sound located either in the beginning, middle, or ending position of a word using a visual cue. • Nonsense word decoding—­the student decodes a series of individual nonsense words presented in order of increasing difficulty. • Isolated word reading fluency—­the student reads a list of words of increasing difficulty in 60 seconds. • Oral reading fluency—­the student reads a passage composed of the same words as the isolated word reading fluency task in 60 seconds. • Fluency Index: A measure of a student’s rapid and automatic perception of letters, orthographic memory, and ability to recognize and retrieve words that are phonologically inconsistent. Lower scores suggest poor reading fluency and difficulty automatically recognizing words in print. • Rapid automatic naming—­a series of timed tasks requiring the student to name as many objects, letters, or stencils in 30 seconds. • Verbal fluency—­requires the student to name as many items that start with a particular category, or items that start with a particular letter in 60 seconds. • Visual perception—­the student must identify letters printed backward from an array of letters or words in 30 seconds. • Irregular word reading fluency—­ the student reads a list of phonologically irregular words of increasing difficulty in 60 seconds. • Orthographic processing—­the student is required to recall a letter, or group of letters, from a previously seen target word. • Mixed Index: A composite measure of both the Phonological and Fluency Index scores. Lower scores suggest a more severe type of reading disorder with multiple processing deficits. • Comprehension Index: A measure of a student’s language development, memory, and executive functioning skills that facilitate text comprehension. Lower scores suggest difficulty deriving meaning from print. • Semantic concepts—­a multiple choice test requiring the student to select the correct antonym or synonym of a target word. • Word recall—­requires the student to repeat back a list of words over a series of two trials. The second trial requires the student to recall a word from a selected list. • Morphological processing—­a multiple choice test requiring students to choose the correct prefix, suffix, or stem that best completes an incomplete target word. • Silent reading fluency (comprehension)—­requires the student to silently read a passage, and then answer a series of literal and inferential questions about the story. Reading rate is also recorded as well. • Silent reading fluency (rate)—­requires the student to silently read a passage, and then answer a series of literal and inferential questions about the story. Reading rate is also recorded as well.

224  APPENDIX A

TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The FAR provides grade-­based norms, though there is a grade-­by-­age proxy table offered for age-­based scoring as well. The subtests and index scores are scaled to the familiar IQ metric, wherein the mean is set to 100 and the standard deviation to 15. Additional metrics for the subtest scores include age and grade equivalents. Additional metrics provided for the index scores include confidence intervals, percentile ranks, z scores, and normal curve equivalents (NCEs). TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: The FAR was standardized on a sample of 1,074 examinees in prekindergarten to college (ages 4–21 years) drawn from more than 30 states using a population-­proportionate, stratified random sampling plan based on 2012 U.S. Census statistics. • Reliability: The FAR subtests have median reliability coefficients that range from 0.67 to 0.95, the majority of which are in the upper 0.80s and 0.90s, indicating an overall high degree of internal consistency. The lowest median reliability is for the Word Recall subtest, though typically memory tests tend to have lower reliability than other types of standardized tests. The median Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) for FAR subtests ranges from 3.1 to 8.1. These values are relatively small, which provide an indicator of the relatively high degree of internal consistency among FAR subtests. Lastly, the majority of the test–retest coefficients are in the 0.80s and 0.90s, indicating a high degree of temporal stability. • Validity: The construct validity of the FAR was established by examining relationships between the FAR and other instruments that measure similar and dissimilar constructs including the PAL II Reading and Writing, Gray Oral Reading Tests: Fifth Edition, Gray Silent Reading Tests, and the Academic Achievement Battery. The FAR demonstrated consistent relationships in the expected direction and magnitude with a variety of other reading tests, as well as measures of achievement, memory, and intelligence. Criterion-­related validity was established using several clinical groups including students with learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). As expected, performance on the FAR varied among clinical populations with moderate to significant differences in test performance found between the learning disability sample and its matched control group. The classification accuracy of the FAR Total Index score was evaluated with results indicating the FAR can accurately distinguish individuals with a learning disability from those without. The manual provides both specificity and sensitivity tables. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The FAR is a diagnostic achievement test designed to measure four broad reading disorder subtypes (i.e., dysphonetic dyslexia, surface dyslexia, mixed dyslexia, and comprehension deficits). The FAR Screening Form was designed to identify children “at risk” for developmental dyslexia within a Multi-­Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) delivery system model. Contact and Ordering Information Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR) 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, FL 33549 Phone: 800-­331-­8378 e-­mail: https://www.parinc.com/contactus Website: https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/4525 Test Name: Feifer Assessment of Writing (FAW) Author: Steven G. Feifer, D.Ed., ABPdN Information Provided By: Steven G. Feifer Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 4 to 21; PreK–College Description: The FAW is a diagnostic achievement test designed to examine the underlying cognitive, motoric, and linguistic processes that support proficient written language skills. The instrument is based upon a neuropsychological paradigm which presumes that multiple neural pathways underscore various aspects of the writing process. Furthermore, these pathways develop and mature at different points in time. The test has been nationally standardized on a representative sample of 1,048 students in grades pre-­K to college (ages 4–21). The FAW comprises 12 individual subtests, two of which are optional, and designed to measure three subtypes of written language disorders or “dysgraphias.” The first subtype is termed “Graphomotor Dysgraphia” and measures a student’s ability to plan, sequence, and execute the physical stroke of the writing process during timed conditions. The second subtype is deemed “Dyslexic Dysgraphia” and measures the extent to which developmental dyslexia may be impacting writing by wreaking havoc on the spelling

APPENDIX A  225

process. The final subtype is termed “Executive Dysgraphia” and refers to specific frontal lobe functions concomitant to the writing process such as retrieval fluency, sequencing, working memory, and saliency determination. Therefore, one of the unique features of the FAW is to not only determine the presence of a written language disorder, but also to determine which specific subtype of dysgraphia a student possesses. The full battery administration requires a total testing time of approximately 52 minutes, while the core battery requires a total testing time of approximately 44 minutes. The administration of the full battery includes a Compositional Writing Index, which is a composite index score derived from a combination of both structured and unstructured writing tasks, as well as grammatical editing skills. In addition, there is a screening battery for older children, and a separate screening battery for younger children, each requiring approximately 10–15 minutes of administration time. The FAW is also ideal for progress monitoring. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITES

The FAW yields an overall or Total Index score, along with three composite index scores, as well as an optional Compositional Writing Index. A brief description of the indexes as well as the subtests that compose each follows: • Graphomotor Dysgraphia Index: Measures a student’s ability to plan, sequence, and execute the physical stroke of writing during timed conditions. Lower scores suggest difficulty with the motor demands of the writing process. 1. Alphabet tracing—­the student is presented with partial stencils of letters, both isolated, as well as embedded within words, and must trace the remaining portions to construct a legible letter. The subtest provides a measure of fine motor control and dexterity. Qualitative scoring includes pencil grasp, grip pressure, and use of opposite hand. 2. Motor sequencing—­the student is presented with a legend containing random letter combinations underneath four different symbols. Part A has one letter per symbol and is designated for students in prekindergarten through first grade. Part B has multiple letters per symbol and is designated for students in second grade or higher. The student has 2 minutes to record a letter, or chain of letters, that correspond with each symbol. It is a measure of fine motor speed, copying, and complex motor planning. 3. Copying speed—­the student has 60 seconds to copy a series of letters, words, or sentences from the stimulus book. Part A is for students in prekindergarten through first grade, while Part B is for students in second grade or above. It is a measure of fine motor speed and copying accuracy. 4. Motor planning—­the student is presented with lines of varying lengths, and must copy a particular letter, word, or phrase in the designated space provided. There is no erasing allowed. It is a measure of motor planning and execution, as well as adjusting writing when provided with proprioceptive feedback. • Dyslexic Dysgraphia Index: Measures the extent to which developmental dyslexia may be disrupting the spelling process. Lower scores suggest poor spelling skills that could impact the readability of a student’s writing passage. 5. Homophone spelling—­the student is shown a picture with four possible spellings of a phonologically irregular word and must select the correct spelling choice. It is a measure of orthographic memory skills when spelling. 6. Isolated spelling—­the student is asked to spell a series of words dictated by the examiner of increasing difficulty. A skills analysis allows the examiner to count the frequency of miscues along seven linguistic domains. • Executive Dysgraphia Index: Measures important attributes for writing including word retrieval, sequencing, working memory, and saliency determination skills. Lower scores suggest difficulty organizing and elaborating upon thoughts and ideas when writing. 7. Sentence scaffolding—­a series of sentence cards are presented to the student in random order. The student is asked to sequence the sentence cards in the correct order to construct an appropriate paragraph. It is a measure of syntactical awareness and verbal sequencing skills. 8. Retrieval fluency—­this task is broken down into two component parts. a. Convergent retrieval skill—­the student is presented with a category and must name up to four items that are representative of the category. It is a measure of convergent thinking and verbal retrieval skills. b. Divergent retrieval skill—­the student is presented with three disparate words, and asked to determine a fourth word that is related. It is a measure of both divergent thinking skills (determine the relationship) and convergent thinking skills to retrieve a specific word. 9. Executive working memory—­the student is presented with a series of five words and asked to write one sentence about a topic using one or more of the words that were presented. It is a measure of saliency determination to select the appropriate word choice, working memory, and the ability to execute a written task.

226  APPENDIX A

15. Expository writing—­the student is provided with a specific topic and has up to 5 minutes to write a detailed paragraph about the topic. This subtest is part of the core battery as well as the compositional writing index. • Compositional Writing Index: An optional writing index derived from one structured and one unstructured writing task as well as an editing task. There are no processing subtests included in this index, with weaker scores suggesting lower global writing skills. 16. Copy editing—­the student is presented with a series of sentences and has 3 minutes to correct any capitalization, spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors embedded within each sentence. An editing grid is provided to assist with corrections. 17. Story mapping—­the student is presented with a graphic organizer containing information about a story (i.e., setting, ­characters, main event, conclusion, etc.). Next, the student has up to 5 minutes to write a story from the various story parts. This subtest provides a measure of creative writing, deductive thinking, and executive functioning to coherently stitch together various elements of a story to generate a whole. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The FAW offers both grade and age-­based norms. Its subtests and index scores are scaled to the familiar “IQ metric,” wherein the mean is set to 100 and the standard deviation to 15. Additional metrics for the index scores include confidence intervals, percentile ranks, z-­scores, normal curve equivalents, age equivalents, and grade equivalents. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization sample: The FAW was standardized on a sample of 1,048 students in grades pre-­K to college (ages 4–21), using a population-­proportionate, stratified random sampling plan based upon 2018 U.S. Census statistics. • Reliability: The majority of the FAW subtests have test–retest coefficients of 0.70 or higher, with index coefficients in the 0.80’s and 0.90’s, which suggests a high degree of temporal stability. The median SEMs for FAW subtests and indexes range from 4.5 to 9 and 3.2 to 5.0, respectively. These values are relatively small, which suggests a high degree of internal consistency among the FAW subtests. Lastly, the majority of the FAW subtests have median reliability coefficients that are in the 0.80s and 0.90s, indicating a high degree of internal consistency. • Validity: Construct validity was established by examining relationships between the FAW and other instruments that measure similar and dissimilar academic constructs including the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test: Third Edition, the Feifer Assessment of Reading, and the Academic Achievement Battery. The FAW demonstrated consistent relationships in the expected direction and magnitude with a variety of other academic tests, as well as measures of memory and intelligence. Criterion-­related validity was established using several clinical groups including students with learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and ADHD. As expected, performance on the FAW varied among clinical populations with moderate to significant differences in test performance found between the learning disability sample and its matched control group. The classification accuracy of the FAW Total Index score was evaluated with results indicating that the FAW can accurately distinguish individuals with learning disability from those without. The manual provides both specificity and sensitivity tables. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The FAW is a diagnostic achievement test designed to measure three broad written-­language disorder subtypes (i.e., graphomotor dysgraphia, dyslexic-­dysgraphia, and executive dysgraphia). The Dyslexic-­Dysgraphia index is particularly sensitive toward measuring the impact of dyslexia on spelling and writing. The FAW Screening Form was designed to identify children “at risk” for developmental dysgraphia within an MTSS delivery system model. Two screening forms are provided, one for students from prekindergarten to grade 1, and the other for grades 2 and above. Contact and Ordering Information Psychological Assessment Resources (PAR) 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, FL 33549 Phone: 1-­800-­331-­8378 e-­mail: https://www.parinc.com/contactus Website: https://www.parinc.com/Products/Pkey/6539

APPENDIX A  227

Test Name: Gray Diagnostic Reading Tests, Second Edition (GDRT-­2) Authors: Brian R. Bryant, Ph.D., J. Lee Wiederholt, Ed.D., Diane Pedrotty Bryant, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Jennifer R. Jagielko, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 6–0 to 13–11 Description: The Gray Diagnostic Reading Tests, Second Edition (GDRT-­2) was developed to measure specific reading skills in school-­aged children who either haven’t progressed to passage reading or who have significant difficulties with reading connected text. This individually administered, paper-­and-­pencil test has two equivalent forms and is scored manually. It can be used to (a) determine reading strengths and weaknesses, (b) document progress, (c) diagnose specific problems, and (d) conduct research. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITES

The GDRT-­2 has four core and three supplemental subtests. Combinations of the core subtests compose three composites. CORE SUBTESTS

• Letter/Word Recognition: This 77-­item subtest measures decoding skills using three levels of activity. The first level is recognition of letter and word forms, the second level is naming letters, and the third level is reading a series of printed words. • Phonetic Analysis: This 43-­item subtest measures decoding skills and sound–letter correspondence using two activity levels. The first level consists of selecting the beginning sound of a target word spoken by the examiner. The second level consists of pronouncing a series of printed pseudowords. • Reading Vocabulary: This 40-­item subtest measures comprehension skills using two activity levels. The first level consists of selecting the word that best represents the picture. The second level consists of selecting two out of five printed words that are meaningful opposites (e.g., in and out). • Meaningful Reading: This 71-­item subtest measures comprehension skills using two activity levels. The first level consists of answering questions about basic reading skills (handling a book, knowing where to start and stop reading). The second level consists of saying a word that has been deleted from a sentence (a cloze procedure). SUPPLEMENTAL SUBTESTS

• Listening Vocabulary: This 42-­item subtest measures receptive vocabulary using the conventional “point to the picture of the word I say” format. • Rapid Naming: This speeded subtest has students view a word of either known letters or words and say aloud as many of them as quickly as possible. The examiner times and records the time the student takes to name the entire array of letters or words. • Phonological Awareness: This 36-­item subtest uses the elision format whereby the student hears a spoken word, repeats it, then says the word again while deleting a specified phoneme sound or group of phonemes. COMPOSITES

• Decoding: The Decoding composite is derived from the scores from Letter/Word Recognition and Phonetic Analysis. • Comprehension: The Comprehension composite is derived from the scores from Reading Vocabulary and Meaningful Reading. • General Reading: The General Reading composite is derived from all four core subtests. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The GDRT-­2 yields five types of normative scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, scaled scores, and composite scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 1,018 examinees. • Reliability: Average coefficient alphas ranged from 0.88 to 0.97 for the core subtests, from 0.90 to 0.96 for the supplemental subtests, and from 0.94 to 0.98 for the composites. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability ranged from 0.86 to 0.95 for the core subtests, from 0.79 to 0.94 for the supplemental subtests, and from 0.92 to 0.95 for the composites. Alternate

228  APPENDIX A

forms (delayed administration) reliability ranged from 0.78 to 0.92 for the core subtests, from 0.82 to 0.97 for the supplemental subtests, and from 0.84 to 0.92 for the composites. Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.82 to 0.96 for the core subtests, from 0.82 to 0.97 for the supplemental subtests, and from 0.90 to 0.94 for the composites. • Validity: Content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average correlations between the GDRT-­2 and criterion measures ranged from 0.51 to 0.91 for the core subtests and from 0.61 to 0.88 for the composites. Correlations between the GDRT-­2 supplemental subtests and criterion measures were 0.68 for Listening Vocabulary, 0.53 for Rapid Naming, and 0.76 for Phonological Awareness. Regarding construct validity, the average correlations between the GDRT-­3 composites and two measures of intelligence ranged from 0.69 to 0.77. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Strong evidence supports the relationship between oral reading fluency and dyslexia. Students who struggle with fluent reading also struggle to comprehend what they read. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests, 5th Edition (GORT-­5): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fifth Edition (GORT-­5) Authors: J. Lee Wiederholt, Ed.D. and Brian R. Bryant, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Jennifer R. Jagielko, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 6–0 to 23–11 Description: The Gray Oral Reading Test, Fifth Edition (GORT-­5) was developed to identify individuals from first grade through college who might benefit from interventions to enhance their oral reading skills and comprehension. The test has two equivalent forms. Each form consists of sixteen stories that examinees read aloud. Five open-­ended comprehension questions accompany each story. The test is available as a paper-­and-­pencil version that is scored manually. The results of the GORT-­5 can be used in identifying students who are functioning significantly below their age mates in reading speed, accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. An optional informal miscue analysis is described for determining specific types of reading errors examinees make. COMPOSITE

Although the GORT-­5 does not have subtests, four scores can be derived which are combined to obtain the one composite available, the Oral Reading Index (ORI). A brief description of the four scores and the composition of the Oral Reading Index follows: • • • • •

Rate: The Rate score is derived using the time in seconds the examinee takes to read the stories aloud. Accuracy: The Accuracy score is derived using the number of words the examinee pronounces correctly. Fluency: The Fluency score is derived by combining the examinee’s Rate and Accuracy scores. Comprehension: The Comprehension score is derived by summing the correct responses to the comprehension questions. Oral Reading Index: This score is derived from summing the scaled scores for Fluency and Comprehension.

TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The GORT-­5 yields five types of normative scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, scaled scores, and one composite score. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 2,556 examinees. • Reliability: Average coefficient alphas for Rate, Accuracy, Fluency, and Comprehension scaled scores range from 0.91 to 0.94 and from 0.96 to 0.97 for the Oral Reading Index. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for Rate was 0.94, for

APPENDIX A  229

Accuracy was 0.91, for Fluency was 0.94, and for Comprehension was 0.87. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the ORI was 0.93. Alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability for Rate was 0.88, for Accuracy was 0.84, for Fluency was 0.88, and for Comprehension was 0.77. Alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability for the ORI was 0.85. Reliability across gender, race, ethnicity, and subjects diagnosed with a learning disability ranged from 0.86 to 0.98 for Rate, Accuracy, Fluency, and Comprehension and from 0.89 to 0.97 for the ORI. Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.79 to 0.95 for Rate, Accuracy, Fluency, and Comprehension and from 0.85 to 0.95 for the ORI. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average correlations between GORT-­5 Rate, Accuracy, Fluency, and Comprehension scores and criterion measures ranged from 0.54 to 0.85 and from 0.64 to 0.85 for the Oral Reading Index. Sensitivity and specificity of the Oral Reading Index to predict low reading ability were 0.82 and 0.86, respectively, using a cut score of 90. ROC/AUC was 0.92. Construct validity is also plentiful. The correlation between the Oral Reading Index and a measure of academic achievement was 0.74. The correlation between the Oral Reading Index and an intelligence measure was 0.50. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Strong evidence supports the relationship between oral reading fluency and dyslexia. Students who struggle with reading also struggle to comprehend what they read. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 email:[email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Wiederholt, J.L., & Bryant, B.R. (2012). Gray Oral Reading Tests, 5th Edition (GORT-­5): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Gray Silent Reading Tests Authors: J. Lee Wiederholt, Ed.D. and Ginger Blalock, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Jennifer R. Jagielko, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 7–0 to 25–11 Description: The Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) was developed to measure silent reading comprehension in children through college-­age adults. The test consists of 13 stories read silently, accompanied by five multiple-­choice comprehension questions. It has two equivalent forms. This manually scored, paper-­and-­pencil test may be administered individually or in groups. SILENT READING INDEX

The GSRT’s one composite score comprises summing the 65 comprehension items to derive the Silent Reading Index. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The GSRT yields four types of normative scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, and an index score. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 1,400 examinees. • Reliability: Average coefficient alphas were 0.95 for Form A and 0.94 for Form B. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability was 0.85. Alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability was 0.83. Test–retest correlations were 0.86 for Form A and 0.93 for Form B. • Validity: Content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average correlations between the GSRT and criterion measures ranged from 0.63 to 0.72. Regarding construct validity, the mean silent reading quotients were in the Average range for typically developing demographic subgroups in the normative sample and the Below Average range for a group of previously identified poor readers.

230  APPENDIX A

RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Strong evidence supports the relationship between silent reading skills and dyslexia. Students who struggle with reading also struggle to comprehend what they read. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Wiederholt, J. L., & Blalock, G. (2000). Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition Authors: Alan S. Kaufman, Ph.D. and Nadeen L. Kaufman, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Kristina C. Breaux, Ph.D., Pearson Clinical Assessment Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 4–25; PreK–12 Description: The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement™ (3rd ed; KTEA™-­3; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014a) is an individually administered, comprehensive assessment of educational achievement for children, adolescents, and adults through age 25. Also referred to as the KTEA-­3 Comprehensive Form, the test includes two parallel forms with 19 subtests used to evaluate listening, speaking, ­reading, writing, and mathematics skills. Examiners can choose to administer a single subtest or any combination of subtests to assess academic achievement in one or more domains. The KTEA-­3 provides measures of all eight specific learning disability areas of identification specified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004), as well as areas of specific learning disability impairment specified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-­5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). It is appropriate for identifying patterns of strengths and weaknesses in individuals; making eligibility, placement, and diagnostic decisions; planning instruction and accommodations; monitoring progress with parallel alternate forms; measuring response to intervention; and research. The KTEA-­3 Brief Form (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014b) measures three achievement domains: reading (single-­word reading and passage comprehension), mathematics (computation and problem-­solving), and written language (spelling and written expression). In about 20 minutes, the KTEA-­3 Brief offers a highly reliable and valid estimate of basic academic skills, the Brief Achievement (BA-­3) composite. The Brief Form has valuable applications for screening, evaluation of academic strengths and weaknesses, inclusion in a comprehensive assessment battery, monitoring academic progress as part of a response-­to-­intervention program, and as a tool for ­conducting research. The KTEA-­3 Comprehensive Form and Brief Form are each available as a paper-­and-­pencil assessment, with manual or web-­based scoring, and as a fully digital assessment through the Q-­interactive™ app for iPad. SUBTESTS

The KTEA-­3 Comprehensive Form contains the following 19 subtests. Applicable grade ranges are in parentheses after the subtest name. The designation of 12+ includes examinees in grade 12 and adults. • Letter & Word Recognition (PK–12+): The examinee identifies letters and pronounces words. • Nonsense Word Decoding (1–12+): The examinee reads nonsense words. • Reading Comprehension (PK–12+): Early items require matching a symbol or word(s) with its corresponding picture or reading a simple instruction and then performing the action. Later items involve reading passages and answering comprehension questions. • Reading Vocabulary (1–12+): Early items require the examinee to point to one of three words with a similar meaning as the target word. Remaining items require the examinee to read a sentence and select the word that has a similar meaning as the target word. • Word Recognition Fluency (1–12+): The examinee reads a list of words aloud as quickly as possible during two 15-­second trials. • Decoding Fluency (3–12+): The examinee reads a list of nonsense words aloud as quickly as possible during two 15-­second trials.

APPENDIX A  231

• Silent Reading Fluency (1–12+): The examinee silently reads simple sentences and marks yes or no to indicate whether the statement is true or false, completing as many items as possible within a 2-­minute time limit. • Math Concepts & Applications (PK–12+): The examinee responds orally to items that require the application of mathematical principles to real-­life situations. • Math Computation (K–12+): The examinee writes answers to math calculation problems. • Math Fluency (1–12+): The examinee writes answers to as many addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division problems as possible in 60 seconds. • Written Expression (PK–12+): Young children trace and copy letters, and write letters, words, and a sentence from dictation. At grades 1 and higher, examinees write sentences from dictation, add capitalization and punctuation, complete or combine ­sentences, and write an essay. • Spelling (K–12+): Early items require writing single letters that represent sounds. Later items involve spelling words from dictation. • Writing Fluency (2–12+): The examinee writes one sentence about each picture presented in the Response Booklet and completes as many items as possible within a 5-­minute time limit. • Listening Comprehension (PK–12+): The examinee listens to a sentence or a recorded passage, and then responds orally to comprehension questions asked by the examiner. • Oral Expression (PK–12+): The examinee responds orally with a complete sentence to describe each photograph. Later items require the use of one or two target words or a beginning phrase. • Associational Fluency (PK–12+): The examinee says as many words as possible in 60 seconds that belong to a given semantic category. • Phonological Processing (PK–12+): The examinee responds orally to items that require manipulation of the sounds within words. • Object Naming Facility (PK–12+): The examinee names pictured objects as quickly as possible. • Letter Naming Facility (K–12+): The examinee names a combination of uppercase and lowercase letters as quickly as possible. The KTEA-­3 Brief Form consists of six subtests: Letter & Word Recognition, Reading Comprehension, Math Computation, Math Concepts & Applications, Spelling, and Written Expression. Examiners may choose to administer the three-­subtest BA-­3 battery, the three-­to-­six subtest Academic Skills Battery, or a custom combination of subtests. The six KTEA-­3 Brief subtests are exactly the same as the core subtests from the KTEA-­3 Comprehensive Form B. COMPOSITES

The KTEA-­3 contains the following 14 composites (4 core and 10 supplemental, including reading-­related composites) and a supplemental Dyslexia Index score. Composites are derived from the sum of subtest standard scores within the same domain or subdomain of academic achievement and supporting areas. Applicable grade ranges are in parentheses after the composite name. The designation of 12+ includes examinees in grade 12 and adults. The core composites are the Reading, Math, and Written Language composites, along with the Academic Skills Battery, which combines subtests from those three primary domains into one measure. • The Reading composite (PK–12+) is derived from scores on the Letter & Word Recognition and Reading Comprehension subtests to provide a reliable measure of broad reading that includes basic reading and contextual reading skills. • The Math composite (K–12+) is derived from scores on the Math Computation and Math Concepts & Applications subtests to provide a reliable measure of broad math skills that includes computation and using math in everyday contexts. • The Written Language composite (K–12+) is derived from scores on the Spelling and Written Expression subtests to provide a reliable measure of broad reading that includes basic reading and contextual reading skills. • The Academic Skills Battery (PK–12+) is derived from scores on one or more subtests from each core academic area. For prekindergarten examinees, only the scores from Letter & Word Recognition, Math Concepts & Applications, and Written Expression are used as part of the composite. In kindergarten, Math Computation and Spelling are included as well. All six subtests (Letter & Word Recognition, Reading Comprehension, Math Concepts & Applications, Math Computation, Written Expression, and Spelling) are used for examinees in grades 1–12+. The reading-­related composites are Sound-­Symbol, Decoding, Reading Fluency, and Reading Understanding. • The Sound-­Symbol composite (1–12+) is derived from scores on the Phonological Processing and Nonsense Word Decoding subtests. • The Decoding composite (1–12+) is derived from scores on the Letter & Word Recognition and Nonsense Word Decoding subtests.

232  APPENDIX A

• The Reading Fluency composite (3–12+) is derived from the combined scores of the Silent Reading Fluency, Word Recognition Fluency, and Decoding Fluency subtests. • The Reading Understanding composite (1–12+) is derived from scores on the Reading Comprehension and Reading Vocabulary subtests. The remaining supplemental composites include two oral language composites, four cross-­ domain composites, and the Dyslexia Index. • The Oral Language composite (PK–12+) is derived from the combined scores of Associational Fluency, Listening Comprehension, and Oral Expression. • The Oral Fluency composite (PK–12+) is derived from scores on the Associational Fluency and Object Naming Facility subtests. • The Comprehension composite (PK–12+) is derived from scores on the Reading Comprehension and Listening Comprehension subtests. • The Expression composite (PK–12+) is derived from scores on the Written Expression and Oral Expression subtests. • The Orthographic Processing composite (1–12+) is derived from the combined scores of the Spelling, Letter Naming Facility, and Word Recognition Fluency subtests. • The Academic Fluency composite (3–12+) is derived from the combined scores of the Silent Reading Fluency, Math Fluency, and Decoding Fluency subtests. • The Dyslexia Index: The KTEA-­3 Dyslexia Index (Breaux, 2021a) was designed to provide theoretically sound, reliable, and clinically sensitive composite scores for identifying risk for dyslexia among students in grades K–12, or individuals ages 5–25. In 20 minutes or less, practitioners can obtain a Dyslexia Index score to screen for risk for dyslexia and identify individuals who may benefit from a comprehensive evaluation or a more intensive intervention approach. The composite is derived from scores on the Phonological Processing, Letter & Word Recognition, and Letter Naming Facility subtests for examinees in grades K–1 and from scores on the Nonsense Word Decoding, Spelling, and Word Recognition Fluency subtests for examinees in grades 2–12+. These subtests were selected based on their clinical sensitivity and specificity for separating examinees with dyslexia from those without dyslexia. A single score such as the Dyslexia Index is not sufficient to diagnose dyslexia; however, the Dyslexia Index may contribute to the need to conduct a more in-­depth evaluation using assessments such as the KTEA-­3 Comprehensive Form. The KTEA-­3 Brief provides a total of five composite scores. These include the same core composites (Reading, Math, Written Language, and Academic Skills Battery) as the KTEA-­3 Comprehensive Form as well as the Brief Achievement composite (BA-­3; grades K–12+). Three subtests combine to form the Brief Achievement (BA-­3) composite: Letter & Word Recognition, Math Computation, and Spelling. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

Age-­and grade-­based standard scores are provided for each composite and subtest. Standard scores range from 40 to 160, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Bands of error are provided at the 85%, 90%, and 95% confidence interval. Additional derived scores include percentile rank, normal curve equivalent, and stanine, which are derived from a standard score. Subtest raw scores (or weighted raw scores) can be used to determine Growth Scale Values, for measuring ability across testing, and age and grade equivalents. Growth Scale Values have been equated across parallel forms to allow for progress monitoring while minimizing score differences based on practice effects. In-­depth error analysis for 10 subtests includes normed categories of performance (Strength, Average, or Weakness) by grade to indicate an individual’s performance on a given error category in comparison to grade-­based peers. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normative information is based on a national sample that is representative of the U.S. population of students in grades PK–12 and individuals ages 4 years 0 months to 25 years 11 months. The grade-­based norm sample included 2,600 examinees in grades PK–12, split between a fall sample and a spring sample (with winter norms interpolated). The age-­based norm sample included 2,050 examinees ages 4–25. Half of each sample was administered Form A and half was administered Form B. A linking study for both forms included 300 examinees. • Reliability: Average composite reliabilities range from good (0.80s) to excellent (0.90s), with the exception of Oral Fluency (0.70s). At every grade and age, reliabilities are in the 0.90s for the Academic Skills Battery composite, the core Reading,

APPENDIX A  233

Math, and Written Language composites, and every Reading-­Related composite. The Oral Language composite has a mean reliability of 0.86. The cross-­domain composites have a mix of reliabilities in the 0.80s and 0.90s across grades and ages. The reliability coefficient for the BA-­3 composite in the KTEA-­3 Brief Form is in the 0.90s at every age and grade. Average subtest reliability coefficients generally range from good to excellent. The following subtests have excellent reliabilities at every age and grade: Letter & Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding, Reading Vocabulary, Math Concepts & Applications, and Spelling. The ­following subtests have reliabilities mostly in the 0.80s and 0.90s: Reading Comprehension, Phonological Processing, Math Computation, Written Expression, and Listening Comprehension. • Validity: The KTEA-­3 Technical & Interpretive Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014c) provides evidence for validity within and across measures, including subtest intercorrelations, correlations to other tests, and special group studies. Intercorrelational analyses demonstrate concurrent and discriminant validity within and across domains, respectively, as expected. Correlation studies with other instruments support theoretical expectations around shared constructs and divergent measures. Special group studies included a specific sample for examinees diagnosed with a specific learning disorder in reading and/or written expression (Reading/ Writing disorder). Special group studies were also conducted with examinees with a language disorder and examinees with ADHD, as well as examinees with a specific learning disorder in mathematics, academically gifted examinees, and examinees with mild intellectual disability. Overall, the Reading/Writing disorder sample demonstrated weaknesses across domains; however, relative weaknesses and the largest effect sizes were observed in the areas of reading and spelling, with relatively less weakness and smaller effect sizes observed on measures of oral language. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The KTEA-­3 provides highly reliable and valid measures of skills and processing areas related to dyslexia, including phonological and orthographic processing, word recognition (timed and untimed), phonic decoding (timed and untimed), reading comprehension, contextual silent reading fluency, reading vocabulary, spelling, written expression, and rapid automatic naming. To support a comprehensive evaluation, the KTEA-­3 also provides measures of math calculation, math problem-­solving, math fluency, and oral language skills, including listening comprehension and oral expression. Clinical validity studies confirm lower performance by those with a reading/writing disorder on reading, spelling, and reading-­related subtests and composites compared to matched controls and compared to those with a learning disorder in math or with ADHD. Large effect sizes were observed for the reading/writing disorder sample across all core composites, the Academic Skills Battery composite, and, for the Brief Form, the BA-­3 composite. To help streamline the process of identifying those at risk for dyslexia, the KTEA-­3 offers a supplemental dyslexia screening composite, the Dyslexia Index. The subtests contributing to the composite were selected based on their clinical sensitivity and specificity for separating examinees with dyslexia from those without dyslexia. Based on the clinical validity study of those identified as having a learning disorder in reading and the matched control sample, the AUC estimates for the Dyslexia Index for grades K–1 and for grades 2–12+ are 0.90 and 0.89, respectively. These results support the use of the Dyslexia Index as a high-­quality dyslexia screening measure. Contact and Ordering Information NCS Pearson, Inc. Phone: 800-­627-­7271 Website: www.pearsonassessments.com Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition Copyright © 2014, 2021 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Used by permission. REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Breaux, K. C. (2021a). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition. Dyslexia Index. NCS Pearson. Breaux, K. C. (2021b). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition. Dyslexia Index Manual. NCS Pearson. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004). Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014a). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition. NCS Pearson. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014b). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement Brief Form, 3rd Edition. NCS Pearson. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (with Breaux, K. C.) (2014c). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, 3rd Edition: Technical & Interpretive Manual. NCS Pearson.

234  APPENDIX A

Test Name: Nelson–Denny Reading Test, Forms I & J Author: Vivian Vick Fischo, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Melissa E. Morey, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 14 to 24; High school–College (2-­or 4-­year) Description: The Nelson–Denny Reading Test, Forms I & J (NDRT I & J) was designed to measure the reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, and reading rate of high-­school-­level and college-­level students. This timed test has two forms, and it can be administered to individuals or groups. The test can be administered and scored using paper booklets and self-­scorable answer sheets or via computer using the NDRT Online Administration, Scoring, and Report System. The results of the NDRT I & J can be used to identify adolescents and adults who are significantly behind or above their peers in reading ability and to determine the magnitude of those discrepancies, if present. It can be used to qualify students for placement in remedial or accelerated classes or programs or to confirm the results of other reading tests. The test also has value as a research tool, especially for investigators who wish to study silent reading abilities using standardized instruments. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITE

The NDRT has two core subtests, one supplemental subtest, and one composite. A description of each follows: • Vocabulary (Core): This 80-­item subtest measures the reader’s understanding of vocabulary found in current subject matter texts. • Comprehension (Core): This 38-­item subtest measures the reader’s ability to comprehend and answer questions about the content of passages typically found in current subject matter texts. • Reading Rate (Supplemental): The Reading Rate measures the reader’s speed in reading subject matter text. • General Reading Ability Composite: Vocabulary and Comprehension are the core subtests that are used to form the General Reading Ability composite. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The NDRT yields five types of normative scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, subtest index scores, and composite index scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 1,251 high school students, 713 two-­year college students, and 1,434 four-­year college students. • Reliability: Average coefficient alphas for the subtests range from 0.85 to 0.93 and from 0.93 to 0.94 for the General Reading Ability composite. Reliability across gender, race, ethnicity, and individuals diagnosed with an exceptionality (e.g., learning disability, attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder) ranged from 0.84 to 0.96 for the subtests, and 0.93 to 0.97 for the composite. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the subtests ranged from 0.88 to 0.91; for the composite it was 0.94. Alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability for the subtests ranged from 0.80 to 0.92; for the composite it was 0.90. Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.89 to 0.98 for the subtests and was 0.96 for the composite. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Correlations between the Vocabulary subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.47 to 0.80. Correlations between the Comprehension subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.49 to 0.80. Correlations between the Reading Rate and criterion measures ranged from 0.45 to 0.84. Correlations between the General Reading Ability composite and criterion measures ranged from 0.49 to 0.83. Diagnostic accuracy studies indicate that the NDRT can accurately identify students with reading difficulties (sensitivity = 0.73, specificity = 0.80, ROC/ AUC = 0.88) with few false positives. Regarding construct validity, the correlation between the General Reading Ability composite and the composite of an intelligence measure was 0.60. The correlations between the General Reading Ability composite and two expressive written language subtests ranged from 0.54 to 0.68. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Individuals with dyslexia often have slow reading rates that have a negative effect on the development of reading comprehension. Results from the NDRT can be useful for documenting the need for fluency interventions and/or the need for the accommodation of extended time when reading.

APPENDIX A  235

Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Fischo, V. V. (2019). Nelson-­Denny Reading Test: Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Oral Passage Understanding Scale (OPUS) Authors: Elizabeth Carrow-­Woolfolk, Ph.D. and Amber Klein, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Elizabeth Carrow-­Woolfolk, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 5–0 to 21–11 Description: The Oral Passage Understanding Scale (OPUS) was developed as a companion to the CASL-­2 but can also be used as a standalone assessment. The OPUS assesses listening comprehension by measuring the ability to listen to orally presented passages and recall information about them. This assessment is based on the author’s Integrative Language Theory and evaluates the ability to integrate and apply knowledge in three structural linguistic categories: Lexical/Semantic, Syntactic, and Supralinguistic. Furthermore, the OPUS measures memory skills and passage synthesis, which are integral to listening comprehension. It is available in paper-­and-­ pencil format, which can be scored by hand using the manual and record forms, or electronically using the WPS OES free online scoring. The OPUS can be used to help clinicians answer a variety of referral questions and create goals for therapy and individual education plans. TEST

The examiner reads a passage aloud, then presents the examinee with a series of items (questions) associated with the passage. The most important factors affecting the choice of passages for the OPUS were that they varied in content and narrative type (e.g., fiction versus nonfiction) and reflected the kind of material that a student is likely to encounter in school. ITEM TYPES

Passage and item analyses on the OPUS are descriptive, qualitative processes that do not yield psychometric scores, but are often helpful in elaborating on an examinee’s specific patterns of strength and weakness. Performance on each of these item types can be qualitatively analyzed and interpreted by summing the total number of correct responses for each specific item type to yield an I­ tem-­Type Total.



1. Lexical/Semantic (Sem): These items measure the examinee’s knowledge of word meanings; some items also require the ability to provide a correct synonym. Success on all items of this type relies heavily on vocabulary knowledge. Items that require a synonym also require cognitive processing to understand the relationship between words. 2. Syntax (Syn):  These items measure the comprehension of grammatical morphemes and inflections. Success requires the ­understanding of how these syntactic structures contribute meaning (e.g., adding -­s to a noun means there is more than one). 3. Inference (Inference Total): These items measure the examinee’s ability to think beyond what is directly stated in the passage. 3a. Inference From Background Knowledge (IB): These items measure the ability to integrate information in the passage with the examinee’s own knowledge of world. Success often depends on the examinee’s previous life experiences and exposure to information. 3b. Inference From Context (IC): These items measure the ability to understand information explicitly stated in the passage and analyze it at a deeper level to determine what can be reasonably inferred from it. Success requires the examinee to understand that information can be implied as well as stated. 3c. Inference From Figurative Language (IF): These items measure the ability to understand the actual meaning of figurative and nonliteral language. This ability often depends on the examinee’s previous exposure to figurative language and an ­understanding that not everything should be understood only at its literal level. 3d. Inference From Prediction (IP):  These items measure the ability to logically predict what might happen next. Success ­requires complete understanding of the passage and the application of logic.

236  APPENDIX A



4. Memory (Memory Total): These items measure the ability to recall information. 4a. Memory For Nonmeaningful Information (M): These items measure the ability to recall details (e.g., names of people and places) that do not have any contextual meaning. Success requires good retrieval memory. 4b. Recall of Text Details (T):  These items measure memory for details that relate to the meaning of the passage. Success ­requires both working memory and comprehension of the information presented in the passage. 5. Passage Synthesis (P):  These items measure the ability to understand the passage’s overall meaning and synthesize it into a ­possible title or explanation of theme. Success requires understanding of the whole passage, as well as understanding of what a title/theme should express.

Each item type can be evaluated independently; in addition, the four subtypes of Inference (Inference From Background Knowledge, Inference From Context, Inference From Figurative Language, and Inference for Prediction) can be summed into a total Inference score, and the two subtypes of Memory (Memory for Nonmeaningful Information and Recall of Text Details) can also be summed into a total Memory score, both of which can be used for qualitative interpretation. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The OPUS yields an overall standard score (mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15) which is used to generate descriptive ranges, percentile ranks, age and grade equivalencies, and upper and lower confidence intervals. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 1,517 individuals. • Reliability: The OPUS internal consistency reliability coefficients range from 0.82 to 0.91, which indicates a high level of internal consistency, particularly for a test that measures diverse facets of listening comprehension. Test–retest and inter-­rater reliability estimates are also high at 0.85 and 0.91, respectively. • Validity: The OPUS standard score correlates in expected ways with other measures of oral language, including its companion instrument, the CASL-­2 (0.56–0.77), and the OWLS-­II (0.60–0.74). In addition, the OPUS distinguishes typically developing individuals from those with clinical diagnoses that would be expected, or are known, to affect listening comprehension. Using a cutoff score of one standard deviation below the mean, the standard score discriminates clinically diagnosed individuals from typically developing individuals with sensitivity of ≥0.79 and specificity of ≥0.87. Conditional probability analyses have i­ ndicated that the OPUS provides statistically significant improvement over chance in detecting listening comprehension deficits in the clinical sample (area under ROC curve = 0.902, p < 0.001). RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

An individual’s ability to listen and comprehend is part of oral language development. Oral language development is a key factor in the development of reading skills. The OPUS gives an easy and effective way to measure an individual’s ability to listen and comprehend. This information is helpful in the evaluation of dyslexia if the individual is having difficulty with comprehension. It is important to determine if the individual is struggling with decoding which is affecting their comprehension or if they have underlying oral language development issues, in this case listening comprehension, that are impacting their ability to comprehend when reading. In addition, the OPUS can be useful for determining the unexpected nature of dyslexia in individuals where listening comprehension is much higher than their word recognition skill. Contact and Ordering Information WPS 625 Alaska Ave. Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 800-­648-­8857 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wpspublish.com/opus-­oral-­passage-­understanding-­scale REFERENCES

Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2011). Oral and Written Language Scales, 2nd Edition (OWLS-­II). Western Psychological Services. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2011). Foundations of Language Assessment. Western Psychological Services. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2017). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, 2nd Edition (CASL-­2). Western Psychological Services.

APPENDIX A  237

Test Name: Oral and Written Language Scales, Second Edition Author: Elizabeth Carrow-­Woolfolk, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Amber Klein, Ph.D., Vice President of R&D at WPS Appropriate for Ages: 3 to 21 (Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression Scales); 5 to 21 (Reading Comprehension and Written Expression Scales) Description: The Oral and Written Language Scale, Second Edition (OWLS-­II) is a set of four interrelated scales that together provide a comprehensive assessment of language. Each of the four OWLS-­II scales measures a separate language process: listening (receptive oral language), speaking (expressing oral language), reading (receptive written language), and writing (expressing written language). The OWLS-­II includes two parallel sets of equivalent forms that can be administered individually: Form A and Form B. Form A is the primary form designed for use in single assessments and on the first occasion of a repeat testing protocol. Form B is an equivalent form for ages 5 to 21, designed for use on repeated testing. This assessment is available in a paper-­and-­pencil format that can be scored by hand using the manual and record forms or electronically using the WPS OES free online scoring. The results of the OWLS-­II can be used to provide a measure of oral and written language across both receptive and expressive processes. SCALES

The OWLS-­II contains the following four scales: • Listening Comprehension (LC): Items are presented verbally and pictorially; responses are given primarily by pointing on multiple-­choice items. • Oral Expression (OE): Items are presented verbally and pictorially; responses are given verbally. • Reading Comprehension (RC): Items and responses are presented in text; responses are given by pointing or saying the number of the response on multiple-­choice items. • Written Expression (WE): Items are presented verbally and visually (some in text, some pictorially); responses are written. COMPOSITES

The OWLS-­II has five composites. These composites are derived from combining the results of the subtests to achieve stronger and better indices of performance. The composite scores are more robust than the individual tests. • Oral Language:  This composite is formed by combining the scores from the Listening Comprehension (LC) and Oral Expression (OE) scales. This composite represents the examinee’s overall ability with oral language, both expressive and receptive. • Written Language: This composite is formed by combining the scores from the Reading Comprehension (RC) and Written Expression (WE) scales. This composite represents the examinee’s overall ability with written language, both receptive and expressive. • Receptive Language:  This composite is formed by combining the scores from the Listening Comprehension and Reading Comprehension scales. This composite represents the examinee’s skill with regard to comprehending information presented both orally and in writing. • Expressive Language: This composite is formed by combining the scores from the Oral Expression and Written Expression scales. This composite represents the examinee’s skill with regard to expressing language by speaking and writing. • Overall Language:  All four scales can be combined for an Overall Language Composite, which provides an estimate of the examinee’s general language skills. An overall score of this type is sometimes used for eligibility purposes; however, the most useful information can be obtained by observing and interpreting the individual scale scores and the other composites. Differences among these scores provide insight into an individual’s strengths and weaknesses in language and therefore can help guide intervention planning. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The OWLS-­II yields a standard score (mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15) for each of the four scales and five composites. The standard scores are used to generate descriptive ranges, percentile ranks, a­ ge and grade equivalencies, and upper and lower confidence intervals.

238  APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 2,123 individuals. • Reliability: Internal consistency estimates across the four scales and five composites were uniformly high (≥0.92) and consistent throughout the age range of the OWLS-­II, and across both forms. Test–retest estimates for the scales ranged from 0.73 to 0.94 (median = 0.85), and test–retest estimates for the composites ranged from 0.85 to 0.95 (median = 0.92). Inter-­rater reliability estimates for the OE and WE scales ranged from 0.93 to 0.96. Alternative forms reliability estimates ranged from 0.67 to 0.96 (median = 0.78). Taken all together, the reliability estimates of the OWLS-­II support the stability of the results within forms, across forms, over time, and scored by different clinicians. • Validity: According to OWLS-­II factor analysis, Integrative Language Theory’s underlying constructs are valid. Moderate correlations (0.39 to 0.75) between scales suggest that each test measures a unique aspect of language, allowing separate scoring and interpretation. The OWLS-­II measures are significantly correlated (p < 0.001) with their original OWLS counterparts: LC (r = 0.78), OE (r = 0.75), WE (r = 0.56), and Oral Language Composite (r = 0.79). The scales and composite scores also show expected correlations with scores from CELF-­4 (p < 0.005, r = 0.45 for Receptive Language; p < 0.001, r = 0.59 for Expressive Language) and WJ­III NU (p < 0.001, r = 0.86 for RC; p < 0.001, r = 0.78 for WE), indicating convergent validity. OWLS-­II scores effectively distinguish typically developing individuals from those with speech and language impairments (effect sizes 0.58–1.24) and behavioral and developmental disorders (effect sizes 1.63–2.23). RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The OWLS-­II offers professionals who are evaluating expressive and receptive oral language, reading, and writing skills, a comprehensive view of all four areas. Oral language development is one of the biggest factors in determining the success an individual will have with reading and writing development. The OWLS-­II offers valuable insight for professionals who want to obtain a comprehensive view of oral language and its relationship with reading and writing. The reading and writing tests can provide insight into the ability level of skills directly impacted by dyslexia. For individuals with dyslexia or suspected of having dyslexia, the OWLS-­II may be beneficial to determine the underlying causes of reading and writing difficulties. Contact and Ordering Information WPS 625 Alaska Ave. Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 800-­648-­8857 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wpspublish.com/owls-­ii-­oral-­and-­written-­language-­scales-­second-­edition.html REFERENCES

Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (1988). Theory, Assessment and Intervention in Language Disorders: An Integrative Approach. Grune & Stratton. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (1995). Oral and Written Language Scales: Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression. American Guidance Service. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (1996). Oral and Written Language Scales: Written Expression. American Guidance Service. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2011). Oral and Written Language Scales: Reading Comprehension/Written Expression, 2nd Edition (OWLS II) [Manual]. Western Psychological Services. Carrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2011). Oral and Written Language Scales: Listening Comprehension/Oral Expression, 2nd Edition (OWLS II) [Manual]. Western Psychological Services. Carrrow-­Woolfolk, E. (2011). Foundations of Language Assessment. Western Psychological Services. Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 4th Edition (CELF-­4). Psychological Corporation. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2007). Woodcock–Johnson III Normative Update (NU) Tests of Achievement, Forms A and B. Riverside Insights.

Test Name: Phonological and Print Awareness Scale Author: Kathleen T. Williams, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Amber Klein, Ph.D., Vice President of R&D at WPS Appropriate for Ages: 3–0 to 8–11 Description: The Phonological and Print Awareness Scale (PPA Scale) assessment is a research-­based, standardized measure of early ­literacy skills. These skills include phonological and print awareness, which have consistently demonstrated a strong, predictive

APPENDIX A  239

r­ elationship with future measures of reading and writing. The PPA Scale provides three parallel forms to allow for progress monitoring of skill development during reading instruction and intervention. It is available as a paper-­and-­pencil version, which can be scored either by hand using the record forms and the manual, or electronically using the WPS OES free online scoring. The results of the PPA Scale can be used for four purposes: (a) to identify children who are behind their peers in developing literacy skills, (b) to determine areas of relative strength and weakness among literacy skills, (c) to provide a record of a child’s development in phonological and print awareness skills, and (d) to serve as a research tool in studies investigating the effectiveness of literacy programs. TASKS

The PPA Scale contains 69 items representing six tasks, which can be evaluated for qualitative purposes. The six tasks measure: • Rhyming: The examiner shows the examinee three pictures and names them. The examinee responds by pointing to the two that rhyme. • Print Knowledge: The examinee is asked to recognize important elements of print, including knowledge of individual letters. For example, the examiner presents an easel page with four options, only one of which is a word (the other three are numbers, a picture, and a shape), and says, “Point to the one that is a word.” • Initial Sound Matching: The examiner shows the child three pictures, names them, and then states a stimulus word. The examinee is asked to point to the picture that begins with the same sound as the stimulus word. • Final Sound Matching: The examiner administers the task in the same manner as Initial Sound Matching. The examinee is required to isolate and match the last phoneme in a pair of words. • Sound–Symbol Matching: The examiner names a picture, and the examinee must point to the letter among six choices that represents the first or last sound in the pictured word. This task requires the ability to isolate the initial or final phoneme (sound) and match it to the corresponding grapheme (symbol). • Phonemic Awareness: The examiner shows a picture, names it, and asks the examinee to indicate the number of sounds in the word using counters at the bottom of the easel page or by tapping on the table. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The PPA Scale yields a single standard score (mean of 100, standard deviation of 15) which is used to generate the descriptive ranges, percentile ranks, age equivalencies, and upper and lower confidence intervals or the PPA Scale. A growth score is also provided to measure performance of the same examinee over time. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 1,104 individuals. • Reliability: The replication of high internal consistency reliability across both typical and clinical samples (0.91–0.99) provides evidence that the PPA Scale will yield internally consistent, stable scores in multiple settings; test–retest reliability coefficients are uniformly high (≥0.91) across all three forms; high coefficients indicating reliability between alternate forms (≥0.90) provide support for the equivalence of the three forms. • Validity: Inter-­task correlations range from 0.69 to 0.90, suggesting that the tasks are measuring different aspects of the same construct rather than separate constructs. The correlations between the WRMT-­III subtests and the PPA Scale are all moderate, ranging from 0.51 to 0.59. The correlation of 0.66 suggests a moderate relationship between the early literacy skills of the PPA Scale and the reading skills of the OWLS-­II RC. Results indicated that the PPA Scale (area under ROC curve = 0.878, p < 0.001) provided statistically significant improvement over chance in determining skill level. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Meta-­analysis conducted by the National Early Literacy Panel has provided substantial evidence that children’s print knowledge and phonological processing skills were both independent predictors of later reading outcomes. The preschool period is a crucial time for building skills that contribute to the development of reading skills. The developmental precursors to obtaining reading skills are found early and prior to formal schooling. According to the International Dyslexia Association, children should be screened as early as prekindergarten, but no later than kindergarten with a screener that is given in no more than 30 minutes. They also recommended that evidenced-­based targeted interventions/instruction, based on data obtained from the screener, be implemented. The PPA Scale offers the ability to screen and intervene as early as 3 years 6 months, so schools can help children at the most crucial time of their early literacy development.

240  APPENDIX A

Contact and Ordering Information WPS 625 Alaska Ave. Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 800-­648-­8857 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wpspublish.com/ppa-­scale-­phonological-­and-­print-­awareness-­scale.html REFERENCES

Carrow-­Woolfolk, E., & Williams, K. T. (2011). Oral and Written Language Scales, 2nd Edition. (OWLS-­II) (Reading Comprehension/ Written Expression) [RC/WE Manual]. Western Psychological Services. Lonigan, C. J., Allan, N. P., & Lerner, M. D. (2011). Assessment of preschool early literacy skills: Linking children’s educational needs with empirically supported instructional activities. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20569. PMID: 22180666; PMCID: PMC3237681. Williams, K. T. (2014). Phonological and Print Awareness Scale (PPA Scale) [Manual]. Western Psychological Services. Woodcock, R. W. (2011). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, 3rd Edition. (WRMT-­III) [Manual]. NCS Pearson.

Test Name: Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST) Author: David A. Kilpatrick, Ph.D. Information Provided by: David A. Kilpatrick, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages/Grades: K–2; K to adult for those suspected of having word reading difficulties General Description: The PAST assesses phonemic awareness with a focus on the speed of response to individual items (within two seconds), and thus is also a test of phonemic proficiency/automaticity, not just phonemic awareness. Students respond to items of increasing difficulty and the responses are scored as either correct or incorrect. All correct items are considered a measure of phonemic awareness, but only the less-­than-­2-­second responses are considered a measure of phonemic proficiency. The PAST has four alternate forms. Scores: Students get two scores, a total correct score and an “automatic” score. The automatic score is a subset of the total correct score and includes items that were responded to in 2 seconds or less. Types of Scores Provided: Raw scores only. The PAST is not normed. Administration: The PAST is administered in a standardized fashion. There are very specific administration directions that must be followed. Technical Information: In a study the author did, 58 kindergarteners received the PAST in March and an alternative form of the PAST in June with a reliability coefficient of +0.82. This was equal to or higher than three of the four AIMSweb tests given both times (not alternate forms). The test–retest reliability for the WIAT-­4 Phonemic Proficiency subtest was +0.84. In data collection efforts in four school districts, the author collected general samples of K–12 students (n ≈ 740). The PAST correlated with the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-­Revised (reading +0.5 to +0.78). In addition, the WIAT-­4 Phonemic Proficiency subtest was based upon the PAST, using different words in a different order. The PAST correlated +0.5 or higher with all four WIAT-­4 word reading subtests and +0.6 or higher on two of those four for grades 1 to 12. Relevance to Dyslexia: Phonemic awareness difficulties are very common among students with dyslexia and the PAST is a free assessment of phonemic skills. Ordering Information: The PAST can be downloaded at www.thepasttest.com Test Name: Process Assessment of the Learner, 2nd Edition: Diagnostic Assessment for Reading and Writing (PAL-­II RW) Author: Virginia Berninger, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Virginia Berninger Appropriate for Grades: K–6 Description: The PAL-­II RW test has an Administration and Scoring Manual, Stimulus Books A, B, and C, a Response Booklet for the Student, and a Record Form for Recording Scores and Creating Profiles. A description of the content for the three diagnostic profiles follows. • Subtests for the Diagnostic Reading Profile include the following: • Phonological Decoding: Pseudoword Decoding Accuracy and Pseudoword Fluency. • Morphological Decoding: Find the True Fixes, Morphological Decoding Accuracy, and Morphological Decoding Fluency. • Silent Reading Fluency: Sentence Sense Accuracy and Sentence Sense Fluency.

APPENDIX A  241

• Subtests for the Diagnostic Writing Profile include the following: • Alphabetic Writing: Alphabet writing from memory scored for legible letters in correct order of alphabet in first 15 seconds (automaticity), total legibility, and total time. • Copy Task A: Copying a sentence with all the letters of the alphabet scored for total legibility and total time. • Copy Task B: Legible letters at 30 seconds, at 60 seconds, and at 90 seconds scored for sustaining handwriting over time. • Word Choice: Accuracy and total time taken for word-­specific spelling (also a measure of word-­specific reading). • Narrative Compositional Fluency. • Expository Note Taking and Report Writing: Accuracy and fact errors in Notes; quality, organization, and irrelevant thoughts in Report Writing. • Subtests for Creating the Profile of Processes Related to Reading and/or Writing include the following: • Orthographic Coding: Receptive Coding and Expressive Orthographic Coding for letters, letter groups, and whole words. • Phonological Coding: Rhyming, Syllables, Phonemes, and Rimes. • Morphological Coding: Are They Related? Does It Fit? Sentence Structure. • RAN/RAS: Letters Total Time, Letter Groups Total Time, and Words Total Time, and Total Rate Change and Total Errors for Letters, Letter Groups, and Words. • Oral Motor Planning: Total Time and Total Errors. • Finger Sense: Finger Localization and Finger Recognition. • Verbal Working Memory: Letters Total, Words Total, Sentence Listening, Sentence Writing. Notes: See Appendix B for the Revised User Guide for Process Assessment of the Learner for Reading and Writing, 2nd Edition (PAL-­II RW) that describes how to link evidence-­based assessment with evidence-­based instruction at three tiers: Tier 1 Screen-­Intervene, Tier 2 Problem-­Solving Consultation, and Tier 3 Differential Diagnosis–Differentiated Instruction. • In the Revised User Guide for PAL-­II RW (2020), see Section 2 of Part III (pages 74–104) for procedures using PAL-­II RW for Tier 3 diagnosing Dyslexia (impaired word reading and spelling achievement and related phenotype processes), Dysgraphia (impaired handwriting achievement and related phenotype processes), and Oral and Written Language Learning Disability (OWL LD, impaired listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and/or written expression achievement and related phenotype processes). • In the Revised User Guide PAL-­II RW (2020), see Section 1 of Part III (pages 54–68) for the multidisciplinary research (genetics, brain, language, working memory, and cognitive) at the University of Washington and elsewhere on which the Tier 3 diagnostic procedures are based. • In the Revised User Guide PAL-­II RW (2020), see Table 5 (pages 85–86) for other tests to administer in addition to those in PAL-­II RW for Tier 3 differential diagnosis of dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD. Contact and Ordering Information NCS Pearson, Inc. Phone: 800-­627-­7271 Website: www.pearsonassessments.com For the Revised User Guide and PAL instructional materials, refer to Mimeo Marketplace: https://marketplace.mimeo.com/ pearsonPAL REFERENCES

Berninger, V. (2007). Process Assessment of the Learner, 2nd Edition. Diagnostic for Reading and Writing (PAL-­II RW). NCS Pearson. Berninger, V. (2020). Revised User Guide for Process Assessment of the Learner II for Reading and Writing (PAL II RW). NCS Pearson.

Test Name: Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Tests Authors: Maryanne Wolf, Ph.D. and Martha Denckla, M.D. Information Provided By: Elizabeth A. Allen, Ph.D., Director of R&D, PRO-ED Appropriate for Ages: 5–0 to 18–11 Description: The RAN/RAS Tests are individually administered measures designed to estimate an individual’s ability to see a visual symbol—­such as a letter or color—­and to name it accurately and rapidly. The RAN/RAS Tests consist of four RAN tests (Objects, Colors, Numbers, Letters) and two RAS tests (2-­Set Letters and Numbers, and 3-­Set Letters, Numbers, and Colors). On all tests, the examinee is asked to name each stimulus item as quickly as possible without making any mistakes. Scores are based on the amount of

242  APPENDIX A

time required to name all of the stimulus items on each test. The RAN/RAS is available as a paper-­and-­pencil version and must be manually scored only. The results of the RAN/RAS can be generally used for (a) early identification of children at risk for reading and learning difficulties; (b) ongoing assessment of processes underlying naming speed and reading fluency; and (c) measurement of the development, intactness, and efficiency of the basic word-­retrieval system. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITES

The RAN/RAS has six subtests but does not yield a composite. Following is a description of the six subtests: • Test 1 (RAN Objects): The Objects test consists of five stimulus items (hand, book, dog, star, and chair) from the Wolf et al. (1986) adaptation. These items were chosen on the basis of their high frequency; their membership in highly familiar semantic categories related to childhood (i.e., body, school items, animals, nature, furniture); their ease in articulation; and their single-­syllable word structure. • Test 2 (RAN Colors): The Colors test consists of the original five colors (red, yellow, blue, green, and black) that appeared in the first RAN (Denckla, 1972). Stimulus items in each row appear twice per row with no blatant repetitions on a given line (e.g., red, red or blue, blue). • Test 3 (RAN Numbers): The Numbers test consists of the original five numbers (2, 4, 6, 7, and 9) that appeared in Denckla and Rudel (1976b). Stimulus items appear twice per row with no blatant repetitions on a given line (e.g., 2 2, 4 4). • Test 4 (RAN Letters): The Letters test consists of the original five high-­frequency lowercase letters (a, d, o, p, and s) used in Denckla and Rudel (1976b). Stimulus items appear twice per row with no blatant repetitions on a given line (e.g., a a, d d). The rationale for the selection of letters was based on Denckla and Rudel’s (1974, 1976a, 1976b) original principles. • Tests 5 and 6 (RAS 2-­Set and 3-­Set): The stimulus items used in the 2-­Set and 3-­Set tests are a subset of the stimulus items on the Objects, Colors, Numbers, and Letters tests. A set sequence or stimulus pattern was used throughout each of the tests. Each row of the 2-­Set Letters and Numbers test contains an ABABABABAB pattern. Each row of the 3-­Set Letters, Numbers, and Colors test contains an ABCABCABCABC pattern. Every attempt was made to ensure random sequencing and to avoid repeated patterns. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The RAN/RAS Tests yield four types of normative scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, and standard scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 1,461 individuals. • Reliability: Average test–retest reliability across all ages ranged from 0.82 to 0.92. • Validity: Content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. The correlation between the RAN Numbers and CTOPP Rapid Digit Naming was 0.72 (Very Large in magnitude), and between RAN Letters and CTOPP Rapid Letter Naming was 0.71 (Very Large in magnitude). The Examiner’s Manual also summarizes the results of 14 research studies conducted across 3 decades that demonstrate the processes underlying naming speed differentiate most children with dyslexia from other readers at every age tested from kindergarten through adulthood. Correlations between RAN/RAS Tests and measures of word identification and comprehension ranged from 0.25 (Objects) to 0.69 (2-­Set Letters and Numbers). RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The RAN/RAS Tests measure a person’s ability to perceive a visual symbol—­such as a letter or color—­and retrieve the name for it accurately and rapidly. Commonly referred to as naming speed, the results of these tasks indicate how fast the brain can integrate visual and language processes. Because the visual, verbal, and retrieval processes underlying rapid naming are integral to written language, naming speed tests make a strong contribution to an overall understanding of an individual’s reading performance. Naming-­speed tests, particularly for letters and numbers, provide one of the best means of differentiating between good and poor readers (Denckla & Rudel, 1976a, 1976b; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). RAN has been shown to be a powerful predictor of slow reading speed in individuals of all ages with dyslexia. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com

APPENDIX A  243

REFERENCES

Denckla, M. B. (1972). Color-­naming deficits in dyslexic boys. Cortex, 8, 164–176. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1974). Rapid automatized naming of pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers by normal children. Cortex, 10, 186–202. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976a). Naming of objects by dyslexic and other learning-­disabled children. Brain and Language, 3, 1–15. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976b). Rapid ‘automatized’ naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479. Wolf, M., Bally, H., Morris, R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes, and reading. Child Development, 57, 988–1000. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The “double-­deficit hypothesis” for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–24. Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. (2005). The Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Tests (RAN/RAS): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Reynolds Dyslexia Risk Assessment (RDRA) Authors: Cecil R. Reynolds, Ph.D. and Rebecca Gerhardstein Nader, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Schoolhouse Educational Services Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 4 to 7–11; PreK–2nd grade Description: The Reynolds Dyslexia Risk Assessment (RDRA) is a screening measure assessing the risk of having or developing dyslexia or a related reading disorder. It is not a standalone diagnostic instrument, but rather the RDRA is designed to locate children who require more extensive assessment in reading and also to indicate children who are progressing appropriately and do not require more intensive attention. The RDRA consists of two norm-­referenced parent or caregiver rating scales (ages 4–5, 47 items; ages 6–7, 40 items) and a two norm-­referenced teacher rating scales (ages 4–5, 56 items; ages 6–7, 57 items) that are easily completed by a knowledgeable rater in 10 minutes or less. The ratings can be entered directly into an online app which automatically scores the results, or the ratings can be entered online following completion of printed rating forms. The scales are normed for application with children ages 4 years, 0 months through 7 years, 11 months, and 30 days. Results are provided in terms of a risk classification where a rated child falls into an elevated risk category, indicating the need for a more detailed assessment, or a child falls into an average or less than average level of risk of developing dyslexia or a related reading disorder. Children who are behind other children in the development of pre-­ reading skills due to lack of educational opportunity or other reasons will also be identified for follow-­up. The RDRA makes identification of risk for a reading disability more efficacious and cost-­effective. RATING SCALES

• • • •

Parent Rating Form Ages 4–5 Parent Rating Form Ages 6–7 Teacher Rating Form Ages 4–5 Teacher Rating Form Ages 6–7

COMPOSITE

The RDRA has one total score called the Dyslexia Risk Index. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The Index provides a standard score (mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15), t-­score, percentile, and z-­score. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 929 subjects. • Reliability: All four of the RDRA forms have excellent alpha reliabilities, ranging from 0.96 to 0.99. The test–retest reliabilities range from 0.86 to 0.98. • Validity: When a sample of subjects with dyslexia was compared with a matched control group, the subjects with dyslexia had a mean Index score more than 1.5 standard deviations higher (p < 0.01 indicating significant difficulties) than the matched subjects on both the parent and teacher forms. A sensitivity and specificity analysis with positive and negative predictive power values found that the RDRA is clearly sensitive to the presence of dyslexia and related reading disorders and is even better at determining which students are developing normal reading patterns, indicating that the RDRA has a high level of diagnostic accuracy. In a concurrent validity study, the RDRA Index and the Woodcock–Johnson IV Basic Reading Skills cluster had a correlation of 0.68.

244  APPENDIX A

RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The RDRA provides a developmentally sequenced set of descriptors of skills that are necessary to achieve reading success, and the ­failure of which to achieve almost certainly leads to early reading failure or at best, early reading difficulties. The early precursors to successful acquisition of reading skills follow a common developmental pattern in successful readers. This pattern can be assessed for fidelity through the use of raters who are knowledgeable about a child’s development as well as their educational skills. Knowledgeable persons who can rate such children effectively include parents and other caregivers who interact with the children on a daily basis. Knowledgeable persons also include preschool, kindergarten, and early elementary school teachers and aides who have clear experience with the child’s efforts and progress in the skills that are necessary to become good readers. Contact and Ordering Information Schoolhouse Educational Services, Inc. P.O. Box 397 Sparta, WI 54656 Phone: 608-­487-­8282 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.SchoolhouseEducationalServices.com Test Name: Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™ Author: Sally E. Shaywitz, M.D. Information Provided By: Kristina C. Breaux, Ph.D., Pearson Clinical Assessment Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 5 to 9; K–3 (Forms 0–3); 14 to 65 in the general population (Adolescent–Adult Form); 18 to 68 in corrections settings (Corrections Form) Description: The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™ provides brief rating forms to help identify children, adolescents, and adults who are at risk for having dyslexia. Each form collects ratings of clinically sensitive indicators, including phonological, linguistic, and academic performance, by teachers of children in grades K–3, or by self-­ratings in adolescents and adults. Given its brief administration time of 5 minutes or less, ease of administration, and strong psychometric properties, the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen can be used for universal screening as well as targeted screening and research. The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen can be used within a larger dyslexia screening process. For example, it can be administered as a time-­ efficient measure to eliminate from the risk pool those who are at low risk for dyslexia. Subsequently, those individuals classified as At Risk for Dyslexia may receive a performance-­based evaluation to help eliminate false positives. To the extent possible, the results should be interpreted alongside other relevant sources of information such as educational, medical, and family history. Depending on the level of risk and the number and severity of risk indicators, these results can help determine which examinees would benefit from further assessment or more intensive instruction or intervention. RATING SCALES

Forms 0–3 are teacher rating scales for grades K–3. Each of these forms were developed to be a time-­efficient survey that targets the most clinically sensitive behaviors to help teachers identify students at risk for dyslexia and to begin intervention as early as possible. Each form consists of 10–12 items. The teacher completing the form rates statements regarding a student’s language and academic behaviors based on how frequently the student demonstrates each behavior. Other statements refer to the student’s academic mastery levels, the likelihood that the student has a learning problem, and the likelihood that the student will be ready to progress to the next grade level. • The Adolescent–Adult Form is a self-­report rating scale for individuals ages 14–65 in the general population. This form consists of 10 items. The examinee completes the form by rating statements regarding their own language and academic behaviors based on how often each statement has been true for them. • The Corrections Form is a self-­report rating scale for individuals ages 18–68 in corrections settings, including jails and prisons. This form consists of 10 items. The examinee completes the form by rating statements regarding their own language and academic behaviors based on how often each statement has been true for them. The Adolescent–Adult and Corrections Forms were developed concurrently and share the same item content; however, the item-­level and overall cut scores differ because the norms for each form were based on different samples. All forms are time-­efficient surveys that target the most clinically sensitive behaviors to help identify individuals who are at risk for dyslexia and to begin intervention as early as possible.

APPENDIX A  245

The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen is available for web-­based administration and scoring through the Q-­global® platform (Forms 0–3 and Adolescent–Adult Form), the aimswebPlus platform (Forms 0–3), Review360® (Forms 0–3, Adolescent–Adult Form, and Corrections Form), and the GEDTS/VUE Athena Desktop test driver (Corrections Form). A reproducible version of the Corrections Form is ­available for offline administration. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen provides an overall indication of risk for dyslexia. Each examinee receives a rating of At Risk for Dyslexia or Not at Risk for Dyslexia based on the ratings and the form’s cut scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen was initially developed as part of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study that began in 1983. The Connecticut Longitudinal Study sample included 414 students followed longitudinally from school entry into early adulthood with the purpose of studying reading, learning, and attention. To validate the cut score data based on the Connecticut sample, national standardization samples were collected. For Forms 0–3, the national samples included 279 students in grades K–3, collected in 2016 and 2017. For the Adolescent–Adult Form, a national sample of 186 examinees was collected in 2019. For the Corrections Form, a sample of 93 incarcerated adults in four states was collected in 2019. • Reliability: Reliabilities of raw scores (item responses) are excellent (0.90s) and reliabilities of dichotomous item scores range from good to excellent (mid 0.80s to mid 0.90s). • Validity: The validity of a screening instrument like the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen primarily relies on evidence of clinical ­sensitivity and specificity and the AUC estimate. Dyslexia clinical studies were conducted to provide evidence of clinical utility and test-­criterion validity for the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen forms. Across all forms, the mean raw scores for the Dyslexia group were significantly higher (i.e., more items met criteria for At Risk for Dyslexia) than the nonclinical group with large effect sizes observed. In addition, the Dyslexia groups across all forms scored significantly lower than the nonclinical groups on reading, reading-­related, and spelling measures that have been shown to be clinically sensitive to dyslexia, with large effect sizes observed. Results reported in the Manual indicate moderately high sensitivity and specificity for Forms 0 and 1, and high sensitivity and moderately high specificity for Forms 2 and 3. For the Adolescent–Adult and Corrections Forms, the results indicate high sensitivity and moderately high specificity. AUC estimates are in the 0.80s (Forms 0 and 1) and 0.90s (all other forms), indicating that the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen is a high-­quality instrument for differentiating individuals at risk for dyslexia from those not at risk. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen Manual provides strong evidence of the measure’s ability to differentiate between individuals with and without dyslexia. The forms are ideal for both universal and targeted dyslexia screening because they provide a clinically sensitive score with a brief administration time. In addition to risk classification, reports for students assessed with Forms 0–3  include support ­strategies that families and caregivers can practice with their children who are classified as At Risk for Dyslexia, available in English and Spanish. Contact and Ordering Information NCS Pearson, Inc. Phone: 800-­627-­7271 Website: www.pearsonassessments.com Shaywitz Dyslexia Screen Copyright © 2021 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Used by permission. REFERENCES

Shaywitz, S. E. (2021a). Shaywitz Dyslexia Screen. NCS Pearson. Shaywitz, S. E. (2021b). Shaywitz Dyslexia Screen Manual: Forms 0–3, Adolescent-­Adult Form, and Corrections Form. NCS Pearson.

246  APPENDIX A

Test Name: Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language and Literacy, 3rd Edition (SPELL-­3) Authors: Julie J. Masterson, Ph.D., Kenn Apel, Ph.D., Jan Wasowicz, Ph.D. Information Provided By: SPELL-­Links | Learning By Design, Inc. Appropriate for Grades: 2–12 and adults Description: SPELL-­3 is a web-­based diagnostic assessment that uses highly developed spelling error analysis to identify the phonological, orthographic, and semantic/morphological deficits that are impairing an individual student’s reading and writing performance. This prescriptive assessment tool then instantly creates a data-­driven reading and spelling intervention plan for each student—­a roadmap for exactly which patterns and skills to teach and in what order—­and links each recommendation to specific lessons and activities in the SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing curriculum. SPELL-­3 automatically and seamlessly adapts to student responses to present test items that are uniquely tailored to the individual student, and expertly interprets the data in line with the most current research. With SPELL-­3, teachers can obtain a deep and highly sensitive measure of a student’s word study knowledge and skills for reading and spelling words and detect oral and written language deficits often missed by other assessments. SPELL-­3 is appropriate for students and adults who are struggling with reading decoding, reading fluency, spelling, and writing, including multilingual learners, Title I students, special education students, dtudents with speech–language-­impairments and hearing-­ impairments, and learners with dyslexia and dysgraphia. SKILLS ASSESSED:

• Phonological awareness: phoneme and syllable segmentation, phoneme discrimination and identification. • Orthographic pattern awareness: letter–sound relationships, letter patterns and spelling rules. • Morphological knowledge and awareness: letter–meaning relationships of prefixes, suffixes, and word roots; rules for combining morphemes; relationships in meaning and spelling among inflected and derived words that share a common base word or word root. • Semantic awareness: attention to the meaning conveyed by the spelling of a word. • Orthographic representations of words and word parts in long-­term lexical storage. SPELL-­3 is web-­based and compatible with macOS and Windows OS. At the time of publication of this appendix, SPELL-­3 is supported on desktops, laptops, Chromebooks, and most tablets including iPads and Android tablets running Chrome version 70+, Edge version 80+, Firefox version 70+, and Safari version 13+; while SPELL-­3 may work on earlier versions of these browsers and on other browsers, technical support for those is not available. Test: SPELL-­3 uses a single-­word spelling to dictation task. Students respond with keyboard entry and mouse click, with the option for students to write responses on paper for keyboard entry by examiner. This option is strongly recommended for younger students unfamiliar with keyboarding to reduce test completion time. Average administration time is 35–45 minutes. Once teachers log in to their SPELL-­3 accounts, it takes just a minute to create a student record and begin the assessment. There are three levels of the Main Test in SPELL-­3, and the program will automatically determine which level of assessment is most appropriate for an individual student. When the Main Test has been completed, SPELL-­3 will automatically present any additional testing modules that may be needed based on the student’s Main Test performance. Once all testing is finished, six reports will be automatically created, saving countless hours of scoring, analyzing, and interpreting data, writing reports, and planning intervention based on the data. Teachers have the option to print all reports or save them in PDF format for easy sharing. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

SPELL-­3 is a criterion-­referenced assessment, providing accuracy scores for each of the 73 phonological, orthographic, and semantic/morphological patterns measured, ranging from beginning consonants and short vowels to derivational affixes and word roots. SPELL-­3 does not compare a student’s score to a normative sample, but instead indicates which patterns a student has and has not yet mastered. SPELL-­3 goes beyond this inventory of mastered and unmastered patterns using sophisticated spelling error analysis algorithms to identify why a student has not yet mastered a pattern and precisely what types of instruction are needed for the student for each unmastered pattern. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

The criterion validity of SPELL spelling assessment software was established by its significant correlation with the Test of Written Spelling-­4 and the Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery. Participants included 135 students in grades 1 through 6. “The results from Pearson-­r correlations and a simultaneous multiple regression analysis imply that SPELL validly measures students’ spelling abilities, decoding skills, and identification of sight words. SPELL can be used to identify word study goals in a variety of grades and settings” (Mooney & Masterson, 2006).

APPENDIX A  247

RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The phonological, orthographic, and semantic/morphological skills measured by SPELL-­3 are those established in the research l­ iterature as critical for reading and spelling success and those commonly deficient in individuals with dyslexia. Intervention which focuses on these foundational skills improves an individual’s reading and writing skills. The sensitive and systematic analysis of spelling errors as done by SPELL-­3 has been found to be useful for identifying deficits often missed by standardized assessments, for predicting later success with other literacy skills (Clemens et  al.,  2014), and in planning and measuring progress with intervention (Masterson & Apel, 2010). Contact and Ordering Information SPELL-­Links | Learning By Design, Inc. e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.spell-­links.com REFERENCES

Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Brimo, D. (2012). Spelling assessment and intervention: A multiple linguistic approach to improving literacy outcomes. In A. G. Kamhi & H. W. Catts (Eds), Language and reading disabilities, 3rd Edition (pp. 226 – 243). NCS Pearson. Clemens, N. H., Oslund, E. L., Simmons, L. E., & Simmons, D. (2014). Assessing spelling in kindergarten: Further comparison of scoring metrics and their relation to reading skills. Journal of School Psychology, 52(1), 49–61. Masterson, J. J., & Apel, K. (2010). The spelling sensitivity score: Noting developmental changes in spelling knowledge. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 35–45. Mooney, R., & Masterson, J. (2006). Criterion Validity of the Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language and Literacy (SPELL). Poster ­presented at the American Speech-­Language-­Hearing Association Conference.

Test Name: Star Phonics Author: Michelle Hosp, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Renaissance Appropriate for Grades: 1–6+ Description: The Star Phonics assessment is an individually administered technology-­based phonics screener and diagnostic assessment designed to measure phonics skills in grades one to six, and for older students needing instruction in phonics. The screener is typically administered three times per year to all students, or to those students identified as at-­risk on a universal screener. The diagnostic assessment is administered whenever additional phonics information is needed to plan instruction. The Star Phonics screener includes 12 of the most critical phonics categories students need to master to become proficient readers. These 12 categories range from single syllable patterns like consonant–vowel–consonant (CVC) to multisyllabic patterns that include prefixes and suffixes. The Star Phonics diagnostic assessment includes 12 separate diagnostic tests, one for each of the categories on the screener. The diagnostic tests identify where the student is struggling at the phoneme level. Star Phonics is administered using two devices, computer, iPad, Chromebook, and, additionally for the student, smart phone. The educator scores the student’s verbal responses on their device while the student reads aloud the nonsense words on their device. Each assessment only takes 2–5 minutes and produces automatic reports at the student, class, grade, and district levels. These data can be used to (a) identify students who are struggling with phonics, (b) identify specific phonics skills that need to be taught, and (c) monitor growth of phonics skills. TESTS

• Phonics Screener: The Star Phonics screener covers 12 phonics categories, three words per category, for a total of 36 words. The categories include consonant–vowel–consonant; consonant–vowel–consonant–consonant; consonant–vowel–consonant–silent e; digraphs, blends, r-­controlled vowels; vowel teams; compound words; suffixes with short vowels, suffixes with long vowels; prefixes; and contractions. Each word can be scored at the word or phoneme level. The screener is not timed; however, the student has only 3 seconds to read each word allowing for the assessment to be administered under 5 minutes. • Phonics Diagnostics: There are 12 separate Star Phonics diagnostic assessments, one for each phonics category on the screener. Each diagnostic assessment measures specific phonemes a student is struggling with within that category. There are a total of 102 specific phonemes assessed across the 12 diagnostic assessments. The number of words on each diagnostic varies from 20 to 80 words. The words were chosen to represent the most common phoneme patterns within each category. Each word is scored at the phoneme level. The diagnostic assessment is not timed; however, the student has only 3 seconds to read each word allowing each assessment to be administered in under 5 minutes.

248  APPENDIX A

TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

Star Phonics is a criterion-­referenced assessment providing a mastery criterion score based on individual student phonics skills. It does not compare a student’s score to a normative sample, but instead indicates exactly which phonics skills students have and have not yet mastered to inform phonics instruction. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Reliability: Star Phonics exceeds industry standards for acceptable reliability. On average, the internal consistency of Star Phonics ranges from 0.86 to 0.96 across the measures. Test–retest ranges from 0.75 to 0.95 across the measures. • Validity: Star Phonics was evaluated using concurrent validity with Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-­III Word Attack, Letter– Word Identification, and Basic Reading Skills cluster as well as DIBELS CBM-­R. Coefficient scores ranged from 0.42 to 0.77 with the majority of coefficients falling above 0.60. • Area Under the Curve: To evaluate classification accuracy, students’ scores on Star Phonics were compared to their performance on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-­III Basic Reading Skills score. Using the cut score on the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test as the criterion for identifying performance “at risk,” Star Phonics developers calculated AUC for Star Phonics and the ­coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 0.97. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

A common characteristic for students with dyslexia is difficulty mastering phonics. The Star Phonics assessment can be used as one component of a larger comprehensive screening for characteristics of dyslexia. The data from Star Phonics quickly tells educators precisely which phonics skills a student knows, and which phonic skills need to be taught. Contact and Ordering Information Renaissance 2911 Peach StreetWisconsin Rapids, WI 54494 Phone: (800) 338-­4204e-­mail: [email protected] Website: renaissance.com and renaissance.com/products/star-­phonics/ Test Name: Tests of Dyslexia (TOD) Authors: Nancy Mather, Ph.D., R. Steve McCallum, Ph.D., Sherry Mee Bell, Ph.D., Barbara J. Wendling, M. A. Information Provided By: Amber Klein, Ph.D., Vice President of R&D at WPS Appropriate for Ages: 5–0 to 89–11 Description: The Tests of Dyslexia (TOD) is a comprehensive battery of tests and resources designed to help identify and plan interventions for individuals of all ages with dyslexia. This assessment measures reading skills, spelling, specific linguistic risk factors, and vocabulary and reasoning abilities. The TOD was designed to help examiners (1) determine the risk or probability of dyslexia; (2) diagnose dyslexia/specific learning disability in reading; (3) ascertain present levels of reading and spelling skills; (4) identify relevant reading-­related strengths and weaknesses; and (5) select appropriate educational interventions, accommodations, and recommendations. The TOD includes three batteries of direct assessments (TOD-­Screener, TOD-­Comprehensive, and TOD-­Early), as well as parent, teacher, and self-­report rating scales. TESTS

The TOD consists of three batteries containing the following tests: TOD-­SCREENER (TOD-­S)

• 1S (Picture Vocabulary): The Picture Vocabulary test measures receptive vocabulary knowledge, an individual’s ability to know the meaning of a word they hear or read. The task requires the examinee to look at four pictures and circle the one that best depicts the word that the examiner says orally. • 2S (Letter and Word Choice): The Letter and Word Choice test measures an examinee’s ability to recognize letters and correctly spelled words. The task requires the examinee to look at four letters (e.g., N, B, G, and P) or four words and circle the correct letter or correctly spelled word that the examiner says orally. The word items in each row often contain sound spellings of the ­target word (e.g., shuger, sugar, shugar, suger) or have letters similar to the correct spelling that are arranged in different orders (e.g., blak, blac, balck, black).

APPENDIX A  249

• 3Sa, 3Sb (Word or Question Reading Fluency): The Word or Question Reading Fluency test assesses reading fluency within two formats: Word Reading Fluency for grades K–1 (2-­minute time limit); and Question Reading Fluency for grade 2 and up (3-­minute time limit). The Word Reading Fluency test measures a child’s reading automaticity, a basic word-­reading skill. The task requires the child to look at a picture and then circle the correct corresponding word from a row of four words as quickly as possible. The Question Reading Fluency test measures the examinee’s reading comprehension under timed conditions. The task requires the examinee to read questions silently and then circle the correct response from a row of four words as quickly as possible (e.g., What can you eat? ape, apple, ant, ale). TOD-­COMPREHENSIVE (TOD-­C)

• 4C (Phonological Manipulation): The Phonological Manipulation test assesses phonological awareness skills with two subtests: Substitution and Deletion. In Substitution, the examinee changes a word, syllable, or phoneme to make a new word, such as changing the /s/ sound in the word sat to a /b/ sound to form the new word bat. For Deletion, the examinee takes away a word, syllable, or phoneme to make a new word. If the examinee pauses for more than 5 seconds, the response is scored as incorrect. • 5C (Irregular Word Spelling): The Irregular Word Spelling test measures spelling ability and requires the examinee to spell words that contain an element that is not phonically regular; specifically, the word contains one part (or more) that is not spelled exactly the way it sounds. • 6C (Rapid Letter Naming): The TOD Rapid Letter Naming test requires the examinee to name confusable letters (e.g., b, d, p) presented in a random sequence as quickly as possible, within a 1-­minute time limit. • 7C (Pseudoword Reading): The Pseudoword Reading test measures the basic reading skills of applying both phonological and orthographic knowledge. The task requires the examinee to read aloud made-­up words that conform to English spelling rules and patterns. • 8C (Word Pattern Choice): The Word Pattern Choice test measures orthographic knowledge of permissible ways that letters can be ordered in English words. The task requires the examinee to look at a row of four nonwords and choose as quickly as possible the nonword that looks most like it and could be a real English word because it has a possible English spelling pattern (e.g., ffeb, fefb, beff, bffe). The test has a 2-­minute time limit. • 9C (Word Memory): The Word Memory test measures verbal working memory. The task requires the examinee to listen to a series of words and then repeat the words in reverse order. • 10C (Picture Analogies): The Picture Analogies test measures reasoning ability. The task requires the examinee to solve an analogy by selecting one of four response options that completes a picture analogy presented in an A is to B as C is to ? matrix format. • 11C (Irregular Word Reading): The Irregular Word Reading test measures basic reading skills. The task requires the examinee to read aloud words that contain an irregular element that cannot be pronounced through the application of phonics alone. • 12C (Oral Reading Efficiency): The Oral Reading Efficiency test measures oral reading accuracy and efficiency. The task requires the examinee to read aloud a grade-­level passage for 1 minute. As the examinee reads the passage, the examiner marks errors (i.e., substitutions, omissions, and/or incorrect pronunciations). The examiner calculates the number of words read correctly per minute (WCPM) by subtracting the number of errors from the total number of words read within a minute. • 13C (Blending): The Blending test measures one of two important basic phonological awareness abilities. The test requires the examinee to blend compound words, syllables, and phonemes to make whole words. • 14C (Segmenting): The Segmenting test requires examinees to segment compound words, then syllables, and, finally, phonemes. • 15C (Regular Word Spelling): The Regular Word Spelling test assesses traditional spelling skills. The task requires the examinee to spell words that are phonically regular and mostly spelled the way they sound. In contrast to the words on the Irregular Word Spelling (5C) test, a high level of consistency exists between the phonemes and graphemes in the words that represent these sounds. • 16C (Silent Reading Efficiency): The Silent Reading Efficiency test measures comprehension efficiency. The task requires the examinee to read passages of increasing difficulty and answer comprehension questions while being timed (5 minutes for grades 1–5 and 8 minutes for grade 6–adult). • 17C (Rapid Number and Letter Naming): The Rapid Number and Letter Naming test is another RAN task that measures both fluency and retrieval. The task requires the examinee to name a mix of three numbers and three letters (e.g., 3, F, and L) presented in a random sequence as quickly as possible within a 1-­minute time limit. This task involves connecting visual and verbal ­information quickly by providing the names of numbers and letters, skills which are needed for sound–symbol correspondence, automaticity, and word retrieval. • 18C (Letter Memory): The Letter Memory test measures working memory by requiring the examinee to listen to a series of letters presented orally by the examiner and then repeat the letters in reverse order.

250  APPENDIX A

• 19C (Rapid Pseudoword Reading): The Rapid Pseudoword Reading test measures automaticity of applying phonological and orthographic knowledge. The task requires the examinee to read aloud phonically regular pseudowords as quickly as possible within a 1-­minute time limit. • 20C (Rapid Irregular Word Reading): The Rapid Irregular Word Reading test measures basic reading skills and reading rate. The task requires the examinee to read aloud written words that contain an irregular element as quickly as possible within a 1-­minute time limit. • 21C (Symbol to Sound Learning): The Symbol to Sound Learning test measures both associative memory and retrieval. The task requires the examinee to learn novel associations between a symbol and a sound, to store, and then to consolidate this new information. This task was designed to mimic one of the first stages of learning to read, involving the specific mapping of phonemes onto symbols, and then blending each of these symbols to form real words. • 22C (Listening Vocabulary): The Listening Vocabulary test measures an examinee’s listening comprehension ability, as well as receptive vocabulary knowledge. The task requires the examinee to listen to a question and four possible one-­word answers, and then select the one word that best answers the question. • 23C (Geometric Analogies): The Geometric Analogies test measures reasoning ability. The task requires the examinee to select one of four response options that completes a geometric analogy presented in an A is to B as C is to ? matrix format. TOD-­EARLY (TOD-­E)

• 4E (Sounds and Pseudowords): The Sounds and Pseudowords test has three sections designed to measure the child’s knowledge of sound–letter correspondences. In the first section, the examiner presents a sound orally and the child then points to or says the number of the picture that begins with that sound. In the second section, the child is shown a letter and asked to tell the sound that the letter makes. In the third section, the child reads aloud phonically regular pseudowords. • 5E (Rhyming): The Rhyming test measures an important pre-­reading skill, phonological awareness. The task first requires the child to point to a picture that rhymes with a word the examiner presents orally. Later items require providing a rhyming word for a word that is presented orally. • 6E (Early Rapid Number and Letter Naming): The Early Rapid Number and Letter Naming test measures fluency and requires the child to name as many randomly sequenced letters (A, B, C) and numbers (1, 2, 3) as possible within a 1-­minute time limit. • 7E (Letter and Sight Word Recognition): The Letter and Sight Word Recognition test measures early basic reading skills and requires the child to first provide the names of specific letters and then to read basic sight words. • 8E (Early Segmenting): The Early Segmenting test measures the child’s ability to break apart words that are first pronounced orally by the examiner. The test has three types of tasks that progress in difficulty: breaking apart compound words, breaking multisyllabic words into syllable units, and breaking apart the individual phonemes within words. • 9E (Letter and Sound Knowledge): The Letter and Sound Knowledge test measures phoneme–grapheme knowledge, an i­ mportant foundation for learning the alphabetic writing system. The task requires the child to point to or say the letter or letters that r­epresent the first, last, and middle sounds in words that the examiner presents orally. COMPOSITES TOD-­C Reading and Spelling Domain

• Sight Word Acquisition: Measures recognition of words that contain an irregular element. It also measures an aspect of orthographic knowledge. This composite includes the Irregular Word Reading (11C) test and the Rapid Irregular Word Reading (20C) test (timed). Low performance indicates difficulty recognizing common words. • Phonics Knowledge: Measures application of phonics skills to nonsense words, or pseudowords. This composite includes the Pseudoword Reading (7C) test and the Rapid Pseudoword Reading (19C) test (timed). Low performance indicates difficulty with the mastery of phonics. • Basic Reading Skills: Measures two aspects of word reading—­ability to apply phonics and ability to read words that contain an irregular element. This composite includes the Pseudoword Reading (7C) and Irregular Word Reading (11C) tests. Low performance indicates difficulty with the mastery of reading words. • Decoding Efficiency: Measures automaticity with basic reading skills (i.e., whether the reader can pronounce words quickly with ease), a hallmark of skilled reading. This composite includes the Rapid Pseudoword Reading (19C) and Rapid Irregular Word Reading (11C) tests (both timed). Low performance indicates a weakness in decoding words quickly.

APPENDIX A  251

• Spelling: Measures knowledge of both regular words (predictable phoneme–grapheme correspondences) and words that have an irregular element. This composite includes the Regular Word Spelling (15C) and Irregular Word Spelling (5C) tests. Low performance indicates a weakness in orthographic knowledge. • Reading Fluency: Primarily measures reading accuracy and reading rate. This composite includes the Word Reading or Question Reading Fluency (3Sa, 3Sb) test and the Oral Reading Efficiency (12C) test, a 1-­minute measure of oral reading fluency. Low performance indicates a slow reading rate. • Reading Comprehension Efficiency: Measures the ability to comprehend text under timed conditions. This composite includes the Question Reading Fluency (3Sb) test and the Silent Reading Efficiency (16C) test. Low performance indicates a slow reading rate, but it could also be the result of poor decoding and/or poor reading comprehension. This composite score cannot be calculated for first graders because they are administered Word Reading Fluency (3Sa) instead of Question Reading Fluency (3Sb). TOD-­C Linguistic Processing Domain

• Phonological Awareness: Measures four different phonological awareness abilities. This composite includes the Phonological Manipulation (4C) test, which requires substituting and deleting sounds, and the Blending (13C) and Segmenting (14C) tests. These phonological abilities are highly related to success in reading and spelling. Low performance indicates a weakness in phonological awareness, or limited instruction in phonological awareness. • Rapid Automatized Naming: Measures RAN by using confusable letters and numbers. This composite includes the Rapid Letter Naming (6C) and Rapid Number and Letter Naming (17C) tests (both timed). Low performance predicts difficulty with reading and slow reading speed. • Auditory Working Memory: Measures working memory, the ability to hold information in memory and then manipulate it. This composite includes the Word Memory (9C) and Letter Memory (18C) tests. Low performance indicates difficulty with memory. • Orthographic Processing: Measures the ability to recognize common spelling patterns quickly. This composite includes the TOD-­S Letter and Word Choice (2S) and TOD-­C Word Pattern Choice (8C) tests. Low performance indicates difficulty with spelling. TOD-­C Vocabulary and Reasoning Domain

• Vocabulary: Measures knowledge of word meanings. This composite includes the TOD-­S Picture Vocabulary (1S) test and TOD-­C Listening Vocabulary (22C) test, two measures of receptive vocabulary. Low performance indicates a weakness in word knowledge. • Reasoning: Measures reasoning ability. This composite includes the Picture Analogies (10C) and Geometric Analogies (23C) tests. Low performance indicates difficulty with logic. • Vocabulary and Reasoning 2: Includes the TOD-­S Picture Vocabulary (1S) and TOD-­C Picture Analogies (10C) tests. This composite can be used as an estimate of cognitive ability. Low performance indicates possible lower cognitive ability. • Vocabulary and Reasoning 4: Includes the two vocabulary tests, TOD-­S Picture Vocabulary (1S) and TOD-­C Listening Vocabulary (22C), and the two reasoning tests, Picture Analogies (10C) and Geometric Analogies (23C). This composite can be used as an estimate of cognitive ability. The Vocabulary and Reasoning 2 composite (two-­test version) can be used for a quick estimate of cognitive ability, or the composite (four-­test version) can be administered for more information. TOD-­E Reading and Spelling Domain

• Early Sight Word Acquisition: Measures beginning knowledge of spelling patterns, letter names, and high-­frequency words. This composite includes the TOD-­S Letter and Word Choice (2S) test, a measure of spelling knowledge, and the TOD-­E Letter and Sight Word Recognition (7E) test, a measure of knowledge of letter names and high-­frequency words. Low performance indicates difficulty with the mastery of letter names, spelling, and sight words. • Early Phonics Knowledge: Measures knowledge of beginning phonics concepts, including letter sounds. This composite includes the Sounds and Pseudowords (4E) and Letter and Sound Knowledge (9E) tests. Low performance indicates difficulty with the mastery of letter sounds (phonemes). • Early Basic Reading Skills: Measures mastery of early reading skills, including knowledge of letter names, letter sounds, and high-­frequency words. This composite includes the Letter and Sight Word Recognition (7E) and Letter and Sound Knowledge (9E) tests. Low performance indicates difficulty with the mastery of early reading skills.

252  APPENDIX A

TOD-­E Linguistic Processing Domain

Early Phonological Awareness: Measures two phonological awareness abilities, rhyming and segmenting. This composite includes the Rhyming (5E) and Early Segmenting (8E) tests. Low performance indicates a weakness or limited instruction in phonological awareness. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The TOD yields a standard score (mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15) for each test, index, and composite. These standard scores are available in both age-­based and grade-­based scores for school age children. The standard scores are used to generate descriptive ranges, percentile ranks, age and grade equivalencies, and upper and lower confidence intervals. The TOD yields a Dyslexia Risk Index (DRI) based on the TOD-­S which indicates risk of dyslexia. It also yields a Dyslexia Diagnostic Index for the TOD-­C (DDI) and TOD-­E (EDDI). These indexes indicate the probability that the examinee has dyslexia. Growth scores are also available for each test to track progress over time. The TOD rating scales yield T scores (mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10) and provide guidelines for risk of dyslexia based on the scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: A total of 2,518 individuals were included in the standardization and validation studies. • Reliability: Overall, the results of the TOD-­S, TOD-­C, and TOD-­E indicate high levels of internal consistency reliability. The TOD-­S demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency, with all reliability coefficients being ≥0.70, and most being ≥0.80. The TOD-­C exhibited high levels of internal consistency, with most reliability coefficients being ≥0.90, and almost all being >0.80. Similarly, the TOD-­E showed high levels of internal consistency, with almost all internal consistency estimates being >0.90, and all being >0.80. These findings support the use of the TOD-­S, TOD-­C, and TOD-­E scores in clinical applications. Across all three tests, the test–retest reliability coefficients for tests, indexes, and composites range from 0.70 to 0.97, with a median of 0.88, which support the stability of TOD scores over time and also indicate the importance of delaying a second administration for a long period of time to avoid any practice effects. • Validity: The tests display a range of intercorrelations, with correlations varying from small (0.08) to high (0.84). Tests measuring divergent skill areas demonstrated lower correlations. In contrast, tests assessing similar skills, such as Regular Word Spelling (15C) and Irregular Word Spelling (5C), demonstrated higher correlations, with a correlation of 0.81 observed in the TOD-­C child sample and 0.78 in the TOD-­C adult sample. Correlations between the TOD-­S and TOD-­C tests and their corresponding validation tests ranged from 0.30 to 0.91, with most correlations being moderate. The results showed that each measure of the TOD risk and diagnostic scores significantly improved the chance of detecting dyslexia status: TOD-­S DRI score (area under ROC curve = 0.972, p < 0.001); TOD-­C DDI score (area under ROC curve = 0.989, p < 0.001); TOD-­E EDDI score (area under ROC curve = 0.989, p < 0.001). In addition, individuals with a reading disability had significantly lower scores on most tests compared with a matched control group. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The TOD is a comprehensive assessment that was specifically designed for the diagnosis of dyslexia. It includes reading and spelling measures, both timed and untimed; linguistic risk factors; and measures of vocabulary and reasoning. It contains tests measuring all of the skills that are needed in a dyslexia evaluation and it yields risk and diagnostic index scores to help determine the presence of dyslexia. Contact and Ordering Information WPS 625 Alaska Ave. Torrance, CA 90503 Phone: 800-­648-­8857 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wpspublish.com Test Name: Test of Early Reading Ability, Fourth Edition (TERA-­4) Authors: D. Kim Reid, Ph.D., Wayne P. Hresko, Ph.D., Donald D. Hammill, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Melissa E. Morey, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 4–0 to 8–11

APPENDIX A  253

Description: The Test of Early Reading Ability, Fourth Edition (TERA-­4) was designed to assess abilities that are known to be essential to reading. This test has two equivalent forms. The test can be scored manually or via computer using the TERA-­4 Online Administration, Scoring, and Report System. The results of the TERA-­4 can be generally used to (a) identify children who have significant problems in reading development and determine the severity of their problems; (b) document reading strengths and weaknesses in individual children; (c) help qualify children for special interventions; (d) document and monitor children’s progress as a consequence of intervention programs; (e) serve as a measure in research studying reading in young children; and (f ) accompany other assessment techniques, both standardized and informal. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITE

The TERA-­4 has three subtests which combine to form one composite, the General Reading Index. A brief description of the three subtests and the composite follows: • Alphabet: This 51-­item subtest measures children’s knowledge of letters. • Conventions: This 50-­item subtest measures children’s familiarity with the common orthographic rules governing the English writing system, including book handling skills (e.g., knowing the correct orientation of a book, where to begin reading, where the top and bottom of a page are), as well as knowledge of common pictographs, logograms, numerals, abbreviations, special symbols, punctuation marks, and spelling. • Meaning: This 49-­item subtest measures children’s ability to name the letters of the alphabet, master basic sight words, and ­comprehend the meaning of printed words, sentences, and paragraphs. • General Reading Index: Alphabet, Conventions, and Meaning are the subtests that are used to form the composite score called the General Reading Index. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The TERA-­4 yields four types of normative scores: age equivalents, percentile ranks, subtest scaled scores, and composite scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 1,025 children. • Reliability: The average coefficient alpha for the subtests on both forms ranged from 0.94 to 0.95 and was 0.98 for the composite on both forms. Reliability across gender, race, ethnicity, and individuals diagnosed with an exceptionality (e.g., learning disability, language impairment) ranged from 0.92 to 0.99 for the subtests, and 0.96 to 0.99 for the General Reading Index. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the Alphabet subtest was 0.84; for the Conventions subtest the reliability was 0.83; and for the Meaning subtest the reliability was 0.83. Alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the General Reading Index was 0.92. Alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability for the Alphabet subtest was 0.72; for the Conventions subtest the reliability was 0.73; and for the Meaning subtest the reliability was 0.86. Alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability for the General Reading Index was 0.91. Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.83 to 0.91 for the subtests and from 0.93 to 0.94 for the composite on both forms. • Validity: Content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. The correlations between the Alphabet subtest and the criterion measures ranged from 0.56 to 0.78; for the Conventions subtest they ranged from 0.62 to 0.81; and for the Meaning subtest they ranged from 0.60 to 0.92. The correlations between the General Reading Index and criterion measures ranged from 0.74 to 0.93. Diagnostic accuracy analyses indicate that the General Reading Index can accurately predict scores on other measures of reading as well as identify children with a learning disability in reading. Regarding construct validity, the correlations between the General Reading Index and the composites of an academic achievement measure and an intelligence measure were 0.88 and 0.61, respectively. The correlations between the General Reading Index and the two measures of spoken language were 0.59 and 0.66. Confirmatory factor analysis results lend further support to the construct validity of the TERA-­4. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Research provides strong evidence that letter knowledge and word identification are often slow to develop in children with dyslexia. The TERA-­4 can assist with early identification and intervention for children with reading difficulties. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300

254  APPENDIX A

Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2018). Test of Early Reading Ability, Fourth Edition (TERA-­4): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Test of Orthographic Competence, Second Edition Authors: Nancy Mather, Ph.D., Rhia Roberts, Ph.D., Donald D. Hammill, Ed.D., Elizabeth A. Allen, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Elizabeth A. Allen, Director of R&D, PRO-ED Appropriate for Ages: 8–0 to 24–11 Description: The Test of Orthographic Competence, Second Edition (TOC-­2) assesses aspects of the English writing system that are integral to proficient reading and writing. These aspects include letters, spelling, punctuation, abbreviations, and special symbols. The TOC-­2 has a single form that can be administered to individuals or groups. It is available as paper-­and-­pencil version with online-­only scoring. The results of the TOC-­2 can be used for three purposes: (a) to identify students who score significantly below their peers who might need help improving their orthographic knowledge or who might have dyslexia, (b) to determine areas of relative strength and weakness among orthographic abilities, and (c) to serve as a research tool in studies investigating orthographic knowledge and its relationship to reading and writing development. SUBTESTS

The TOC-­2 contains the following six subtests: 1. Punctuation: The student is given a list of printed sentences that contain no punctuation except for spacing between the words (e.g., where is edward b brown). The task is for the student to supply the missing punctuation by editing the sentence. 2. Abbreviations: The student is given a list of printed abbreviations (e.g., 4:00, Dr., USA) and is asked to write what each abbreviation means. 3. Sight Spelling: The examiner says a word and the student is shown part of the word where one or more of the letters is missing (e.g., the examiner says the word know and the student sees “__ow”). The student is asked to fill in the missing letter or letters (which include an irregular or unusual orthographic element) to complete the spelling of the word. 4. Homophone Spelling: The examiner says a word (e.g., oar) and the student is shown a picture (e.g., a picture of a boat oar), and the student is asked to provide the correct spelling of the homophone that is represented by the picture (i.e., the student must write the word “oar”). 5. Word Scramble: The student is shown sets of scrambled letters that can be rearranged to spell real words (e.g., the letters nra can be rearranged to spell the word ran). The student has 3 minutes to reorder as many groups of letters into words as possible. 6. Letter Choice: The student is shown rows of words where one of four letters (p, d, b, or q) is missing from the word (e.g., “_etter” where the letter b is missing from the word, or “sai_” where the letter d is missing from the word). The student is given 2 minutes to write in the correct letters that will make each one into a real word. COMPOSITES

The TOC-­2 has five composites. These composites are derived from combining the results of the subtests to achieve stronger and better indices of performance. The composite scores are more reliable and valid than the subtests. • Orthographic Knowledge (OK): This composite is formed by combining the scaled scores from all six of the subtests: Punctuation, Abbreviations, Sight Spelling, Homophone Spelling, Word Scramble, and Letter Choice. It is the best estimate of a student’s overall orthographic knowledge because it is the most reliable and valid score on the TOC-­2. • Conventions (CO): This composite is formed by combining the scaled scores from the Punctuation and Abbreviations subtests. This composite represents the non-­spelling (and sometimes not even alphabetic) aspects of the English writing system that are important to meaningful reading and writing. • Spelling Accuracy (SA): This composite is formed by combining the scaled scores from the Sight Spelling and the Homophone Spelling subtests. This composite represents a student’s ability to accurately spell the irregular element of words and produce the correct spelling for a word that is a homophone.

APPENDIX A  255

• Spelling Fluency (SF): This composite is formed by combining the scaled scores from the Word Scramble and the Letter Choice subtests, both timed tests. This composite represents a student’s accuracy as well as speed of processing and recalling letter strings and spelling patterns. Spelling Fluency can be compared to the Spelling Accuracy composite to determine whether a student has developed accurate orthographic images but does not process these visual images quickly or automatically. • Spelling Efficiency (SE): This composite is formed by combining the four spelling tests: Sight Spelling, Homophone Spelling, Word Scramble, and Letter Choice. This composite represents both a student’s accuracy and speed of processing and recalling letter strings and spelling patterns, and is useful as an estimate of orthographic processing. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The subtest scaled scores (mean of 10, standard deviation of 3) are combined to generate the composite index scores, percentile ranks, and upper and lower confidence intervals for the TOC-­2. All the index scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 1,512 individuals. • Reliability: Average subtest reliability range 0.89–0.95; average composite reliability range 0.95–0.99; reliability over 0.90 for all gender, race, ethnic, and exceptionality subgroups tested; test–retest coefficients for subtests (range 0.68–0.93) and composites (range 0.75–0.93) indicate high degree of consistency and no practice effects. • Validity: Average subtest criterion correlations (range 0.50–0.77) and average composite criterion correlations (range 0.63–0.78) indicate strong relationship with other measures of orthography; mean score differences between TOC-­2 and criterion orthography measures range from Small to Trivial; ROC/AUC for composites indicates low false positives and false negatives when identifying individuals diagnosed with LD Written Language (0.88–0.95), LD Reading (0.85–0.90), and LD Mathematics (0.87–0.91). RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Results from a meta-­analysis of 68 studies indicated that students with dyslexia have a deficit in orthographic knowledge when compared to chronological age controls that is as large as their deficits in phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming (Georgiou et  al.,  2021). Thus, it is important to assess orthographic knowledge in individuals suspected of having dyslexia. The Examiner’s Manual provides strong evidence that the TOC-­2 accurately identifies individuals who have reading disabilities. The Orthographic Knowledge composite was found to have a ROC/AUC of 0.90 when identifying individuals previous diagnosed with a learning disability in reading. A study of 70 students previously diagnosed with LD in reading matched with 70 students with no known disability showed that the mean standard score performance of the LD sample was 18–22 standard score points lower than that of the matched sample. Further, the TOC-­2 Orthographic Knowledge composite correlated 0.73 to 0.84 with other measures of reading. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCES

Georgiou, G. K., Martinez, D., Vieira, A. P.A., & Guo, K. (2021). Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-­analysis. Annals of Dyslexia, 71, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­021-­00220-­6 Mather, N., Roberts, R., Hammill, D. D., & Allen, E.A. (2023). Test of Orthographic Competence, Second Edition (TOC-­2): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Test of Reading Comprehension, Fourth Edition (TORC-­4) Authors: Virginia L. Brown, Ed.D., J. Lee Wiederholt, Ed.D., Donald D. Hammill, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Jodie D. Martin-­Gutel, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 7–0 to 17–11

256  APPENDIX A

Description: The Test of Reading Comprehension, Fourth Edition (TORC-­4) was designed to identify children and adolescents who might need help in improving their reading proficiency and comprehension. It is available as paper-­and-­pencil version with one form for ages 7 through 17 years. The test may be administered individually or in a group setting. The test can only be manually scored only. The results of the TORC-­4 can be generally used in identifying individuals who are significantly below their peers in reading, to document progress in prescribed remedial programs and as part of periodic assessments, and to serve as a measurement device in research studies. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITE

The TORC-­4 has five subtests which combine to form one composite, Reading Comprehension. A description of each subtest and the composite follows: • Relational Vocabulary: In this subtest the student reads three words that are related to each other in some way. Then, the student silently reads a list of four words and chooses the two words that are related to the original three words. For example, for the words red, green, and blue, the student would circle the two color words in the list (yellow, orange). • Sentence Completion: In this subtest the student silently reads a sentence that is missing two words, then silently reads a list of word pairs and chooses the word pair that best completes the sentence. • Paragraph Construction: After silently reading a list of sentences that are not in logical order, the student rearranges the sentences to make the most sense. • Text Comprehension: Students silently read a short passage and then answer five multiple-­choice questions related to the passage. • Contextual Fluency: This subtest measures the speed with which students can recognize the individual words in a series of passages that will become progressively more difficult in their content, vocabulary, and grammar. The passages in the Student Question Booklet are printed in uppercase letters without punctuation or space. Students identify words by drawing a line between as many words as they can in 3 minutes. • Reading Comprehension: This composite is formed by combining the results of the TORC-­4 subtests, all of which measure reading comprehension. One subtest score may be prorated when computing the Reading Comprehension. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The TORC-­4 yields five types of normative scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, subtest scaled scores, and a composite score. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 1,942 individuals. • Reliability: Average coefficient alphas for the subtests range from 0.89 to 0.97 and from 0.97 to 0.98 for the composite. Reliability across gender, race, ethnicity, and subjects diagnosed as gifted and talented or with attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder or a learning disability ranged from 0.89 to 0.98 for the subtests and was 0.98 for all groups for the composites. Test– retest reliability ranged from 0.80 to 0.89 for the subtests and was 0.94 for the composites. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average correlations between the Relational Vocabulary subtest and criterion measures of literacy ranged from 0.55 to 0.70 and averaged 0.63. Average correlations between the Sentence Completion subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.40 to 0.67 and averaged 0.53. Average correlations between the Paragraph Construction subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.36 to 0.56 and averaged 0.45. Average correlations between the Text Comprehension subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.33 to 0.55 and averaged 0.42. Average correlations between the Contextual Fluency subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.23 to 0.54 and averaged 0.43. Average correlations between the Reading Comprehension composite and criterion measures ranged from 0.51 to 0.78 and averaged 0.63. Exploratory factor analysis results support the construct validity of the TORC-­4. Subtest intercorrelations ranged from 0.37 to 0.63. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Some students with dyslexia have weaknesses in both word reading and reading comprehension, particularly when they have co-morbid developmental language disorders. Students demonstrate many cognitive abilities when they read. Some of these abilities relate to word recognition and decoding; others relate to word knowledge, text reading, and fluency. Good comprehenders always relate their prior knowledge with what they read. In addition, they constantly interpret text structure, clarify its meaning, critique, compare, contrast,

APPENDIX A  257

organize, and summarize what is being read. They also identify main ideas, draw inferences, make predictions, and so forth (see Block et al., 2002; Carlisle & Rice, 2002; Kintsch & Kintsch, 2005; Paris & Stahl, 2005; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Ruddell & Unrau, 2004, among others). Good readers use these interrelated cognitive abilities simultaneously, selectively, and efficiently to give meaning to or extract meaning from what they read. Around third grade, some students begin to show difficulties comprehending that continue throughout the remainder of their school career. As they are required to read text that become increasingly more complex and sophisticated, students who have trouble comprehending will fall further behind their peers in most school subjects. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCES

Block, C. C., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (2002). Improving Comprehension Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. Jossey-­Bass. Brown, V. L., Wiederholt, J. L., & Hammill, D. D. (2009). Test of Reading Comprehension, Fourth Edition (TORC-­4): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED. Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving reading comprehension. York Press. Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading: Comprehension and assessment (pp. 71–92). Erlbaum. Paris, S. C., & Stahl, S. A. (Eds.). (2005). Children’s reading: Comprehension and assessment. Erlbaum. RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding. RAND Corp. Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5th Edition. International Reading Association.

Test Name: Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency, Second Edition (TOSCRF-­2) Authors: Donald D. Hammill, Ed.D., J. Lee Wiederholt, Ed.D., Elizabeth A. Allen, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Elizabeth A. Allen, Director of R&D, PRO-ED Appropriate for Ages: 7–0 to 24–11 Description: The TOSCRF-­2 is a quick and accurate method of assessing the silent general reading ability of students ranging in age from 7 years 0 months to 24 years 11 months. It has a test manual and four equivalent forms (A, B, C, and D). Using a series of printed passages adapted from those in the Gray Oral Reading Tests, Fifth Edition and the Gray Silent Reading Tests, the TOSCRF can be used to identify both poor and good readers. Students are presented with short passages comprising rows of contextually related words, ordered by reading difficulty; all words are printed in uppercase without any spaces or punctuation between the words (e.g., AYELLOWBIRDWITHBLUEWINGS). Students are asked to draw a line between the boundaries of as many recognizable words as possible within 3 minutes (e.g., A/YELLOW/BIRD/WITH/BLUE/WINGS). The passages become gradually more complex in their content, vocabulary, and grammar. To do well on the test, the student must read for the meaning of the text. The test can be easily administered to a single student or to an entire classroom, thus making it an efficient and cost-­effective screening method or a useful addition to a comprehensive reading battery. The TOSCRF-­2 is primarily a measure of reading comprehension, general reading ability, and reading speed (also known as silent reading fluency). The test can be used for identification, universal screening, diagnostic assessment, progress monitoring, and research. It is available in paper-­and-­pencil format and is manually scored. COMPOSITES

Two equivalent forms of the TOSCRF-­2 can be administered concurrently and converted to a composite score (mean = 100, standard deviation = 15). TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The TOSCRF-­2 provides a single score based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The test also provides age and grade equivalents, index scores, and percentile ranks.

258  APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 2,375 students. • Reliability: Average alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the entire normative sample across age ranged from 0.87 to 0.90. Average alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability ranged from 0.86 to 0.94 for all gender, race, ethnic, and exceptionality subgroups tested. Average test–retest coefficients at 4 different ages range from 0.79 to 0.94 indicating a high degree of consistency over time. Further order of administration studies indicated that there are ­little or no practice effects across forms. Average alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability ranged from 0.79 to 0.88. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. The average criterion correlation across 13 measures of reading of 0.73 indicates strong relationships with criterion measures regardless of modality (oral vs. silent), format (timed vs. untimed), content (fluency, comprehension, or decoding), or sample (typical vs. mixed disability). The average mean score difference between TOSCRF-­2 and criterion measures was Small in magnitude. ROC/AUC indicates low false positives and false negatives when predicting scores on criterion measures (median 0.89). RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The TOSCRF-­2 provides a highly reliable and valid method for identifying students who have difficulties using syntactic and morphological (i.e., grammar) cues to facilitate understanding the meaning of written sentences and passages. Students must be able to recognize words by sight and read for context in order to achieve average or above-­average scores on this test. Many individuals with dyslexia have compromised reading rates into adulthood. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Hammill, D. D., Wiederholt, J. L., & Allen, E.A. (2014). Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency, Second Edition (TOSCRF-­2): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension Authors: Richard K. Wagner, Ph.D., Joseph K. Torgesen, Ph.D., Carol A. Rashotte, Ph.D., Nils A. Pearson, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Melissa E. Morey, Ph.D. Appropriate for Grades: 1–12 Description: The Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC) was designed as a brief, group-­or individually administered test of silent reading efficiency (i.e., speed and accuracy) and comprehension. It is available as paper-­and-­pencil version with four equivalent forms for grades 1 through 12. The test can be manually scored only. The results of the TOSREC can be generally used as an efficient and cost-­effective (a) screening for the identification of poor readers, (b) group progress monitoring of all readers, and (c) assessment of silent reading of connected text for comprehension. Items: Students are given 3 minutes to read and verify the truthfulness of as many sentences as possible. The test has 60 sentences per form for grades 1 through 7, and 70 sentences per form for grades 8 through 12. Index: Total raw scores consist of the number of correct minus incorrect responses. The total raw score is converted to the Index, a standard score having a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The TOSREC yields two types of normative scores: percentile ranks and index scores. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 3,523 individuals. • Reliability: The averaged alternate form (immediate administration) reliability coefficients across grade levels ranged from 0.86 to 0.95. The averaged alternate form (delayed administration) reliability coefficients across grade levels ranged from 0.81 to 0.88.

APPENDIX A  259

• Validity: Content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average correlations between the TOSREC index and criterion measures ranged from 0.45 to 0.94. A binary classification study using the TOSREC to predict performance on a broad reading index indicated sensitivity of 96%, specificity of 84%, and positive predictive value of 65%. Regarding construct validity, the average correlation between the TOSREC index and an intelligence measure was 0.66. The average correlation between the TOSREC and a measure of listening comprehension was 0.82. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Because of word reading difficulties and slow reading rates, dyslexia has a negative effect on reading comprehension. An advantage of the TOSREC is that it measures the abilities to decode and comprehend as opposed to measuring single components of reading like word-­level decoding or fluent word recognition. Results from the TOSREC can be useful for documenting the need for fluency interventions and/or the need for the accommodation of extended time when reading. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Pearson, N. A. (2010). Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension (TOSREC): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency, Second Edition (TOSWRF-­2) Authors: Nancy Mather, Ph.D., Donald D. Hammill, Ed.D., Elizabeth A. Allen, Ph.D., Rhia Roberts, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Elizabeth A. Allen Director of R&D, PRO-ED Appropriate for Ages: 6–3 to 24–11 Description: The TOSWRF-­2 provides a reliable and valid measure of students’ ability to recognize printed words accurately and efficiently. Students are presented with 220 unrelated printed words, ordered from preprimary to adult level, with no spaces between the words (e.g., dimhowfigblue). Students are given 3 minutes to draw a line between the boundaries of as many words as possible (e.g., dim/how/fig/blue/). The TOSWRF-­2 is primarily a measure of word identification, word comprehension, and reading speed (also known as silent reading fluency). The test includes four equivalent forms and can be administered to individuals or in groups. The test can be used for identification, universal screening, diagnostic assessment, progress monitoring, and research. It is available in paper-­ and-­pencil format and is manually scored. Composites: Two equivalent forms of the TOSWRF-­2 can be administered concurrently and converted to a composite score (mean = 100, standard deviation = 15). TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The TOSWRF-­2 provides a single score based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The test also provides age and grade equivalents, index scores, and percentile ranks. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a nationally representative sample of 2,429 students. • Reliability: Average alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the entire normative sample across age ranged from 0.83 to 0.92. Average alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability ranged from 0.86 to 0.95 for all gender, race, ethnic, and exceptionality subgroups tested. Average test–retest coefficients at 4 different ages range from 0.84 to 0.93, indicating a high degree of consistency over time. Further order of administration studies indicated that there are little or no practice effects across forms. Average alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability ranged from 0.84 to 0.91. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. The average criterion correlation across 39 measures of reading, 7 measures of spelling, and 2 measures of orthographic conventions of 0.76 indicates strong relationship with criterion measures regardless of modality (oral vs. silent), format (timed vs. untimed), content (fluency, comprehension,

260  APPENDIX A

decoding, spelling, or conventions of writing), or sample (typical vs. mixed disability). The average mean score difference between TOSWRF-­2 and criterion measures was Trivial in magnitude. ROC/AUC indicates low false positives and false negatives when predicting scores on criterion measures (range 0.81 to 0.93). RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The TOSWRF-­2 provides a highly reliable and valid method for identifying students who have difficulties recognizing printed words accurately and fluently. Students must be able to recognize words by sight in order to achieve average or above-­average scores on this test. This test has a high correlation with orthographic processing and both orthographic processing and reading speed are often weaknesses in individuals with dyslexia. Contact and Ordering Information: PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Mather, N., Hammill, D.D., Allen, E.A., & Roberts, R. (2014). Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency, Second Edition (TOSWRF-­2): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Test of Word Reading Efficiency, Second Edition Authors: Joseph K. Torgesen, Ph.D., Richard K. Wagner, Ph.D., Carol A. Rashotte, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Elizabeth A. Allen, Ph.D., Director of R&D, PRO-ED Appropriate for Ages: 6–0 to 24–11 Description: The Test of Word Reading Efficiency, Second Edition (TOWRE-­2) is a measure of an individual’s ability to pronounce printed words (Sight Word Efficiency) and phonemically regular nonsense words (Phonemic Decoding Efficiency) accurately and fluently. Because it can be administered very quickly, the test provides an efficient means of monitoring the growth of two kinds of word reading skill that are critical in the development of overall reading ability. The TOWRE-­2 is available as paper-­and-­pencil version with manual scoring only. The results of the TOWRE-­2 can be generally used (a) in identifying children in the early elementary grades who will require more intensive or explicit instruction in word reading skills in order to make adequate progress in learning to read, (b) as a replacement for or as a supplement to standard diagnostic tests of context-­free word reading ability currently in use, and (c) to serve as a research tool in studies investigating word-­level reading skills. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITE

The TOWRE-­2 has two subtests and one composite. A description of each follows: • Sight Word Efficiency: The Sight Word Efficiency (SWE) subtest assesses the number of real words printed in vertical lists that an individual can accurately identify within 45 seconds. • Phonemic Decoding Efficiency. The Phonemic Decoding Efficiency (PDE) subtest measures the number of nonsense words presented in vertical lists that an individual can accurately decode within 45 seconds. • Total Word Reading Efficiency Index (TWRE): This composite is formed by combining the scaled scores from the two subtests. It is the most reliable score on the TOWRE-­2. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The TOWRE-­2 yields four types of scores: age and grade equivalents, percentile ranks, and standard scores (scaled scores) for each subtest and the total score. All standard scores on the test are based on a mean of 100, and standard deviation of 15. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 1,717 individuals. • Reliability: Average alternate forms (immediate administration) reliability for the entire normative sample across age for Sight Word Efficiency ranged from 0.86 to 0.94, for Phonemic Decoding Efficiency ranged from 0.90 to 0.95, and for Total Word

APPENDIX A  261

Reading Efficiency ranged from 0.93 to 0.97. Average test–retest coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.93 indicating a high degree of consistency over time. Further order of administration studies indicated that there are little or no practice effects across forms. Average alternate forms (delayed administration) reliability ranged from 0.87 to 0.92. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average Sight Word Efficiency correlations with measures of word identification (0.90) and fluency (0.95) were Nearly Perfect in magnitude. Average Phonemic Decoding Efficiency correlations with measures of phonemic decoding (0.89) were Very Large in magnitude. Average Total Word Reading Efficiency correlations with measures of word identification (0.95), fluency (0.96), and phonemic decoding (0.92) were all Nearly Perfect in magnitude. Average mean score differences between TOWRE-­2 scores and criterion measures were Moderate to Trivial. ROC/AUC for TOWRE-­2 ranged from 0.85 to 0.90 when predicting scores on a battery of reading measures. A comparison of students previously diagnosed with a reading disability with students with no known disability across 16 studies showed that the mean standard score performance of the poor readers was 18 standard score points lower than that of the comparison sample. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The Sight Word Efficiency subtest measures an individual’s ability to recognize familiar words accurately and fluently, providing an index of the size of the individual’s sight word vocabulary. Although many words on this subtest can be identified through phonemic decoding, as individuals move to higher levels of reading development, they cannot obtain an average or above-­average score without being able to recognize most of the words by sight. The Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest measures an individual’s ability to apply graphophonemic knowledge to decoding words in print. The subtest requires examinees to apply phonics skills to sound out nonsense words. Children who can accurately and fluently apply phonemic decoding processes on this subtest will be better able to use phonemic cues when reading text. The Examiner’s Manual provides strong evidence that the TOWRE-­2 accurately identifies individuals who have reading disabilities. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2012). Test of Word Reading Efficiency, Second Edition (TOWRE-­2): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Test Name: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (WIAT-­4) Author: NCS Pearson, Inc. Information Provided By: Kristina C. Breaux, Ph.D., Pearson Clinical Assessment Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 4 to 50; PreK12 Description: The Wechsler Individual Achievement Test®, Fourth Edition (WIAT®-­4) is an individually administered, comprehensive clinical measure of academic achievement in children, adolescents, and adults through age 50. The test includes 20 subtests used to evaluate listening, speaking, reading, writing, and mathematics skills. Examiners can choose to administer a single subtest or any combination of subtests to assess achievement in one or more domains. The WIAT-­4 provides measures of all eight specific learning disability areas of identification specified in the IDEA (2004), as well as areas of specific learning disability impairment specified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-­5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). It is appropriate for identifying patterns of strengths and weaknesses in individuals; making eligibility, placement, and diagnostic decisions; planning instruction and accommodations; monitoring progress; measuring response to intervention; and research across a wide range of ages. The WIAT-­4 is available as a paper-­and-­pencil assessment, with manual or web-­based scoring, and as a fully digital assessment through the Q-­interactive™ app for iPad. SUBTESTS

The WIAT-­4 contains the following 20 subtests. Applicable grade ranges are in parentheses after the subtest name. The designation of 12+ includes examinees in grade 12 and adults. • Word Reading (PK–12+): The Word Reading subtest is designed to measure letter and letter-­sound knowledge and single word reading. In Part 1, examinees identify letters and match letters to sounds. In Part 2, examinees read aloud a list of regular and irregular words.

262  APPENDIX A

• Reading Comprehension (K–12+): The Reading Comprehension subtest measures reading comprehension skills at the level of the word, sentence, and passage. Early items require examinees to match pictures with words to demonstrate comprehension. Sentence-­ level comprehension items require examinees to read a sentence and then answer a literal question about it. To measure passage comprehension, examinees read narrative and expository passages and answer literal and inferential comprehension questions asked by the examiner. Examinees can refer to the passage as needed to answer the questions. • Pseudoword Decoding (1–12+): The Pseudoword Decoding subtest is designed to measure phonic decoding skills. Examinees read aloud a list of pseudowords. • Orthographic Fluency (1–12+): The Orthographic Fluency subtest is designed to measure an examinee’s orthographic lexicon, or sight vocabulary. Examinees read aloud a list of irregular words as quickly as possible during two timed trials. • Decoding Fluency (3–12+): The Decoding Fluency subtest is designed to measure phonic decoding fluency. Examinees read aloud a list of pseudowords as quickly as possible during two timed trials. • Oral Reading Fluency (1–12+): For the Oral Reading Fluency subtest, examinees read two passages aloud. The subtest standard score is based on the average number of words read correctly per minute across the two passages. Examinees answer a comprehension question after each passage to encourage reading with comprehension, but comprehension does not factor into the score. Base rate information is provided for accuracy (number of errors) and rate (elapsed time). Reading prosody is evaluated using a qualitative scale. • Spelling (K–12+): The Spelling subtest measures written spelling from dictation. Examinees write words that are dictated within the context of a sentence. For early items, examinees write letters that represent sounds. • Sentence Composition (1–12+): The Sentence Composition subtest is designed to measure sentence formulation skills. Responses are scored based on semantics, grammar, capitalization, and the use of internal and ending punctuation. Sentence Composition includes two component scores: • Sentence Building: Examinees write sentences that each include a target word. • Sentence Combining: Examinees combine the ideas from two or three given sentences into one sentence. • Essay Composition (3–12+): The Essay Composition subtest is designed to measure spontaneous writing fluency at the discourse level. Examinees are asked to write a descriptive expository essay within a 10-­minute time limit. Essays are scored for semantics, grammar, and mechanics. Content and organization are evaluated using a qualitative rubric. Essays entered into the web-­based scoring platform, Q-­global™, or through Q-­interactive are automatically scored. Manual scoring is also possible. • Alphabet Writing Fluency (PK–4): The Alphabet Writing Fluency subtest is designed to measure letter writing fluency. Examinees write as many letters of the alphabet as possible within 60 seconds. • Sentence Writing Fluency (1–12+): The Sentence Writing Fluency subtest is designed to measure sentence composition fluency. Examinees write a sentence for each item using a target word, completing as many items as possible within 5 minutes. Scoring incorporates the number of words written, use of the target word, and subject–verb agreement. • Math Problem-­Solving (PK–12+): The Math Problem-­Solving subtest measures a range of math problem-­solving skill domains including basic concepts, everyday applications, geometry, and algebra. Examinees point to pictures or respond orally to items that require the application of mathematical principles to real-­life situations. • Numerical Operations (K–12+): The Numerical Operations subtest measures math calculation skills. For early items, examinees respond orally to questions about number concepts and counting. For later items, examinees write answers to printed math problems ranging from basic operations with integers to geometry, algebra, and calculus problems. • Math Fluency—­Addition (1–12+), Subtraction (1–12+), and Multiplication (3–12+): The three Math Fluency subtests are designed to measure math fact fluency in three different operations. Examinees complete as many written math problems (addition, subtraction, or multiplication) as possible within 60 seconds. • Listening Comprehension (PK–12+): The Listening Comprehension subtest is designed to measure listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence, and passage. Listening Comprehension includes two component scores: • Receptive Vocabulary: Examinees select the picture that best illustrates the meaning of each target word spoken by the examiner. • Oral Discourse Comprehension: Examinees listen to passages presented via audio recording and then respond aloud to ­comprehension questions asked by the examiner. • Oral Expression (PK–12+): The Oral Expression subtest is designed to measure oral expression at the level of the word and ­sentence. Oral Expression includes three component scores: • Expressive Vocabulary: Examinees see a picture and hear a definition, and then say the word that best corresponds to the ­picture and definition.

APPENDIX A  263

• Oral Word Fluency: Examinees name as many things as possible belonging to a given category within 60 seconds. • Sentence Repetition: Examinees listen to a sentence and then repeat it verbatim. Sentences increase in length and complexity. • Phonemic Proficiency (PK–12+): The Phonemic Proficiency subtest measures the development of phonological/phonemic skills. Examinees respond orally to items that require manipulation of the sounds within words. Tasks include elision, substitution, and reversal of sounds. Items are presented via audio recording. Corrective feedback is provided by the examiner on all items, and scoring incorporates both speed and accuracy. • Orthographic Choice (1–12+): The Orthographic Choice subtest is designed to measure orthographic knowledge, or the quality of an examinee’s stored orthographic representations. For each item, examinees view three choices of letter strings and then touch the one that is spelled correctly. This subtest is only available on Q-­interactive®. COMPOSITES

The WIAT-­4 contains the following 14 composites (4 core and 10 supplemental, including reading-­related and dyslexia screening composites). Composites are derived from the sum of subtest standard scores within the same domain or subdomain of academic achievement and supporting areas. Applicable grade ranges are in parentheses after the subtest name. The designation of 12+ includes examinees in grade 12 and adults. • Total Achievement (PK–12+): The Total Achievement composite provides a measure of overall academic achievement in the areas of reading, writing, and math. At all grades and ages, each of the three core academic domains is represented with equal balance. In prekindergarten, Word Reading, Alphabet Writing Fluency, and Math Problem-­Solving form the composite. For grades K–12+, the composite is formed by Word Reading, Reading Comprehension, Math Problem-­Solving, Numerical Operations, Spelling, and one other writing subtest. Grades K–1 use Alphabet Writing Fluency, grades 2–3 use Sentence Composition, and grades 4–12+ use Essay Composition. • Reading (K–12+): The Reading composite provides an overall measure of broad reading skills. The composite is derived from scores on the Word Reading and Reading Comprehension subtests. • Written Expression (K–12+): The Written Expression composite provides an overall measure of broad writing skills appropriate to the grade of the examinee. How the composite is derived varies by grade. For grades K–1, Spelling and Alphabet Writing Fluency scores contribute to the composite. For grades 2–3, the composite is derived from scores on the Spelling and Sentence Composition subtests. And for grades 4–12+, scores on the Spelling, Sentence Composition, and Essay Composition subtests all contribute to the composite. • Mathematics (K–12+): The Mathematics composite provides an overall measure of broad math skills. The composite is derived from scores on the Math Problem-­Solving and Numerical Operations subtests. • Basic Reading (1–12+): The Basic Reading composite provides a measure of basic reading and reading-­related skills. The composite is derived from scores on the Phonemic Proficiency, Word Reading, and Pseudoword Decoding subtests. • Decoding (1–12+): The Decoding composite provides a measure of decoding skills. The composite is derived from scores on the Word Reading and Pseudoword Decoding subtests. • Reading Fluency (1–12+): The Reading Fluency composite provides a measure of reading fluency at the word and passage ­levels. The composite is derived from scores on the Orthographic Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency subtests for examinees in grades 1–2. Scores on Orthographic Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, and Decoding Fluency contribute to the composite at  grades 3–12+. • Math Fluency (1–12+): The Math Fluency composite provides a measure of basic math fact fluency across operations. The composite is derived from scores on the Math Fluency–Addition and Math Fluency–Subtraction subtests for examinees in grades 1–2. Scores on all three Math Fluency subtests contribute to the composite at grades 3–12+. • Writing Fluency (1–4): The Writing Fluency composite provides a measure of writing fluency at the levels of letter, word, and sentence. The composite is derived from scores on the Alphabet Writing Fluency and Sentence Writing Fluency subtests. • Oral Language (PK–12+): The Oral Language composite provides an overall measure of oral language skills. The composite is derived from scores on the Listening Comprehension and Oral Expression subtests. • Phonological Processing (1–12+): The Phonological Processing composite provides a measure of phonological processing skills. The composite is derived from scores on the Phonemic Proficiency and Pseudoword Decoding subtests. • Orthographic Processing (1–12+): The Orthographic Processing composite provides a measure of orthographic processing skills. The composite is derived from scores on the Orthographic Fluency and Spelling subtests. The Orthographic Processing Extended composite also includes Orthographic Choice, so it is only available on the Q-­interactive app.

264  APPENDIX A

• Dyslexia Index (PK–12+): The Dyslexia Index was designed to provide a theoretically sound, reliable, and clinically sensitive composite score for identifying risk for dyslexia. A Dyslexia Index score can be obtained to screen for dyslexia and to identify individuals who may benefit from a comprehensive evaluation or a more intensive intervention approach. The composite is derived from scores on the Word Reading and Phonemic Proficiency subtests for examinees in grades PK–3 and from scores on the Word Reading, Pseudoword Decoding, and Orthographic Fluency subtests for examinees in grades 4–12+. These subtests were selected based on their clinical sensitivity and specificity for separating examinees with dyslexia from those without dyslexia. A single score such as the Dyslexia Index is not sufficient to diagnose dyslexia; however, the Dyslexia Index may contribute to a more in-­depth evaluation using additional subtests from the WIAT-­4 and other assessments. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

Age-­and grade-­based standard scores are provided for each composite, subtest, and subtest component. Standard scores range from 40 to 160, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Bands of error are provided at the 90% and 95% confidence intervals. Additional derived scores include percentile rank, normal curve equivalent, and stanine, which are derived from a standard score. Subtest and component raw scores (or weighted raw scores) can be used to determine Growth Scale Values, for measuring ability across testing, and age and grade equivalents. Error analysis information is provided as percent correct by skill category. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normative information is based on a national sample that is representative of the U.S. population of students in grades PK–12 and individuals ages 4 years 0 months to 50 years 11 months. The grade-­based norm sample included 2,100 examinees in grades PK–12 with 150 students in each grade, split between a fall sample and a spring sample (with winter norms interpolated). The age-­based norm sample included 1,832 examinees ages 4–50. • Reliability: The average composite reliabilities are excellent (0.90s) with the exception of Writing Fluency (0.70s), which is based on test–retest reliability. The three composite scores with the highest reliability coefficients include Basic Reading, Decoding, and  the Dyslexia Index. The average subtest reliability coefficients generally range from good to excellent (0.80s and 0.90s). The ­following subtests have excellent reliabilities at every age and grade: Word Reading, Pseudoword Decoding, Spelling, Oral Reading Fluency, and Orthographic Choice. • Validity: The WIAT-­4 Technical & Interpretive Manual (Breaux, 2020) provides evidence for validity within and across measures, including subtest intercorrelations, correlations to other tests, and special group studies. Intercorrelational analyses demonstrate concurrent and discriminant validity within and across domains, respectively, as expected. Correlation studies with other instruments support theoretical expectations around shared constructs and divergent measures. Special group studies included specific samples for examinees diagnosed with a specific learning disorder in reading (LD-­Reading), examinees with a language disorder, as well as examinees with a specific learning disorder in written expression, examinees with a specific learning disorder in mathematics, academically/intellectually gifted examinees, and examinees with mild intellectual disability. Overall, the LD-­Reading sample demonstrated weaknesses across domains; however, relative weaknesses and the largest effect sizes were observed in the areas of reading, with relatively less weakness and smaller effect sizes observed in oral language and math. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The WIAT-­4 provides highly reliable and valid measures of skills and processing areas related to dyslexia, including phonemic proficiency, orthographic processing, word recognition (timed and untimed), phonic decoding (timed and untimed), reading comprehension, oral reading fluency, spelling, and written expression. To support a comprehensive evaluation, the WIAT-­4 also provides measures of math calculation, math problem-­solving, math fluency, and oral language skills, including listening comprehension and oral expression. Clinical validity studies with clinical samples confirm lower performance by those with LD-­Reading and reading-­ related subtests and composites compared to matched control and compared to those with a learning disorder in math or written expression. To help streamline the process of identifying those at risk for dyslexia, the WIAT-­4 includes a dyslexia screening composite, the Dyslexia Index. The subtests contributing to the composite were selected based on their clinical sensitivity and specificity for separating examinees with dyslexia from those without dyslexia. Based on the clinical validity study of those identified as having LD-­Reading and the matched control sample, the AUC estimates for the Dyslexia Index for grades PK–3 and for grades 4–12+ are 0.94 and 0.92, respectively. These results support the use of the Dyslexia Index as a high-­quality dyslexia screening measure.

APPENDIX A  265

Contact and Ordering Information NCS Pearson, Inc. Phone: 800-­627-­7271 Website: www.pearsonassessments.com Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2020 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Used by permission. REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Breaux, K. C. (2020). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th Edition: Technical & Interpretive Manual. NCS Pearson. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub L. No. 108–446, 118 Stat. 2647. (2004). NCS Pearson. (2020). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th Edition.

Test Name: Wide Range Achievement Test, Fifth Edition (WRAT5) Authors: Gary S. Wilkinson, Ph.D. and Gary J. Robertson, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Kristina C. Breaux, Ph.D., Pearson Clinical Assessment Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 5 to 85+; K–12 Description: The Wide Range Achievement Test™, Fifth Edition (WRAT5™) is a brief clinical instrument designed to measure word reading, spelling, math computation, and sentence comprehension in children, adolescents, and adults through age 85. The WRAT5 is a quick and reliable assessment of basic academic skills with two independent, parallel forms (Blue and Green) that can be used for progress monitoring. It is also appropriate for screening, making placement decisions, supporting more comprehensive batteries, and conducting research. With small-­group administration instructions for two subtests, it can also be a convenient assessment for testing large populations. The WRAT5 is available as a paper-­and-­pencil assessment, with manual or web-­based scoring, and as a fully digital assessment through the Q-­interactive™ app for iPad. SUBTESTS

The WRAT5 contains the following four subtests. Applicable grade ranges are in parentheses after the subtest name. The designation of 12+ includes examinees in grade 12 and adults. Administration of all four subtests takes approximately 10–25 minutes for younger examinees (grades K–3) and about 30–40 minutes for older examinees (grades 4–12+). • Word Reading (K–12+) provides a measure of letter and word recognition accuracy with items that include uppercase and lowercase letters (Part 1) and words with regular and irregular letter patterns (Part 2). • Spelling (K–12+) provides a measure of written spelling from dictation with items that include letters (Part 1) and words with regular and irregular letter patterns (Part 2). • Math Computation (K–12+) provides a measure of oral math computation skills with items that require counting, identifying numbers, and solving simple spoken problems (Part 1), as well as solving written computation problems that range from basic arithmetic to advanced operations (Part 2). • Sentence Comprehension (1–12+) provides a measure of sentence comprehension skills and linguistic knowledge to supply a word that fills a blank in a series of items containing one or two sentences that progress in difficulty. COMPOSITE

The WRAT5 provides one composite score. The Reading composite is a measure of broad reading ability involving both words and sentences for examinees in grades 1–12 and adults. The composite is derived from the sum of standard scores on the Word Reading and Sentence Comprehension subtests. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

Age-­and grade-­based standard scores are provided for each subtest and the Reading composite. Standard scores range from 55 to 145, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Bands of error are provided at the 90% and 95% confidence intervals. Additional derived scores include percentile rank, normal curve equivalent, and stanine, which are derived from a standard score. Subtest raw scores can be used to determine Growth Scale Values, for measuring ability across testing, and grade equivalents.

266  APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normative information is based on a national sample that is representative of the U.S. population of students in grades K–12 and individuals ages 5 years 0 months to 85 years 11 months. The age-­based norm sample includes 2,355 examinees ages 5–85. The grade-­based norm sample includes 2,150 examinees in grades K–12 split between a fall sample and a spring sample (with winter norms interpolated). • Reliability: Internal reliabilities are quite consistent across the age and grade ranges. The reliabilities by grade are very similar in level and pattern to those for the corresponding ages. The average subtest and Reading composite reliabilities range from very good (upper 0.80s) to excellent (0.90s). An alternate form reliability study described in the WRAT5 Manual demonstrates good (0.80s) to excellent (0.90s) corrected correlations for all subtest and composite scores across all ages combined. These findings indicate that an examinee would be very likely to obtain similar scores irrespective of whether the Blue Form or the Green Form was administered. Alternate form reliability data support the use of the parallel WRAT5 forms for the measurement of growth. • Validity: The WRAT5 Manual (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2017b) provides evidence for validity within and across measures, including subtest intercorrelations, correlations to other tests, and special group studies. Intercorrelational analyses demonstrate concurrent and discriminant validity within and across domains, respectively, as expected. Correlation studies with other instruments support theoretical expectations around similar constructs and divergent measures. Special group studies included specific samples for examinees diagnosed with a specific learning disorder in reading (LD-­Reading), a specific learning disorder in mathematics (LD-­Math), academically gifted examinees, and examinees with mild intellectual disability. Overall, the LD-­ Reading sample performed significantly lower than the matched control group on all measures, with the largest effect sizes (1.75 and 1.70, respectively) on the Word Reading subtest and the Reading composite, and the smallest effect size (0.43) on the Math Computation subtest. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The WRAT5 provides a highly reliable and brief assessment of foundational skills that are sensitive to dyslexia, including word reading, spelling, and sentence comprehension. The Math Computation subtest can be used to quickly screen for comorbid math difficulties or to identify a relative strength in math calculation skills. Clinical validity studies confirm lower performance by the LD-­Reading sample on the reading and spelling measures compared to matched controls and compared to the LD-­Math sample. Contact and Ordering Information NCS Pearson, Inc. Phone: 800-­627-­7271 Website: www.pearsonassessments.com Wide Range Achievement Test, Fifth Edition Copyright ©2017 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Used by permission. REFERENCES

Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2017a). Wide Range Achievement Test, 5th Edition. NCS Pearson. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2017b). WRAT5 Manual. NCS Pearson.

Test Name: Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH) Authors: Fredrick A. Schrank, Ph.D., Kevin S. McGrew, Ph.D., Nancy Mather, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Gabriel T. Jeantete, Clinical Product Specialist at Riverside Insights Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 2–0 to 90+; PreK–College (including university undergraduate and graduate students) Description: The Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH) is a comprehensive set of individually administered, norm-­referenced tests for measuring academic achievement. It can be used as a comprehensive, standalone battery or in conjunction with the cognitive (WJ IV COG) and oral language (WJ IV OL) batteries. The WJ IV ACH can be used for educational programming, planning individual programs, and research purposes. It consists of 20 tests. Scores from different combinations of these tests provide information regarding an individual’s various achievement skills and scholastic aptitudes. The WJ IV ACH is available as a paper-­and-­ pencil version with (2) easel format test books, paper test records and response booklets, and an online scoring and reporting program. The following tests and clusters can be useful in an evaluation for dyslexia.

APPENDIX A  267

TESTS

Although the WJ IV ACH has 20 tests, the 12 tests most relevant for dyslexia evaluations are described here. • Test 1: Letter–Word Identification measures the examinee’s word identification skills, a reading–writing (Grw) ability. Initial items require the individual to identify letters that appear in large type on the examinee’s side of the Test Book. Remaining items require the person to read aloud individual words correctly. The examinee is not required to know the meaning of any word. The items become increasingly difficulty as the selected words appear less frequently in writing English. • Test 3: Spelling, a reading–writing (Grw) ability, requires the person to write words that are presented orally. Initial items measure prewriting skills, such as drawing lines and tracing letters. The next set of items requires the person to produce uppercase and lowercase letters. Remaining items measure the person’s ability to spell words correctly. The items become increasingly difficult as the words become more difficult. • Test 4: Passage Comprehension measures the ability to use syntactic and semantic cues to identify a missing word in text, a reading–writing (Grw) ability. Initial items involve symbolic learning, or the ability to match a rebus (pictographic representation of a word) with an actual picture of the object. The next items are presented in a multiple-­choice format and require the person to point to the picture represented by a phrase. Remaining items require the person to read a short passage and identify a missing key word that makes sense in the context of that passage (a cloze approach to reading comprehension assessment). The items become increasingly difficult by removing pictorial stimuli and by increasing passage length, level of vocabulary, and complexity of syntax. • Test 6: Writing Samples measures the examinee’s skill in writing responses to a variety of demands, a reading–writing (Grw) ­ability. The person must write sentences that are evaluated for their quality of expression. Item difficulty increases by increasing passage length, the level of vocabulary, and the sophistication of the content. The individual is not penalized for errors in basic writing skills, such as spelling or punctuation. • Test 7: Word Attack measures a person’s ability to apply phonic and structural analysis skills to the pronunciation of unfamiliar printed words, a reading–writing (Grw) ability. The initial items require the individual to produce the sounds for single letters. Remaining items require the person to read aloud letter combinations that are phonically consistent or are regular patterns in English orthography but are nonsense or low-­frequency words. The items become more difficult as the complexity of the ­nonsense words increases. • Test 8: Oral Reading is a measure of story reading accuracy and prosody, a reading–writing (Grw) ability. The individual reads aloud sentences that gradually increase in difficulty. Performance is scored for both accuracy and fluency of expression. • Test 9: Sentence Reading Fluency measures reading rate, requiring both reading–writing (Grw) and cognitive processing speed (Gs) abilities. The task involves reading simple sentences silently and quickly in the Response Booklet, deciding if the statement is true or false, and then circling Yes or No. The difficulty level of the sentences gradually increases to a moderate level. The ­individual attempts to complete as many items as possible within a 3-­minute time limit. • Test 11: Sentence Writing Fluency measures an individual’s skill in formulating and writing simple sentences quickly, requiring both reading–writing (Grw) and cognitive processing speed (Gs) abilities. Each sentence must relate to a given stimulus picture in the Response Booklet and must include a given set of three words. The words gradually require the formulation of more ­complex sentence structures. This test has a 5-­minute time limit. • Test 12: Reading Recall is a measure of reading comprehension (a reading–writing [Grw] ability) and meaningful memory (a long-­term retrieval [Glr] ability). The individual reads a short story silently and then retells as much of the story as he or she can recall. • Test 15: Word Reading Fluency is a measure of vocabulary knowledge and semantic fluency, requiring both reading–writing (Grw) and cognitive processing speed (Gs) abilities. The individual has 3 minutes to mark the two words that go together in each row. The correct matches are words that share some relationships (e.g., synonyms, antonyms, members of the same category). • Test 16: Spelling of Sounds is a measure of spelling ability (a reading–writing [Grw] ability), particularly phonological and orthographic coding skills. The initial items require the individual to write single letters that represent one sound. The remaining items require the person to listen to the audio recording and then spell nonsense words or low-­frequency words that are regular patterns in English spelling. The items become more difficult as the words involve more complex spelling rules and patterns. • Test 17: Reading Vocabulary includes two subtests—­Synonyms and Antonyms. This test is a mixed measure of reading–writing (Grw) and comprehension knowledge (Gc) abilities. The first subtest requires reading a word and providing an appropriate ­synonym. The second subtest requires reading a word and providing an accurate antonym. Items become increasingly difficult within each subtest as the words become more complex.

268  APPENDIX A

CLUSTERS

The WJ IV ACH provides a number of clusters but the ones most relevant for dyslexia evaluations include: • Letter-­Sound Knowledge (informal): In order to read, the beginning reader must have full knowledge or the connections between phonemes, or the sounds of our language, and graphemes, the printed letters that represent these sounds. The insight that letters are used to represent sounds is often referred to as the alphabetic principle. This letter-­sound knowledge provides the foundation for the development of word identification and spelling. Weaknesses in letter-­sound knowledge impede development in word decoding, reading fluency, and spelling. Informal measures of letter-­sound knowledge require the student to identify the names and sounds of randomly ordered letters of the alphabet. Letter-­Word Identification (naming letters) and Word Attack (identifying the sounds of letters) begin with items measuring this basic skill. • Basic Reading Skills: This cluster is a combination of Letter-­Word Identification and Word Attack. • Reading Fluency: This cluster includes the following two tests: Oral Reading and Sentence Reading Fluency. • Reading Rate: This cluster consists of the following two tests: Sentence Reading Fluency and Word Reading Fluency. • Reading Comprehension: This cluster includes the following three tests: Passage Comprehension, Reading Recall, and for an extended version of the cluster, Reading Vocabulary. • Spelling: This cluster consists of the following two tests—­Spelling and Spelling of Sounds. Although spelling is not penalized on Writing Samples and Sentence Writing Fluency, the types of errors a student makes in context may be observed. • Phoneme–Grapheme Knowledge: This cluster is particularly relevant to the diagnosis of dyslexia. It includes the following two tests—­Word Attack and Spelling of Sounds. • Written Expression: This cluster consists of the following two tests—­Writing Samples and Sentence Writing Fluency. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The WJ IV ACH provides both norm-­referenced and criterion referenced scores. Norm referenced scores include: standard scores, age-­ and grade-­equivalent scores, and percentile ranks. Criterion-­referenced scores include: W score, W-­difference score (W-­DIFF), Relative Proficiency Index (RPI), and cognitive-­academic-­language proficiency (CALP) Levels. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: National representative sample of 7,416 individuals ranging in age from 2 to over 90 years. • Reliability: Median reliability coefficients for the subtests range from 0.76 to 0.97 and from 0.91 to 0.96 for the clusters. Mean scores and standard deviations were computed for studies that included children and adults diagnosed with any of the following diagnoses: gifted, intellectual disability, learning disability, language delay, ADHD, head injury, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual; including Cattell–Horn–Carrol (CHC) Theory content coverage. Broad CHC abilities represented by the WJ IV ACH tests include: quantitative knowledge, reading– writing ability, comprehension knowledge, long-­term retrieval, and auditory processing. Extensive WJ IV ACH norming sample test and intercorrelations are reported in the Examiner’s Manual for ages 2 through over 90. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The WJ IV ACH includes tests and clusters that can be used to assess specific weaknesses in skills areas that can affect reading and writing development. These clusters and tests include: Basic Reading Skills (Letter–Word Identification, Word Attack), Reading Fluency (Oral Reading, Sentence Reading Fluency), Reading Rate (Sentence Reading Fluency, Word Reading Fluency), Spelling (Spelling, Spelling of Sounds), and Phoneme–Grapheme Knowledge (Word Attack, Spelling of Sounds). Additionally, primary characteristics of dyslexia may result in secondary academic difficulties in Reading Comprehension (Passage Comprehension, Reading Recall, Reading Vocabulary), and Written Expression (Writing Samples, Sentence Writing Fluency). Weaknesses in these linguistic risk factors have been noted in individuals with dyslexia. Conversely, one of the hallmarks of dyslexia is that the primary and secondary characteristics and related cognitive weaknesses are unexpected in relation to other cognitive and achievement abilities. These developmental differences can be determined by comparing a person’s strengths, such as in math or knowledge, to reading and spelling development. The WJ IV ACH includes clusters and tests to make this comparison. These are Math Calculation Skills (Calculation, Math Facts Fluency), Math Problem Solving (Applied Problems, Number Matrices), and Academic Knowledge (Science, Social Studies, Humanities). Within the WJ IV ACH, a variation procedure is available that compares performance on three clusters: Academic Skills (basic academic skills), Academic Fluency (timed measures), and Academic Applications (problem-­solving and reasoning). Many i­ndividuals with dyslexia obtain higher scores on the Academic Applications cluster than on the Academic Skills and/or Academic Fluency clusters.

APPENDIX A  269

The WJ IV also contains specific features that an evaluator can use when conducting a comprehensive dyslexia evaluation. The WJ IV Dyslexia Profile of Scores is used to assist in the organization of assessment data and in the determination of dyslexia. The WJ IV Dyslexia Summary Report provides an overview of the characteristics of dyslexia, the possible contributing factors, and the strengths that may exist. Additionally, both can assist professionals in targeting specific areas for recommendations and interventions designed to enhance the student’s reading and spelling development. Contact and Ordering Information Riverside Insights One Pierce Place, Suite 900W Itasca, IL 60143 Phone: 800-­323-­9540 Website: www.riversideinsights.com REFERENCES

Mather, N., & Wendling, B. J. (2014). Examiner’s Manual. Woodcock-­Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Riverside Insights. Proctor, C. M., Mather, N., & Stephens, T. L. (2015). Use of the Woodcock-­Johnson IV for the Assessment of Dyslexia (Woodcock-­Johnson IV Assessment Service Bulletin No. 6). Riverside Insights. Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock-­Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, Tests of Oral Language, and Tests of Achievement, 4th Edition. Riverside Insights.

Test Name: Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG) Authors: Fredrick A. Schrank, Ph.D., Kevin S. McGrew, Ph.D., Nancy Mather, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Gabriel T. Jeantete, Clinical Product Specialist at Riverside Insights Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 2 to 90+; PreK–College (including university undergraduate and graduate students) Description: The Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG) is a comprehensive set of individually administered, norm-­referenced tests for measuring intellectual abilities. It can be used as a comprehensive, standalone battery or in conjunction with the achievement (WJ IV ACH) and oral language (WJ IV OL) batteries. The WJ IV COG can be used for educational programming, planning individual programs, and research purposes. It consists of 18 tests. Scores from different combinations of these tests provide information regarding an individual’s various intellectual functions and scholastic aptitudes. The WJ IV COG is available as a paper-­and-­pencil version with (2) easel format test books, paper test records and response booklets, and an online scoring and reporting program. The following tests and clusters can be usef ul in an evaluation for dyslexia. TESTS

Although the WJ IV COG has 18 tests, the eight tests most relevant for a dyslexia evaluation are described here. • Test 3: Verbal Attention is a test of short-­term working memory (Gwm), sometimes described as verbal working memory. Verbal Attention taps a critical ability necessary for efficient working memory—­attentional control, or what is often called controlled executive function. The task requires the examinee to listen to an intermingled series of animals and digits presented on the audio recording. Rather than repeating the series or regrouping the items into the animals and digits, the examinee is asked to answer a specific question regarding the sequence—­for example, “Say the animal that came before the 5.” • Test 4: Letter-­Pattern Matching is a perceptual speed task, a narrow ability of processing speed (Gs). The task measures an aspect of cognitive efficiency—­the speed at which an individual can make visual symbol discriminations and identify common orthographic (spelling) patterns. The examinee is asked to locate and circle the two identical letter patterns in a row of six patterns in the Response Booklet. The letter patterns that match are always a possible English spelling pattern (e.g., oa or sh), whereas the other patterns are impossible or less frequent letter strings (e.g., ao or hs). The task proceeds in difficulty from single letters to four-­letter patterns and has a 3-­minute time limit. • Test 5: Phonological Processing is a cognitively complex auditory processing (Ga) task that includes speed of lexical access, a narrow ability of long-­term retrieval (Glr). It comprises three subtests: Word Access, Word Fluency, and Substitution. Word Access requires the examinee to provide a word that has a specific phonemic element in a specific location. Word Fluency requires the examinee to name as many words as possible that begin with a specific sound in 1 minute. Substitution requires the examinee to substitute part of a word to create a new word. • Test 10: Numbers Reversed is a test of short-­term working memory (Gwm). Although this test primarily measures short-­term working memory, it also can be classified as a measure of working memory or attentional capacity. The test requires the examinee to hold a span of numbers in immediate awareness (memory) while performing a mental operation on it (reversing the sequence of the numbers).

270  APPENDIX A

• Test 11: Number-­Pattern Matching is a test of processing speed (Gs)—­more specifically, a measure of perceptual speed. The task measures an aspect of cognitive efficiency—­the speed at which an individual can make visual symbol discriminations. The examinee is asked to locate and circle the two identical numbers in a row of six numbers. The difficulty of the task increases from single-­digit numbers to triple-­digit numbers; it has a 3-­minute time limit. • Test 12: Nonword Repetition is a cognitively complex measure of phonological processing, measuring aspects of auditory processing (Ga) and short-­term working memory (Gwm). The task requires the examinee to listen to a nonsense word and then repeat the word exactly. Item difficulty increases as the number of syllables in the nonsense word increases. • Test 16: Object-­Number Sequencing measures short-­term auditory working memory (Gwm). It can also be classified as a measure of working memory capacity. The examinee is asked to listen to a series of digits and words on the audio recording, such as “dog, 1, shoe, 8, 2, apple.” The examinee then attempts to reorder the information, repeating the objects first in sequential order and then the digits in sequential order. The task requires the ability to hold information in immediate awareness, divide the information into two groups, and shift attentional resources to the two new ordered sequences. • Test 17: Pair Cancellation provides information about executive processing, attention/concentration, and processing speed (Gs) abilities. As an executive processing test, Pair Cancellation provides information about interference and inhibition control. As a measure of attention/concentration, it provides information about sustained attention, as the test requires the examinee to stay on task in a vigilant manner. Because the test is timed, Pair Cancellation also provides information about the examinee’s ability to perform a simple cognitive task under time pressure. In a 3-­minute time period, the examinee is asked to locate and mark a repeated pattern as quickly as possible. CLUSTERS

The WJ IV COG provides a number of clusters but the ones most relevant for dyslexia evaluations include:. • General Intellectual Ability (GIA): This cluster consists of the following 7 tests—­Oral Vocabulary, Number Series, Verbal Attention, Letter-­Pattern Matching, Phonological Processing, Story Recall, and Visualization. Each test measures a different CHC ability and is differentially weighted to provide the best overall estimate of global intelligence. • Gf–Gc: The Gf–Gc composite consists of Oral Vocabulary, Number Series, General Information, and Concept Formation. This cluster is designed to be an estimate of intellectual ability based on the two highest-­order (g-­loaded or g-­saturated) factors—­ comprehension knowledge (Gc) and fluid reasoning (Gf ). • Auditory Processing: This cluster includes the following two tests—­Phonological Processing and Nonword Repetition. • Short-­Term Working Memory: This cluster consists of the following two tests—­Verbal Attention and Numbers Reversed. • Cognitive Processing Speed: This cluster consists of the following two tests—­Letter-­Pattern Matching and Pair Cancellation. • Perceptual Speed: This narrow ability cluster consists of the following two tests—­Letter-­Pattern Matching and Number-­Pattern Matching. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The WJ IV COG provides both norm-­referenced and criterion-­referenced scores. Norm-­referenced scores include: standard scores, age-­and grade-­equivalent scores, and percentile ranks. Criterion-­referenced scores include: W Score, W-­DIFF, RPI, and CALP levels. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: National representative sample of 7,416 individuals ranging in age from 2 to over 90 years. • Reliability: Median reliability coefficients for the subtests range from 0.83 to 0.91 and from 0.83 to 0.98 for the clusters. Mean scores and standard deviations were computed for studies that included children and adults diagnosed with any of the following diagnoses: gifted, intellectual disability, learning disability, language delay, ADHD, head injury, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual; including CHC Theory content coverage. Broad CHC abilities represented by the WJ IV COG tests include: comprehension knowledge, fluid reasoning, long-­term retrieval, auditory processing, visual processing, short-­term working memory, and cognitive processing speed. Extensive WJ IV COG norming sample test and intercorrelations are reported in the Examiner’s Manual for ages 2 through over 90. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The WJ IV COG includes tests and clusters that can be used to assess specific weaknesses in cognitive and linguistic abilities that can affect reading and spelling development. As noted, these clusters and tests include: Auditory Processing (Phonological Processing and Nonword Repetition), Perceptual Speed (Letter-­Pattern Matching, Number-­Pattern Matching), Short-­Term Working Memory (Verbal

APPENDIX A  271

Attention and Numbers Reversed), Comprehension-­Knowledge (Oral Vocabulary and General Information) and a rapid naming test (Rapid Picture Naming). Weaknesses in these linguistic risk factors have been noted in individuals with dyslexia. The WJ IV also contains specific features that an evaluator can use when conducting a comprehensive dyslexia evaluation. The WJ IV Dyslexia Profile of Scores is used to assist in the organization of assessment data and in the determination of dyslexia. The WJ IV Dyslexia Summary Report provides an overview of the characteristics of dyslexia, the possible contributing factors, and the strengths that may exist. Additionally, both can assist professionals in targeting specific areas for recommendations and interventions designed to enhance the student’s reading and spelling development. Contact and Ordering Information Riverside Insights One Pierce Place, Suite 900W Itasca, IL 60143 Phone: 800-­323-­9540 Website: www.riversideinsights.com REFERENCES

Mather, N., & Wendling, B. J. (2014). Examiner’s Manual. Woodcock-­Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Riverside Insights. McGrew, K. S., LaForte, E. M., & Schrank, F. A. (2014). Technical Manual. Woodcock-­Johnson IV. Riverside Insights. Proctor, C. M., Mather, N., & Stephens, T. L. (2015). Use of the Woodcock-­Johnson IV for the Assessment of Dyslexia (Woodcock-­Johnson IV Assessment Service Bulletin No. 6). Riverside Insights.

Test Name: Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development (ECAD) Authors: Fredrick A. Schrank, Ph.D., Kevin S. McGrew, Ph.D., Nancy Mather, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Eric H. Snader, Psy.D., Director, Clinical Content Development Appropriate for Ages: 2–6 to 7–11 (also appropriate for use with children ages 8 and 9 who have cognitive developmental delay) Description: The WJ IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development (ECAD) are appropriate for determining the presence and severity of cognitive delay and for identifying relative strengths and weaknesses among different cognitive abilities that may be relevant to early interventions. The tests were designed to be interesting and attractive to young children and easy to administer by a wide variety of assessment professionals. The ECAD is available as paper-­and-­pencil version with an easel format test book, paper test records and response worksheets, and an online scoring and reporting program. The ECAD can be used for (a) determining developmental delays, (b) determining variations and discrepancies, (c) developmental and educational programming, (d) planning individual programs, (e) guidance in educational and clinical settings, (f ) assessing growth, (g) program evaluation, and (h) research. TESTS

The WJ IV ECAD has 10 tests, all of which are relevant for a dyslexia evaluation. • The Memory for Names test measures the ability to learn associations between unfamiliar auditory and visual stimuli requiring the child to learn the names of space creatures pictured on the page. • The Sound Blending test measures phonological abilities, in particular, phonetic coding. The test requires the child to listen to a word pronounced syllable-­by-­syllable or phoneme-­by-­phoneme and then blend the parts together to say the whole word. • The Picture Vocabulary test measures oral language development and lexical (word) knowledge. The test requires the child to identify pictured objects. • The Verbal Analogies test measures the ability to comprehend and complete a logical word relationship. The child must figure out the relationship or association between the words and retrieve an appropriate oral response. While the vocabulary remains relatively simple, the relationships among the words become increasingly more complex. • The Visual Closure test measures the ability to identify a drawing that has been altered in some way. The pictures may have parts missing or have superimposed patterns. • The Sentence Repetition test measures short-­term memory, specifically auditory memory span. The child is required to listen to the stimuli presented orally and to remember and repeat the single words, phrases, and sentences. • The Rapid Picture Naming test is a test of cognitive and linguistic fluency that provides information about cognitive processing speed and speed of word retrieval. The test requires the child to recall names of simple pictures as quickly as possible within a 2-­minute time limit.

272  APPENDIX A

• The Letter–Word Identification test measures the child’s print awareness and letter and word identification skills. The early items required the child to point to letters that match a target letter, while the remaining items require the child to name individual letters and read words correctly. • The Number Sense test measures the child’s understanding of what numbers mean in relationship to other numbers, as well as the vocabulary and concepts required to compare, judge, and estimate size, quantity, position, or volume. The test requires mental math and does not allow for the use of paper or pencil. • The Writing test measures prewriting skills. The early items require the child to draw lines and trace letters, while later items require the child to produce uppercase and lowercase letters, and spell words correctly. CLUSTERS

The WJ IV ECAD includes the following clusters: • General Intellectual Ability-­Early Development (GIA-­EDev): This cluster consists of the following 7 tests—­Memory for Names, Sound Blending, Picture Vocabulary, Verbal Analogies, Visual Closure, Sentence Repetition, and Rapid Picture Naming. These tests, differentially weighted, provide the best overall estimate of global cognitive ability. • Early Academic Skills: This cluster consists of the following three tests—­Letter–Word Identification, Number Sense, and Writing. • Expressive Language: This cluster consists of the following two tests—­Picture Vocabulary and Sentence Repetition. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The ECAD provides both norm-­referenced and criterion-­referenced scores. Norm-­referenced scores include: age-­and grade-­equivalent scores, standard scores (including T score, z score, NCE), and percentile ranks. Criterion-­referenced scores include: W-­DIFF, RPI, developmental level, instructional or developmental zone. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: ECAD tests were included in the norming of the WJ IV; with a national representative sample of 2,378 examinees between the ages of 2 and 10 years. • Reliability: Median reliability coefficients for the subtests range from 0.74 to 0.97 and from 0.89 to 0.96 for the clusters. Mean scores and standard deviations were computed for studies that included children diagnosed with any of the following diagnoses: cognitive delay, speech/language delay, and autism. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual; including CHC Theory content coverage. Broad CHC abilities represented by the ECAD tests include: long-­term retrieval, auditory processing, comprehension knowledge, fluid reasoning, visual processing, short-­term working memory, and cognitive processing speed. Extensive ECAD norming sample test and intercorrelations are reported in the Examiner’s Manual for ages 3 through 5, 6 through 8, and 9 through 10. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The ECAD includes tests and clusters that can be used to assess specific linguistic risk factors (phonological awareness (Sound Blending), rapid naming (Rapid Picture Naming), visual–verbal paired associate learning (Memory for Names), vocabulary (Picture Vocabulary and Verbal Analogies), and early reading and spelling ability (Letter–Word Identification and Writing). Individuals with dyslexia often have low scores on several of these tests. In addition, a high score on Picture Vocabulary and Verbal Analogies can also help rule out a comorbid developmental language disorder. Contact and Ordering Information Riverside Insights One Pierce Place, Suite 900W Itasca, IL 60143 Phone: 800-­323-­9540 Website: www.riversideinsights.com REFERENCES

Schrank, F.A., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2015). Woodcock-­Johnson IV Tests of Early Academic and Cognitive Development. Riverside Insights. Wendling, B. J., Mather, N., LaForte, E. M., McGrew, K. S., & Schrank, F. A. (2015). Comprehensive Manual. Woodcock-­Johnson IV Tests of Early Academic and Cognitive Development. Riverside Insights.

APPENDIX A  273

Test Name: Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL) Authors: Fredrick A. Schrank, Ph.D., Nancy Mather, Ph.D., Kevin S. McGrew, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Eric H. Snader, Psy.D., Director, Clinical Content Development Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 2–0 to 90+; PreK–College Description: The Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL) measures various aspects of oral language, such as listening comprehension, oral expression, vocabulary, phonological processing, and speed of lexical access. It comprises 12 tests: 9 in English and 3 in Spanish. Depending on the purpose of testing, the WJ IV OL tests can be used independently or with the WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities and/or the WJ IV Tests of Achievement. The WJ IV OL can be used to determine and describe an individual’s strengths and weaknesses within oral language, especially those abilities that contribute to basic reading and spelling skills. When appropriate, the WJ IV OL tests can be administered to help determine the individual’s language abilities and to compare their English and Spanish proficiency. TESTS

• The Picture Vocabulary test is primarily a measure of comprehension knowledge (Gc), and specifically oral language development and lexical (word) knowledge. The test requires the person to identify pictured objects. Although a few receptive items are offered at the beginning of the test, this is primarily an expressive language task at the single-­word level. • The Oral Comprehension test is primarily a measure of comprehension knowledge (Gc), and specifically a test of oral language. The test requires the examinee to listen to an audio-­recorded passage and then supply the missing word using syntactic and semantic cues. The test begins with simple analogies and associations and progresses to more complex passages. • Segmentation is an auditory processing (Ga) test, specifically a phonetic coding task that measures skill in breaking apart the speech sounds in words. The examinee listens to words and must identify the word parts ranging from compound words to syllables to individual speech sounds (phonemes). • Rapid Picture Naming is a test of cognitive and linguistic fluency that provides information about processing speed (Gs) and speed of word retrieval. More specifically, this test measures naming facility, or the speed of lexical access. This test requires the quick recall of simple pictures, and has a 2-­minute time limit. • Sentence Repetition measures the ability to remember and repeat single words, phrases, and sentences presented from the audio recording or, in special cases, presented orally by the examiner. This test primarily measures short-­term working memory span, and, to a much smaller degree, listening ability. • Understanding Directions is a measure of receptive oral language. This task requires the examinee to listen to a sequence of audio-­ recorded instructions and then follow the directions by pointing to various objects in a colored picture. The items gradually increase in linguistic complexity. This test is primarily a measure of short-­term working memory, specifically working memory for language. • Sound Blending measures phonological abilities, in particular, phonetic coding. The test requires the examinee to listen to a word pronounced syllable-­by-­syllable or phoneme-­by-­phoneme and then blend the parts together to say the whole word. • Retrieval Fluency measures an aspect of long-­term retrieval, speed of lexical access, which requires fluency of word retrieval from a given category within a 1-­minute time limit. The task consists of three items, each representing a different category: things to eat or drink, first names of people, and animals. • Sound Awareness measures phonological abilities and is composed of two subtests, Rhyming, which involves producing rhyming words, and Deletion, which involves deleting word parts and phonemes from orally presented words. This test can provide a screening of phonetic coding ability for younger examinees or older examinees with limited phonological awareness. Three Spanish tests that are equivalent to the English tests include: • Vocabulario sobre dibujos (Picture Vocabulary) • Comprensión oral (Oral Comprehension) • Comprensión de indicaciones (Understanding Directions) CLUSTERS

In the WJ IV OL includes the following clusters: • The Oral Language cluster consists of Picture Vocabulary and Oral Comprehension, and is an aggregate measure of comprehension knowledge (Gc) including lexical knowledge, listening ability, and verbal comprehension. • The Broad Oral Language cluster is an aggregate measure of comprehension knowledge (Gc), including lexical knowledge, listening ability, verbal comprehension, syntactic knowledge, working memory (Gwm), and auditory memory span. This cluster includes Picture Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension, and Understanding Directions.

274  APPENDIX A

• The Oral Expression cluster is an aggregate measure of comprehension knowledge (Gc), including lexical knowledge, language development, and syntactic knowledge. The cluster consists of Picture Vocabulary and Sentence Repetition. • The Listening Comprehension cluster is an aggregate measure of listening ability and verbal comprehension. The cluster consists of Oral Comprehension and Understanding Directions. • The Phonetic Coding cluster is a combination of Segmentation and Sound Blending, and is an aggregate measure of auditory processing (Ga), including two aspects of phonological awareness, analysis and synthesis. • The Speed of Lexical Access cluster is a combination of Rapid Picture Naming and Retrieval Fluency. It primarily measures the efficiency and quickness with which individuals are able to retrieve words (Gc) from long-­term storage (Glr). Three Spanish clusters that are equivalent to the English clusters include: • Lenguaje oral (Oral Language) • Amplio lenguaje oral (Broad Oral Language) • Comprensión auditiva (Listening Comprehension) TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The WJ IV OL provides both norm-­referenced and criterion-­referenced scores. Norm-­referenced scores include: standard scores, age-­ and grade-­equivalent scores, and percentile ranks. Criterion-­referenced scores include: W Score, W-­DIFF, RPI, and CALP levels. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: National representative sample of 7,416 individuals ranging in age from 2 to over 90 years. • Reliability: Median reliability coefficients for the tests range from 0.75 to 0.93 for the 5–19 age range, from 0.83 to 0.94 for the adult range. Median reliability for the clusters range from 0.88 to 0.93 for the 5–19 age range, and from 0.90 to 0.96 for the adult age range. Mean scores and standard deviations were computed for studies that included children and adults diagnosed with any of the following diagnoses: gifted, intellectual disability, learning disability, language delay, ADHD, head injury, and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the WJ IV Technical Manual, including CHC Theory content coverage. Broad CHC abilities represented by the WJ IV OL tests include: comprehension knowledge, auditory processing, processing speed, short-­term working memory, and long-­term storage and retrieval. The WJ IV Technical Manual also reports extensive concurrent validity evidence, as well as test and cluster intercorrelations for ages 2 through over 90. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The WJ IV OL includes tests which comprise clusters that can be used to assess specific weaknesses in cognitive and linguistic abilities that can affect reading and spelling development. These clusters include: Oral Language, Oral Expression, Listening Comprehension, Phonetic Coding, and Speed of Lexical Access. Weaknesses in these linguistic risk factors have been noted in individuals with dyslexia. The WJ IV OL contains specific features that an evaluator can use when conducting a comprehensive dyslexia evaluation. The WJ IV Dyslexia Profile of Scores is used to assist in the organization of assessment data and in the determination of dyslexia. The WJ IV Dyslexia Summary Report provides an overview of the characteristics of dyslexia, the possible contributing factors, and the strengths that may exist. Additionally, both can assist professionals in targeting specific areas for recommendations and interventions designed to enhance the student’s reading and spelling development. Contact and Ordering Information Riverside Insights One Pierce Place, Suite 900W Itasca, IL 60143 Phone: 800-­323-­9540 Website: www.riversideinsights.com REFERENCES

Mather, N., & Wendling, B. J. (2014). Woodcock-­Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language. Examiner’s Manual. Riverside Insights. Schrank, F.A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K.S. (2014). Woodcock-­Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language. Riverside Insights.

APPENDIX A  275

Test Name: Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Third Edition (WRMT-­III) Author: Richard W. Woodcock, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Kristina C. Breaux, Ph.D., Pearson Clinical Assessment Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 4–6 to 79–11; K–12 Description: The Woodcock Reading Mastery Test™, Third Edition (WRMT™-­III; Woodcock, 2011a) is a battery of individually administered tests that measure reading readiness and reading achievement in children, adolescents, and adults through age 79. The test includes two parallel forms with nine subtests used to evaluate reading readiness, basic reading skills, and listening and reading comprehension. Examiners can choose to administer a single subtest or any combination of subtests to assess reading in one or more areas. The WRMT-­III provides measures of all five primary reading areas identified by the National Reading Panel’s Teaching Children to Read report (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000): phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading fluency, and text comprehension. It is appropriate for evaluating struggling readers; planning instruction and accommodations; making selection and placement decisions; screening for reading readiness; monitoring progress with parallel alternate forms; measuring program effectiveness; and research. The WRMT-­III is available as a paper-­and-­pencil assessment with manual or web-­ based scoring. TESTS

The WRMT-­III contains the following nine tests. Applicable grade ranges are in parentheses after the test name. The designation of PK includes examinees not yet in kindergarten who are 4 years 6 months or older. The designation of 12+ includes examinees in grade 12 and adults. • Letter Identification (PK–1): The Letter Identification test measures an examinee’s ability to recognize letters presented in uppercase and lowercase forms. Examinees are asked to name or give the most common sound for the letter presented. • Phonological Awareness (PK–2): The Phonological Awareness test measures an examinee’s awareness of the phonological components of language (e.g., phonemes and syllables). This test is divided into five sections: First-­Sound Matching, Last-­Sound Matching, Rhyme Production, Blending, and Deletion. • Rapid Automatic Naming (PK–2): The Rapid Automatic Naming test measures the speed and accuracy with which an examinee is able to name a set of familiar stimuli. This timed test consists of two sections made up of two tasks: Object and Color Naming, and Number and Letter Naming. • Word Identification (1–12+): The Word Identification test requires an examinee to read words of increasing difficulty. Note that it is not assumed that the examinee necessarily knows the meaning of any correctly identified word. • Word Attack (1–12+): The Word Attack test requires an examinee to read nonsense words of increasing difficulty. The test measures the examinee’s ability to apply phonological and structural analysis skills to unfamiliar words. • Listening Comprehension (1–12+): The Listening Comprehension test measures the ability to comprehend spoken language and includes items that test both literal and inferential comprehension skills. Examinees listen to each passage and answer a question about its content. Listening Comprehension is not part of any reading cluster. • Word Comprehension (1–12+): The Word Comprehension test measures reading vocabulary from three different levels of cognitive processing in the form of antonyms, synonyms, and analogies. • Passage Comprehension (1–12+): The Passage Comprehension test measures an examinee’s ability to study a sentence or short passage and exercise a variety of comprehension and vocabulary skills in identifying a missing word. The task is a modified cloze procedure that uses a blank line to represent the missing word. • Oral Reading Fluency (1–12+): The Oral Reading Fluency test measures the ability to fluently integrate learned reading abilities such as decoding, expression, and phrasing. The task requires the examinee to read one or two passages ranging in length from 80 to 200 words. CLUSTERS

The WRMT-­III clusters are derived from scores on multiple individual tests to provide information for more global interpretation. The use of clusters results in higher reliability and generalizability of scores, as more than one reading component is included in a score that then serves as a basis for interpretation. The four cluster scores used in the WRMT-­III battery to enhance interpretation of an examinee’s performance are Readiness, Basic Skills, Reading Comprehension, and Total Reading. Applicable grade ranges are in parentheses after the cluster name. The designation of 12+ includes examinees in grade 12 and adults.

276  APPENDIX A

• The Readiness Cluster (PK–1) consists of the Phonological Awareness, Rapid Automatic Naming, and Letter Identification tests. This cluster requires approximately 15 minutes to administer and provides an index of several skills necessary for beginning reading. • The Basic Skills Cluster (1–12+) consists of the Word Attack and Word Identification tests and provides a broad measure of basic reading skills. This cluster requires approximately 5 minutes to administer. • The Reading Comprehension Cluster (1–12+) consists of the Word Comprehension and Passage Comprehension tests. This cluster provides a broad measure of reading comprehension skills; it requires approximately 15 to 20 minutes to administer. • The Total Reading Cluster (1–12+) consists of the Word Identification, Word Attack, Word Comprehension, Passage Comprehension, and Oral Reading Fluency tests. Scores from this cluster serve as a broad measure of global reading ability. This cluster takes about 25 minutes to administer. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

Age-­and grade-­based standard scores are provided for each cluster and test. Standard scores range from 55 to 145, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Bands of error are provided at the 90% and 95% confidence intervals. Percentile ranks are derived from standard scores. Test raw scores can be used to determine Relative Performance Indexes (RPIs), Growth Scale Values (GSVs) for measuring ability across testing, and age and grade equivalents. GSVs have been equated across parallel forms to allow for progress monitoring while minimizing score differences based on practice effects. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normative information is based on a national sample that is representative of the U.S. population of students in grades K–12 and individuals ages 4 years 6 months to 79 years 11 months. The grade-­based norm sample included 2,600 examinees in grades K–12, split between a fall sample and a spring sample (with winter norms interpolated). The age-­based norm sample included 3,360 examinees ages 4 years 6 months to 79years 11 months. Approximately half of each sample was administered Form A and half was administered Form B. A linking study for both forms included 451 examinees. • Reliability: Grade-­based and age-­based reliability estimates are very good overall. The average reliability coefficients for the Total Reading and other cluster scores are excellent (0.90s). Mean estimates for test scores range from good (0.80s) to excellent (0.90s). • Validity: The WRMT-­III Manual (Woodcock, 2011b) provides evidence for validity within and across measures, including subtest intercorrelations, correlations to other tests, and special group studies. Intercorrelational analyses demonstrate concurrent and discriminant validity within and across domains, respectively, as expected. Correlation studies with other instruments support theoretical expectations around shared constructs and divergent measures. Special group studies included a specific sample for examinees with a learning disability in reading, as well as gifted/talented examinees and examinees with mild intellectual disability. Performance by all groups was as expected, with examinees in the reading disorder sample performing poorly on all tests compared to the matched sample; all effect sizes were large except for Rapid Automatic Naming and Listening Comprehension, which were moderate. RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The WRMT-­III provides highly reliable and valid measures of skills and processing areas related to dyslexia, including phonological awareness, word recognition, phonic decoding, listening and reading comprehension, oral reading fluency, and rapid automatic naming. Clinical validity studies clearly support the ability of the WRMT-­III battery to differentiate performance between those with a reading disorder and the matched control group. Contact and Ordering Information NCS Pearson, Inc. Phone: 800-­627-­7271 Website: www.pearsonassessments.com Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Third Edition Copyright © 2011 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. This information is provided for educational purposes only. Used by permission. REFERENCES

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of scientific-­based literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Publication No. 00-­4769, 3–1 to 3–43. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

APPENDIX A  277

Woodcock, R. W. (2011a). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, 3rd Edition. NCS Pearson. Woodcock, R. W. (2011b). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, 3rd Edition: Manual. NCS Pearson.

Test Name: Word Identification and Spelling Test (WIST) Authors: Barbara A. Wilson, M.Ed. and Rebecca H. Felton, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Jodie D. Martin-­Gutel, Ph.D. Appropriate for Ages: 7–0 to 18–11 Description: The Word Identification and Spelling Test (WIST) was designed to measure the ability to read and spell words. This knowledge is assessed using regular and irregular words. Available as paper-­and-­pencil version with one form for ages 7 through 11 years (Elementary Version, grades 2 through 5), one form for ages 7 through 18 years (grades 2 through 12), and one form for ages 11 through 18 years (Secondary Version, grades 6 through 12). The test must be manually scored. The results of the WIST can be generally used to identify poor readers and poor spellers, to identify student requiring more intensive instruction, to monitor annual progress in reading and spelling development, and to serve as a measurement tool in research studies. SUBTESTS AND COMPOSITE

The WIST has two core subtests, one supplemental subtest, and one composite. A description of each follows: • Word Identification: This subtest assesses the ability to read words aloud accurately. The Read Regular Words item set measures sight recognition of familiar words and the ability to decode unfamiliar words. The Read Irregular Words item set measures sight recognition or orthographic memory of high-­frequency words with one or more irregularities. • Spelling: This subtest assesses the ability to spell words accurately from dictation. The Spell Regular Words item set measures recall of correct letter sequences for familiar words or the ability to apply sound–symbol relationships and rules of English orthography to spell unfamiliar words. The Spell Irregular Words item set measures a recall of letter order in high-­frequency words with one or more irregularities. • Sound–Symbol Knowledge: This supplemental subtest assesses the ability to produce the appropriate sounds associated with specific letters. The Pseudo Words and Letter Sounds item sets measure the ability to identify a grapheme and recall its corresponding sound and use this information to decode. • Fundamental Literacy Ability Index: Scores for the Word Identification and Spelling subtests are summed to form the composite Fundamental Literacy Ability Index (FLAI). The FLAI is important because it reflects the ability relative to the basic constructs built into the test. Because the FLAI comprises the two core subtests rather than only one, the index tends to be highly reliable. TYPES OF SCORES PROVIDED

The WIST yields three types of normative scores: subtest and composite standard scores, percentile ranks, and age and grade equivalents. TECHNICAL INFORMATION

• Standardization Sample: Normed on a national representative sample of 1,520 individuals. • Reliability: The average coefficient alphas for the Elementary Version were 0.98 for each of the subtests, 0.96 for the supplemental subtest, and 0.98 for the composite. The average coefficient alphas for the Secondary Version were 0.96 and 0.97 for the subtests, 0.94 for the supplemental subtest, and 0.97 for the composite. Reliability across gender, race, ethnicity, and subjects diagnosed with learning disabilities ranged from 0.93 to 0.98 for the core subtests, from 0.94 to 0.96 for the supplemental subtest, and from 0.96 to 0.98 for the composite. Test–retest reliability ranged from 0.93 to 0.99 for the core subtests, and was 0.98 and 0.95 for the supplemental, and 0.99 and 0.97 for the composite. • Validity: Extensive content-­description validity is provided in the Examiner’s Manual. Average correlations between the core Word Identification subtest and criterion measures ranged from 0.55 to 0.79 for the core Elementary Version and from 0.47 to 0.89 for the Secondary Version. Average correlations between the Spelling subtest and criterion measures ranged were 0.87 and 0.82 for the Elementary Version and 0.82 and 0.80 for the Secondary Version. Average correlations between the supplemental Sound–Symbol Knowledge subtest and criterion measures ranged were 0.66 and 0.74 for the Elementary Version and 0.51 and 0.32 for the Secondary Version. Confirmatory factor analysis results support the construct validity of the WIST.

278  APPENDIX A

RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

The ability to identify words (i.e., to recognize words instantaneously and automatically) and the ability to spell (i.e., to arrange letters into words properly) are critical skills for students to master. Many students who become poor readers experience early and continuing difficulty understanding and using the alphabetic principle, which is necessary for reading words with regular spelling patterns. These problems result in difficulty sounding out or decoding unfamiliar words. Students with dyslexia form a subgroup of poor readers whose problems are the most pronounced and severe. Primary characteristics of dyslexia include both word reading and spelling problems. Students who are diagnosed with dyslexia have particular difficulty mastering sound–symbol correspondences. In addition, spelling difficulties nearly always coexist with word reading disabilities and are more resistant to remediation. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCE

Wilson, B. A., & Felton, R. H. (2012). Word Identification and Spelling Test (WIST): Examiner’s Manual. PRO-­ED.

Appendix B DESCRIPTIONS OF EVIDENCE-­BASED PROGRAMS

Appendix B provides examples of several systematic programs for phonics, structural analysis, fluency, and spelling instruction. This list is not intended to be exhaustive but only to provide descriptions of programs that have helped students with dyslexia improve their reading and spelling skills. In most cases, the information presented here was provided by one of the authors of the program. Some of these programs require extensive, supervised teacher training (e.g., Wilson Reading System®), whereas others do not (e.g., Phonic Reading Lessons). Some are targeted to parents and paraprofessionals (e.g., Barton System and Reading Reflex). Some are designed for beginning readers (e.g., Road to the Code, Road to Reading, and Wilson Fundations®), whereas others focus on word parts and structural analysis (e.g., REWARDS® and WORDS) or increasing reading fluency (e.g., Great Leaps®). Some involve instruction in word reading, as well as vocabulary (e.g., RAVE-­O), and some provide online reading instruction (e.g., MindPlay and Read, Write, & Type!). All of these programs follow a systematic sequence of instruction with built-­in practice and review that is designed to be delivered individually or in small groups, the central characteristics of evidence-­based instruction. Program (listed in alphabetical order)

Age/Grade Range

Barton Reading & Spelling System

A: 5 to adult

Equipped for Reading Success

G: K–2 (instruction) G: 2–12 (intervention)

Friends on the Block Literacy Program

G: K–1 (instruction) G: 2–12 (intervention)

Great Leaps® Reading

A: 5 to adult G: K–12

Heggerty Phonemic Awareness

G: PreK–2+

LANGUAGE!®, 4 ed.

G: 3–12

LANGUAGE! Live® 2.0

G: 5–12

Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing® (LiPS®) Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech, 4th ed.

G: PreK–adult

MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach (MVRC)

G: K–12 and adults

Morphemes for Little Ones

G: K–3

Morpheme Magic: Lessons to Build Morpheme Awareness

G: 4–12

Multisensory Teaching Approach for Reading and Spelling (MTA)

A: 5 to adult

95 Phonics Core Program®

G: K–5

One Minute Reader®

G: Reading at early 1–5

PAL II RW Revised User Guide and Instructional Materials

G: K–6 (and older at this instructional level)

Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling, 2nd ed.

G: 1–12

Phonic Reading Lessons: Skills and Practice (PRL)

A: 5 to adult

Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme–Grapheme Mapping

G: K–6

th

Pages

(continued )

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 279

280  APPENDIX B

Program (listed in alphabetical order)

Age/Grade Range

Phono-­Graphix® Reading Reflex

G: PreK–adult (remedial) G: K–6 (home use)

RAVE-­O

G: 2–4

Read Live

G: 1–8

Read, Write, & Type!

A: 5 to 7

REWARDS®

G: 4–6 (intermediate) G: 6–9 (secondary)

Road to the Code

G: K–1

Road to Reading

G: 1–3

Scottish Rite: Bridges

A: 7 to adult G: 2–adult

Scottish Rite: Build

A: 5 to 6 G: K–1

Scottish Rite: Take Flight Scottish Rite: Jet A: 14–adult

A: 7 to adult G: 2–adult

Slingerland® Approach

G: K–8 (special education, adult literacy)

Sonday System

A: 4 to adult

SPELL-­Links to Reading and Writing Spellography G: 4–6

G: K–adult

S.P.I.R.E.®

G: PreK–8+

The Superkids Reading Program

G: K–2

UFLI Foundations

G: K–2; any grade for remediation

Wilson Fluency/Basic®

G: 1–12

Wilson Fundations®

G: K–3

Wilson Just Words®

G: 4–12

Wilson Reading System®

G: 2–12

WORDS, 2 Ed.

A: 10 to 15

Wordy Qwerty

A: 7 to 10

nd

Pages

Program: Barton Reading & Spelling System Author: Susan Barton, B.A. Information Provided By: Karen Austen, former Executive Director of the Dyslexia Project’s Reading Solutions in Madison, OH, and Susan Barton, B.A. Appropriate for Ages: 5–0 to adult Description: Created by Susan Barton, the Barton System is a one-­to-­one tutoring system designed to enable parents to teach their children with dyslexia how to read and spell. Also, the design of the program allows volunteer tutors with no teaching background to be effective tutors. Before ordering any materials, the potential tutor must take and pass a 5-­minute phonemic awareness screening. In addition, before using the program with a student, the student must take and pass a 10-­minute screening to determine if the student’s auditory processing issues are too severe to benefit from this approach. This Orton–Gillingham-­influenced system takes students to the mid-­ninth grade level in reading and spelling. The system is divided into 10 levels. Tutors learn just one level at a time by watching their Tutor Training videos, and then immediately start using what they have learned. To teach the lessons, a tutor uses the detailed prepared lesson plans that contain a choice of full scripting or summary scripting. When the student nears the end of that level, the tutor orders the next level which contains more videos that build on what the tutor already knows and prepares the tutor for the next set of lessons. Each level in the Barton Reading & Spelling System contains about 6 hours of training videos (online videos or DVDs), a scripted lesson plan manual, color-­coded letters tiles, and a packet of blackline masters of the pages the students use to write or read. There are no workbooks or consumables, and all student materials can be copied.

APPENDIX B  281

The 10 levels are taught in the following sequence: Level 1: Phonemic Awareness Level 2: Consonants, Short Vowels, & Digraphs Level 3: Closed Syllables and Units Level 4: Syllable Division and Vowel Teams Level 5: Prefixes & Suffixes Level 6: Six Reasons for Silent-­E Level 7: Vowel-­R Syllables Level 8: Advanced Vowel Teams Level 9: Influence of Foreign Languages Level 10: Latin Roots and Greek Words Starting with Level 3, each level has from 10 to 14 lessons. If a student with moderate dyslexia is tutored twice a week for an hour per session, it would take about 3 years to complete all 10 levels. Evidence of Effectiveness: Fifteen independent studies are posted on the Barton Reading & Spelling System website (www. BartonReading.com, click on What People Say, and then click on Evidence and Research) that provide evidence of the effectiveness of the program, along with an in-­depth review by the Florida Center for Reading Research. The Barton System addresses the essential components of literacy instruction (including phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension), and the principles implemented are consistent with current findings on the characteristics of effective interventions. It has been approved by the California Department of Education, and is used as a Tier 3 intervention by many programs implementing a Response-­to-­Intervention (RTI) model. Teacher Training: Training is provided through a self-­study approach using a series of online videos. Free unlimited tutor support is available by phone, e-­mail, or on the tutor support website. Contact and Ordering Information Barton Reading & Spelling System 2059 Camden Avenue, Suite 186 San Jose, CA 95124 Phone: 408-­559-­3652 Fax: 408-­377-­0503 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.BartonReading.com Program: Equipped for Reading Success: A Comprehensive, Step-­By-­Step Program for Developing Phoneme Awareness and Fluent Word Recognition Author: David A. Kilpatrick, Ph.D. Information Provided By: David A. Kilpatrick Appropriate for Grades: K–2 general education, grades 1–12 remedial and special education Description: The Equipped for Reading Success (EFRS) program is a phonological/phonemic awareness training program designed to supplement a school’s reading instruction. It is based upon Jerome Rosner’s pioneering work on phonemic awareness via his training manual from the 1970s, updated by the work of Philip J. McInnis in the 1980s and 1990s. This approach to phonemic awareness training has thus had over a 40-­year history of helping students develop the phonemic skills needed for reading. EFRS has updated this approach based upon research over the last three decades. It is designed to help students develop phonemic awareness to the point of automaticity. Automatic phonemic skills and automatic letter-­sound skills appear to be essential for orthographic mapping, the cognitive process used to remember words for later retrieval. The EFRS manual explains the orthographic mapping process in detail, and highlights the skills needed. While not a phonics program, it is intended to supplement existing phonics programs to support phonemic awareness development and by extension, orthographic mapping. In addition to the phonemic awareness training, EFRS includes a variety of word learning activities designed to integrate phonemic awareness and letter-­sound skills. Evidence of Effectiveness: Research demonstrates that phonemic awareness can be trained and has a positive impact on reading. Teacher Training: The manual includes everything a teacher needs to know to implement the program. Contact and Ordering Information: www.equippedforreadingsuccess.com 1-­800-­331-­5397

282  APPENDIX B

Program: Friends on the Block Literacy Program Author: Jill H. Allor, Ed.D., Jennifer P. Cheatham, Ph.D., Stephanie Al Otaiba, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Jill H. Allor Appropriate for Grades: K–1 initial instruction or early intervention; 2–12 intervention Description: Friends on the Block (FOTB) is a comprehensive and intensive Structured Literacy (SL) program consistent with the science of reading. It is designed to be customizable and provide needed supports and practice so all students can attain foundational literacy skills, particularly those with very intensive needs such as students with disabilities (e.g., dyslexia, learning disabilities, intellectual and developmental disabilities). The goal of the program is to ensure that everyone, regardless of disability or circumstance, learns to read. It is appropriate for any learner who has not yet developed strong foundational literacy skills, including listening comprehension, oral expression, phonemic awareness, phonics, irregular word reading, fluency, and reading comprehension. FOTB materials include 60 student reading books with carefully controlled, multicriteria text arranged into 14 levels following an explicit, systematic phonics sequence. Each student book has a detailed Teacher’s Guide and instructional materials. The program also includes over 115 highly engaging learning games that provide specific cumulative practice of critical skills. Each lesson includes (a) a brief warm-­up when key skills are explicitly modeled and practiced; (b) book reading during which students apply key skills, participate in conversations about the book and vocabulary, and learn to apply comprehension strategies; and (c) learning games that provide intensive, engaging practice based on student needs. The lessons are designed to be easily customized as teachers decide, based on student data, which games to include in each lesson and when students are ready to move from one level to the next. The program includes multiple books and games for each level to ensure sufficient practice material for students, including those with very intensive needs. In addition to the physical materials, a digital plan is also available that includes all 60 eReaders (student books), 17 printable student books, all 60 Teacher Guides, all warm-­up charts, printable learning games, printable assessment resources, and how-­to videos. Evidence of Effectiveness: FOTB was developed and is being researched by a team of researchers with the support of federal research grants from the Institute of Education Sciences (Grants H324K040011, R324A130102, and R324A20015). The program combines innovation with long-­standing evidence-­based practices consistent with the Science of Reading, Structured Literacy, and principles of effective instruction (e.g., Coyne et al., 2011; Foorman et al., 2016; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). Initial development was conducted by a team of researchers at Southern Methodist University, who conducted a series of single-­case design (SCD) research studies that provided strong support for a statistically significant functional relation between the intervention and growth in word recognition skills (Allor et al., 2013; Allor et al., 2018; Allor et al., 2020). Descriptive measures also illustrate student growth on a variety of academic skills and teachers reported increases in student engagement and comprehension (Allor et al., 2018). Currently, in partnership with the University of Alabama, we are conducting a randomized control trial that examines a broader range of literacy and language outcomes. To date, all research conducted on FOTB has focused on students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The program has also been used effectively with beginning struggling readers, English language learners, and students with dyslexia. Note: The research described was supported by Grants H324K040011, R324A130102, and R324A200151 from the Institute of Education Sciences. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and have not been reviewed or approved by the granting agency. Teacher Training: Support for teachers is available through a series of how-­to videos and detailed Teacher’s Guides that are a part of the program. Virtual and in-­person professional development is also available and recommended. Contact and Ordering Information e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.friendsontheblock.com/ REFERENCES

Allor, J. H., Gifford, D. B., Al Otaiba, S., Miller, S. J., & Cheatham, J. P. (2013). Teaching students with intellectual disability to integrate reading skills: Effects of text and text-­based lessons. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0741932513494020 Allor, J. H., Gifford, D. B., Jones, F. G., Al Otaiba, S., Yovanoff, P., Ortiz, M. B., & Cheatham, J. P. (2018). The effects of a text-­centered literacy curriculum for students with intellectual disability. American Journal for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123, 474–494. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-­7558-­123.5.474 Allor, J. H., Yovanoff, P., Al Otaiba, S., Ortiz, M. B., & Conner, C. (2020). Evidence for a literacy intervention for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 55, 290–302. Coyne, M. D., Kame’ennui, E. J., & Carnine, D.W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners. NCS Pearson.

APPENDIX B  283

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade. (NCEE 2016-­4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: https://whatworks.ed.gov. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00 – 4769). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Program: Great Leaps Reading Author: Kenneth U. Campbell, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Kenneth U. Campbell Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 5–0 to adult; K–12 Description: Great Leaps Reading is a one-­on-­one tutoring system designed to provide efficient and effective remediation for most children with significant reading problems. Great Leaps has been called the bridge from word reading to fluent reading. It has been designed so that communities can use the resources at their disposal to teach their children to read. A trained volunteer or parent can achieve virtually the same results with Great Leaps as professional staff. The latest researched versions are in a digital format. Great Leaps uses basic phonics, high-­frequency word phrases, and 1-­minute story readings with depth of knowledge questioning to achieve reading fluency gains as fast as present technology allows; the average across the country from two major studies is approximately 2 years plus instructional reading level growth for every year involved in the program. Great Leaps takes students to approximately the 5.0 grade reading level so that they can easily engage in independent reading. The level of the program that is selected is based on the age and social functioning of the student, not the reading level. Thus, a 12-­year-­old reading at first grade level would work out of the middle school book, not the K–2 book. The stories and interventions are developmentally appropriate and thus more reinforcing. The following levels of the program are available: • • • • •

Great Leaps Digital: grades K–adult Great Leaps Digital: grades K–5 hard copy Great Leaps Digital: grades 6–8 hard copy Great Leaps Digital: grades 9–12 hard copy Great Leaps Numeration, Addition, Subtraction, Multiplication, Division, Introduction to Fractions, Working with Fractions, and Working with Decimals and Percentages.

Great Leaps includes components related to comprehension and of even more importance for comprehension, expressive language. The digital format allows administrators to quickly check data of large numbers of students to ensure fidelity or discover where additional help is needed. Students beginning the program should need to acquire reading skills, have adequate sight for reading, and be able to focus for at least 5 minutes at a time. Instructions are available online or in the manuals that provide enough direction for many to implement the program with fidelity. Instructors who implement the program with high fidelity generally achieve significantly higher results. Great Leaps should be used at least three times a week for significant results that generalize; thus, students should be scheduled at least three times a week to get one-­ to-­one tutoring. Tutoring sessions usually last less than 15 minutes per student. The major teaching interventions of Great Leaps are immediate feedback during each 1-­minute exercise and modeling at the end of each session. The materials also include a few minutes of innovative comprehension activities to elicit expressive language activities and build comprehension. Evidence of Effectiveness: Great Leaps has been used in a large variety of settings successfully for over 27 years. A number of small studies support its efficacy as do two larger studies; one from North Florida (Mercer et al., 2000) and another from Southern California (Spencer & Manis, 2010). The Florida Center for Reading Research approves Great Leaps as having appropriately researched materials. Throughout the country, Great Leaps has been approved by district after district as a Tier Two or Tier Three intervention for Response-­ to-­Intervention models. Teacher Training: Training is provided through the simplicity of the intervention program and the instructions that come with the program. Free telephone and e-­mail support is available, and additional resources can be found (greatleaps.com). The author presents at many major conferences throughout the country and is willing to provide personal assistance to those who seek advice. For those who prefer in-­depth training, a highly qualified Great Leaps team offers inservice opportunities to school districts and groups, as well as virtual trainings. A train-­the-­trainer model is the preferred approach to training. Inservices to be held during the fall or spring should be scheduled at least 3 months in advance.

284  APPENDIX B

Contact and Ordering Information Great Leaps (Diarmuid, Inc.) P.O. Box 357580 Gainesville, FL 32635 Phone: 877-­475-­3277 Fax: 352-­384-­3883 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.greatleaps.com REFERENCES

Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, M. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000). Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 179–189. Spencer, S. A., & Manis, F. R. (2010). The effects of a reading fluency intervention program on the fluency and comprehension outcomes of middle-­school students with severe reading deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25, 76–86.

Program: Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Author: Michael Heggerty, Ed.D. (revisions by: Alisa VanHekken, M.A. and Marjorie Bottari, M.A.) Information Provided By: Literacy Resources, LLC Appropriate for Grades: PreK–2 for Tier 1 whole group instruction, 2 and above for phonemic awareness intervention. Description: Heggerty provides robust daily phonemic awareness instruction, offering 24–35 weeks of daily instruction in early, basic, and complex phonemic awareness tasks. The lessons are designed to be Tier 1, whole group instruction with a unison response in PreK, Kindergarten, 1st grade, and, when needed, 2nd grade classrooms. Students participate in 10–12 minutes of daily practice that is recommended to be placed just prior to phonics instruction. Lessons include 5–8 phonological or phonemic awareness tasks and 2–3 early literacy skills. The number of daily skills included and the duration of lessons are dependent on the specific curriculum’s scope and sequence. The phonological awareness skills taught include: rhyming, initial phoneme isolation, blending, isolating final or medial sounds, segmenting, adding, deleting, and substituting. Two or three early literacy skills end the lesson: language awareness, alphabet knowledge, and phoneme–grapheme connections. Language awareness includes sentence repetition or completion and counting words, as well as reciting nursery rhymes. Alphabet knowledge allows students to build automaticity with letter–sound relationships as they engage in a flashcard drill using the language “letter is __, sound is/sounds are___.” In the Kindergarten and Primary curriculum, the phoneme–grapheme mapping component offers students an opportunity to see the oral work of phonemic awareness transfer to working with print. This serves as a bridge to phonics lessons where students will be able to apply this work to independent reading and writing. The curriculum also follows a systematic progression that begins work with larger phonological units such as compound words, syllables, intrasyllable, and finally progresses to phoneme-­level work. Once at the phoneme level, direct instruction progresses from working with isolating individual sounds to working with 2, 3, 4, or 5 phonemes as more advanced patterns are introduced. Each lesson includes explicit teacher directions, the inclusion of a skill focus, and hand motion support to offer a visual anchor for students as they work with isolating, blending, segmenting, and manipulating words, syllables, and phonemes. Instruction in the Pre-­K manual follows an I Do/We Do approach with the option to release students to independent practice later in the year. The Kindergarten manual offers a “Monday Model” which offers a more supported instructional format for students as new concepts are introduced. The instructional manual also offers teachers a weekly QR code which gives them access to a daily lesson model to support the fidelity of their instruction. The instructional manual at all levels includes overview pages that offer further explicit instruction for teachers to look more closely at the objectives for a smaller block of lessons or within a particular phonological level. This allows teachers to be prepared for how to scaffold support if necessary. For older learners who still need support in decoding, Heggerty offers intervention lessons that target 2 or 3 phonemic awareness skills based on student need. A placement assessment is provided to identify specific needs. Anchor lessons allow the teacher to “anchor” the learning by following the “I Do, You Do, We Do” approach to instruction. Lessons include optional hand motions, teacher tips, and explicit language. Progress monitoring is built into the lessons along with scoring guides to identify next steps in teaching. This resource, known as Bridge the Gap, is designed for students in 2nd grade or above. Phonemic awareness is essential in teaching students to be automatic decoders of print. The Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum provides students with consistent and repeated instruction, and this transfers to developing a student’s decoding and encoding skills. Evidence of Effectiveness: The Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Curriculum was informed by decades of research and based on the broad consensus that a child’s phonological awareness plays a critical role in learning to read and make sense of an alphabetic writing system. The lessons were designed and aligned to the large quantities of research noting the critical role of phonemic awareness in

APPENDIX B  285

l­earning to read, particularly for students with dyslexia. Heggerty is based in the science of reading in both the content and delivery of instruction. In 2008, the National Early Literacy Panel identified phonological awareness as a large predictor of reading success. The National Reading Panel (NRP) in 2000 shared over 50 studies that identified phonemic awareness instruction as a critical component of literacy instruction. Research shows that the lack of phonemic awareness is the most powerful determinant of the likelihood of failure to read and the two best predictors of early reading success are alphabet knowledge and phonemic awareness (Adams et al., 1990). In addition to being grounded in research, Heggerty is lucky enough to hear of the positive impacts in classrooms across the US, Canada, and Australia. Some case studies can be found on our website from the Mid-­Ohio Educational Service Center, as well Pentucket Regional School District. This data-­packed article includes the perspective of a literacy specialist. Additionally, the Mebane Foundation recently shared their success with our Heggerty curricula, which you can read about at: https://www.mebanefoundation.com/davie-­ county-­schools/davie-­county-­schools-­implement-­heggerty-­to-­support-­phonemic-­awareness/ Teacher Training: Heggerty offers a variety of support to allow for effective implementation of the PA lessons. Support within the manual can be found: preface pages, overview pages throughout the curriculum, QR codes for modeled lessons and snippets, as well as explicit teacher language. While the manual does offer a lot of support, professional development is recommended. Heggerty offers live and virtual sessions. Webinars and in-­person trainings begin with an introductory session covering the What (defining phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics), Why (the research supporting the need for explicit and systematic teaching of phonemic awareness), and How (preparing educators to implement the daily phonemic awareness lessons). In addition to the introductory session, Heggerty offers opportunities for coaching virtually and in-­person. The Heggerty team can model lessons in a classroom setting, observe lessons and provide feedback, as well as tailor professional development to meet specific needs of schools and districts. Finally, an annual subscription to myHeggerty offers sustainable professional learning support throughout a complete year. myHeggerty offers daily lesson videos for all levels of the curriculum, digital curriculum for all levels, digital assessments, digital decodable books, and a learning library of snippet and support videos for teachers. Contact and Ordering Information Literacy Resources, LLC 805 Lake Street #293 Oak Park, IL 60301 Phone: 708-­366-­5947 Website: www.heggerty.org/shop REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press. National Early Literacy Panel (2008). Developing early literacy: A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. US Department of Education. http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-­4769). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Program: LANGUAGE! The Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum (4th ed.), LANGUAGE! Focus on English Learning, LANGUAGE! 2nd Edition Clinical Version Authors: Jane Fell Greene, Ed.D. (all); Jennifer Wells Greene, Ph.D. (coauthor of English Learning version) Information Provided By: Jane Fell Greene Appropriate for Grades: 3–12 Description: Students who experience delays in reading invariably experience simultaneous delays in spelling, vocabulary, composition, and grammar. For many years, teachers tried to piece together a curriculum that filled all of these needs. These piecemeal programs were not, however, sequential systematic, explicit, integrated and neither linguistically sound nor educationally logical. LANGUAGE! is the result of 15 years of development and refinement. It provides 360 sequential, systematic, integrated lesson plans. Each lesson integrates six steps: 1. Phonemic Awareness and Phonics 2. Word Recognition and Spelling 3. Vocabulary and Morphology 4. Grammar and Usage 5. Reading and Listening Comprehension 6. Writing and Speaking

286  APPENDIX B

The fourth edition of LANGUAGE! is available in two different versions, one for native English speakers and one for English ­language learners. Each version is designed for use in grades 3–12. Materials include: • • • • • • • • • • •

Comprehensive Teacher Editions: TWO volumes each for books A, B, C, D, E, and F. 360 complete lesson plans to support a detailed scope and sequence. Descriptions of daily multisensory and interactive instructional activities. Focus on academic language and content area reading, to support other classes. Advanced, interactive technology tools and eReaders. Performance monitoring, differentiation of instruction, and homework options. Comprehensive assessment at each stage of a lesson, unit, and book. Reading materials for independent, instructional, and challenge reading. Explicit instruction in composition for various purposes. All supplements needed to teach the curriculum. Leveled reading materials whose readabilities range from grade 1 to grade 12.

LANGUAGE! The Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum was created for native English speakers who are delayed in the acquisition of reading, writing, vocabulary, and spelling. While some of these students may be served in special education, the majority of them are placed in general education classes. Many may not meet criteria for special education, yet score below the 40th percentile in reading and have difficulty functioning at grade level. The curriculum consists of six sequential and cumulative levels (A–F), each of which contains six units (1–36). All concepts are taught in dependent order, building on knowledge and skills that have been previously mastered. The curriculum’s instructional methodology is multisensory. Rather than separate visual, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic activities, this curriculum’s instructional activities simultaneously employ sight, sound, touch, and movement. Accurate placement is essential; it is critical that students not be placed at levels beyond their own mastery levels. Comprehensive assessments provide mastery tests for each unit (1–36) and for each level (A–F). LANGUAGE! Focus on English Learning was created for English learners. The Teachers’ Editions for levels A, B, and C of this version contain lessons designed for English learners. After completion of Level C, English learners are placed with other students for the last three levels, D, E, and F, of the Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum. A prelude program, LANGUAGE! Everyday English for Newcomers to English, is available for students who are newly arrived or have had no previous exposure to English. LANGUAGE! Second Edition Clinical Version is paced more slowly and is appropriate for use with students who exhibit significant language processing deficits. Evidence of Effectiveness: LANGUAGE! has proven effective in hundreds of implementations—­large and small, urban and rural school districts, as well as in special education and clinical settings. Generally, school districts conduct their own assessments, or use annual standardized tests as measures. A summary of the research base and effectiveness data is available from Cambium Learning Group (www.cambiumlearning.com). Teacher Training: Teacher training is required. Most often, training is conducted in school districts; however, open trainings are also offered, and are generally sponsored by professional groups or by certified national LANGUAGE! trainers. For those interested in becoming a Trainer of Trainers (TOT), sessions are offered twice each year for individuals who can demonstrate (a) expertise in structured language, multisensory instruction; and (b) expertise in teaching adults. Contact and Ordering Information Voyager Sopris Learning Phone: 800-­547-­6747 Fax: 888-­819-­7767 email: [email protected] Website: www.voyagersopris.com Program: LANGUAGE! Live 2.0. Author: Louisa Moats, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Lexia/Voyager Sopris Learning Appropriate for Grades: 5–12 Description: LANGUAGE! Live® is a comprehensive English language arts program that provides a blended learning approach. The online component meets students at their current foundational skill level and the teacher-­led in-­person component moves students to the reading comprehension and vocabulary skills needed for their grade level. It consists of two instructional levels each composed of 12 units. Units are grouped by themes such as astronomy, censorship, triumph, and STEM. LANGUAGE! Live is intended for students

APPENDIX B  287

to work through the online and in-­person units simultaneously for most effective implementation. It is not recommended to have students be too far ahead in either component. LANGUAGE! Live integrates instruction in the 5 components of reading—­phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—­and all aspects of language structure: phonology, orthography, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. It is organized around 5 program strands: 1. Reading Foundational Skills 2. Reading Comprehension 3. Vocabulary 4. Grammar 5. Writing The 24 units of instruction each contain Word Training lessons, Text Training lessons, and various practice activities, video tutorials, and optional extension work. LANGUAGE! Live has a 1.0 version, a California version, and a 2.0 version, which has undergone content revision for inclusive language and imagery. Each version is designed for use in grades 5 through 12. Materials include: • Comprehensive Teacher Editions: Two volumes for each level, Level 1 and Level 2. • Teacher licenses that provide access to a variety of materials such as dashboard reports, previews of student lessons, optional course resources, and notifications when student reviews are ready for the educator. • Access to external Benchmarks for use three times per school year, provide Lexile® levels, evaluation of spelling, and evaluation of reading fluency. • Expert and peer tutorial videos. • 48 unique Vocabulary Checkpoints and 48 unique Formative Assessments. • A digital resource library of texts organized by Lexile ranges. • Differentiation activities and optional practice activities. • Writing Projects. • A class wall for teacher-­to-­student or student-­to-­student communication. • Optional sight words gaming activities for skills practice. • A customizable avatar and profile. • Optional assessment activities that mimic high-­stakes testing questions. • Sound Library. • Variety of reports including Parent Reports, Course Details Report, and Benchmark Score Details Report. LANGUAGE! Live is intended for use with students whose reading levels are equivalent to a Lexile value of approximately 300. It is also intended for use with struggling adolescent students who are two or more years behind grade level in skill development. The program can be used by emergent bilinguals and with special education students. LANGUAGE! Live provides Word Training and Text Training instruction. Word Training is completed online. Students complete three to four lessons that include video tutorials with periodic checks for understanding and practice activities in decoding and encoding. When lessons are complete, students are given three goals that focus on reading and spelling. Text Training within a unit includes 10 lessons facilitated by the teacher in the classroom. In addition to the classroom instructional lessons, there is also an online component to Text Training, which includes optional practice activities. Educators can support individual students by assigning unit background knowledge videos, Vocabulary Checkpoint tests, and Formative Assessments. In Level 2, independent reading activities are added into Word Training additionally starting Unit 3. Fluency checks are also added to the Goals section. Consistent and effective implementation of LANGUAGE! Live would optimally require 90  minutes per day divided equally between Text Training and Word Training. Also available is a 45-­minute per day model that toggles between Text Training and Word Training days. When students complete 6 or 7 units of LANGUAGE! Live in a given school year, they can achieve approximately 1.9 years’ worth of academic growth in a single school year. Evidence of Effectiveness: LANGUAGE! Live is effective within large districts, with students qualifying for free and reduced lunch programs, for students with disabilities, and for emergent bilinguals. For additional information on research related to LANGUAGE! Live, please see https://www.voyagersopris.com/docs/default-­source/reading/language-­live/language-­live-­research-­foundation.pdf?sfvrsn=893aaa16_7 Teacher Training: Teacher training is recommended. Training can occur in person, through synchronous online sessions, by watching prerecorded sessions, and through a self-­paced online training program within the product. Additionally, districts can purchase

288  APPENDIX B

targeted ongoing support hours throughout the course of the school year. Please find more information here regarding training and implementation: https://www.voyagersopris.com/products/reading/language-­live/training-­support Contact and Ordering Information Voyager Sopris Learning Phone: 800-­547-­6747 Fax: 888-­819-­7767 email: [email protected] Website: www.voyagersopris.com Program: Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech, Fourth Edition Authors: Patricia Lindamood, M.S., CCC-­SLP and Phyllis Lindamood, B. S. Information Provided By: Elizabeth Rowan, B.B.A. and Katherine Synatschk, Ph.D. Appropriate for Grades: PreK–adult Description: The Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech is an intensive, multisensory program for students in pre-­school through adulthood who need explicit, direct, and systematic instruction to develop phonological awareness abilities. The LiPS program steps are: • • • • • • • •

Setting the Climate for Learning. Identifying and Classifying Consonants. Identifying and Classifying Vowels. Tracking Simple Syllables and Words. Basic Spelling and Reading. Learning Sight Words and Expectancies. Tracking Complex Syllables and Words, Multisyllabic Words. Reading and Writing in Context.

Using an oral-­motor, visual, and auditory feedback system, the LiPS Program develops the student’s ability to distinguish phonemes (single speech sounds) in spoken patterns. In teaching sound–symbol associations, the LiPS tasks progress from articulatory movements to sounds to letters. Students explore the physical movements involved in producing sounds and learn to hear, see, and feel the physical characteristics of sounds and to notice the contrasts between them. LiPS builds on previous knowledge to introduce new skills and frequently spirals back to review until mastery. Teachers are guided in the manual to provide corrective feedback when an error is made using the Socratic method of questioning. Students learn to identify and verify sounds independently that they produce, hear, and, eventually, read. The LiPS program is used successfully in clinical and classroom settings. Materials and Content: The LiPS program provides materials for teachers, clinicians, and students. The materials include: • An extensive and comprehensive manual with audio, video, and reproducible resources. • Magnetic manipulatives, which include: • Mouth pictures depicting each of the mouth movements associated with sounds. • Large and small colored squares for tracking sounds and syllables. • Letter tiles. • Syllable tiles. • Large tri-­fold magnetic write-­on, wipe-­off board for student workspace. • Small standing mirror. • Playing cards for demonstration and reinforcement of LiPS concepts. • Phonological Awareness and Sequencing (PAS) Stories, Second Edition, a series of eight story books aligned with the presentation sequence of skills, for engaging, decodable reading experiences. These stories help students apply independent reading skills. • The LiPS Stick, a flash drive containing many digital resources, facilitates the use of LiPS materials on interactive whiteboards and provides reproducible versions of the resources. Evidence of Effectiveness: An independent review of the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) Program for Reading, Spelling, and Speech, by the Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org), noted that the content and instructional design of the program are aligned with current reading research. In the National Reading Panel report, research studies incorporating the LiPS program were cited as well-­designed, high-­quality research that highlighted the effectiveness of direct instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. In addition, a review of the research is included in the publication, Phonological Processing, Reading, and the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing

APPENDIX B  289

Program (2nd ed; Synatschk, 2011). The LiPS program has been used successfully for more than 40 years to address the phonological awareness deficits of a wide range of individuals, including those with speech–language delays, second language learners and those with organic and traumatic neurophysiological factors, including dyslexia, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, autism, apraxia, pervasive developmental delay, closed-­head trauma, and stroke. Teacher Training: Lindamood–Bell Learning Processes offers 3-­day workshops on the implementation of LiPS. A listing of the dates and locations of these workshops can be found in their catalog or on their website (www.lindamoodbell.com/professional development). The workshop is not a requirement for implementation of the program. The teacher’s manual is written in clear and concise language to facilitate accurate implementation with sufficient content knowledge. Lindamood–Bell Learning Processes works collaboratively with schools, school districts, state departments of education, and other literacy groups to implement the LiPS program with students experiencing speech and reading difficulties. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 email: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCES

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-­4769). U.S. Government Printing Office. Synatschk, K. (2011). Phonological processing, reading, and the Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program (2nd ed.). PRO-­ED.

Program: MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach Author: MindPlay Education Information Provided By: Meredyth Kealey, Ph.D., Literacy Director Appropriate for Grades: K–12 and adults Description: MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach (MVRC) is based on Orton–Gillingham’s Structured Literacy approach with content created by speech and language and reading experts. MVRC includes instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, and grammar for meaning. The instructional software enables every learner to receive individualized instruction with a unique Prescriptive Reading Plan. MVRC has clear objectives, explicit, systematic instruction, and individualized formative feedback. Students begin with an embedded Universal Screener. This computer-­based, automated screener covers each of the key areas identified by the NRP. The screener carefully and quickly identifies each student’s individual needs. The program then provides a customized lesson plan and differentiated instruction for each student. Each student is assigned only the lessons that are required to fill in missing gaps in their overall skills. The students’ interest level remains high because they see improvement in their skills quickly. The adaptive software provides tailored instruction and remediation to each learner as students fill in their skill gaps. MVRC requires mastery (typically to 100%) of each skill to ensure that students build on a solid foundation. The program also provides feedback to teachers, allowing them to track progress and identify areas that need improvement. MVRC includes a variety of features that make it easy to use. It is accessible from any device with an internet connection and can be used both in the classroom and at home. Evidence of Effectiveness: MVRC has received numerous endorsements and awards, including the Tech EDVOCATE Award Finalist (2020), CIOReview (2019), Tech & Learning Awards of Excellence (2018), District Administration’s Reader’s CHOICE Top 100 Products (2017), and Best Homeschooling (2017). MVRC is endorsed by the Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE), an affiliate of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Support for MVRC is not limited to industry and professional organizations; the efficacy has also been reported in several research studies in peer-­reviewed academic literature. Please refer to www. mindplay.com for more information on research. Teacher Training: Training is provided within the program. In addition, in-­person and virtual training opportunities with certified trainers are offered. MindPlay provides free telephone and e-­mail support. In addition to the student program, a Comprehensive Reading Course for Educators, a 40-­to 45-­hour online course that teaches the major elements of Structured Literacy, is offered.

290  APPENDIX B

RELEVANCE TO DYSLEXIA

Because MVRC builds a unique, individualized program for each individual, it is ideal for students with dyslexia, as it will help fill in any gaps in foundational knowledge. Through reports, teachers are notified if a student is having difficulty with a particular skill. In addition, for older students, being able to work privately on a computer to improve reading skills reduces embarrassment and frustration. Contact and Ordering Information MindPlay Education 5151 E. Broadway Blvd Suite #1403 Tucson, AZ 85711 Phone: 800-­221-­7911 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.mindplay.com Parent and Individual Subscription: https://mindplay.com/learning-software/ Program: Morphemes for Little Ones: Bring the Magic of Language to K–3 Classrooms Author: Deb Glaser, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Deb Glaser Appropriate for Grades: K–3 Description: Morphemes for Little Ones consists of a book of 54 lessons divided into 3 levels. The early level focuses on morphological awareness through multiple oral language activities. The morphemes taught in Level 1 begin with the inflectional suffix morphemes affixed to bases familiar to students. These lessons can be incorporated into phonics lessons once students begin to decode, that is, plurals, past tense, -­ing, etc. Prefixes are introduced next, also with familiar bases that students can use in oral language exercises and will be able to decode. The language components including phonology, orthography, decoding, encoding, and syntax with oral and written language, are a part of every lesson. Assessments help teachers gain an understanding of students’ morphological knowledge and awareness and assist with placement in the program. Levels 2 and 3 lessons begin to incorporate some Latin roots but continue to reinforce the affixes and spelling rules that govern encoding with suffixes. Teachers find the language stimulation photo cards to be a beneficial support for creating a language-­rich classroom, necessary to the development of literacy and reading ability. Evidence of Effectiveness: The evidence of effectiveness has been gathered from users who report improved reading comprehension, vocabulary, and writing scores on local and state assessments. No outside evaluation has been conducted at this time. Teacher Training: Workshops are regularly offered with a variety of schedule options to meet teachers’ needs. Morphological Awareness in the Early Grades—­Morphemes for Little Ones helps teachers understand that their young students can develop morphological knowledge. Through purposeful attention to words and how words change when we put them into sentences—­speaking and writing—­is the beginning of how we teach awareness of morphemes. Teachers learn how to create a language-­rich classroom and begin to teach the awareness of morphemes through early decoding and encoding. See Professional Learning options on the website: www. morphememagic.com Contact and Ordering Information Morpheme Magic Website: morphememagic.com Program: Morpheme Magic: Lessons to Build Morphological Awareness for Grades 4–12 Author: Deb Glaser, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Deb Glaser Appropriate for Grades: 4–12 Description: Morpheme Magic consists of a book of 52 Structured Literacy-­based lessons designed to help teachers teach morpheme awareness. Suffixes, prefixes, and Latin and Greek roots are taught in lessons over 1 week with frequent review. Students are directed to focus on the phonological and orthographic components of the morpheme and shifts that occur with word forms built upon the same root. Students experience the morphemes in key words and then build knowledge of vocabulary that is presented in contextual passages. An additional component teaches student study skills through the creation of a Morpheme Lexicon wherein a Table of Contents is developed with page numbers for each morpheme entry. All activities are completed in the Morpheme Lexicon. Teachers are directed to engage students in oral and written exercises using the vocabulary taught in the morpheme lessons. Evidence of Effectiveness: The evidence of effectiveness has been gathered from users who report improved reading comprehension, vocabulary, and writing scores on local and state assessments. No outside evaluation has been conducted at this time.

APPENDIX B  291

Teacher Training: Workshops are regularly offered with a variety of schedule options to meet teachers’ needs. Advanced Word Study—­Morpheme Magic establishes knowledge of how students develop word recognition, an understanding of the language components, the importance of syllable and morpheme instruction, and the importance of integrating morphology instruction across the curriculum. See Professional Learning options on the website: www.morphememagic.com Contact and Ordering Information Morpheme Magic Website: morphememagic.com Program: Multisensory Teaching Approach for Reading and Spelling (MTA) Author: Margaret Taylor Smith, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Janna S. Dobbs, CEO of MTS Publications Appropriate for Ages: 5 to adult Description: Multisensory Teaching Approach (MTA)is a program for the remediation of dyslexia and other reading disabilities. It follows research begun at Texas Scottish Rite Hospital in 1965 by Aylett R. Cox and Dr. Lucius Waites as they developed the Alphabetic Phonics program, an Orton–Gillingham multisensory approach to teaching reading. MTA was developed in the mid-­80’s as a refined and more “teacher friendly” curriculum that enhances and further develops Alphabetic Phonics by teaching for mastery. The MTA curriculum meets all state requirements as an exemplary choice for the remediation of dyslexia. In fact, the descriptors for remediation were based on this curriculum. The MTA program is designed to teach students how to become independent readers using the following decoding strategies. The processes for employing each of these decoding strategies are emphasized. • Synthesizing phonics • Students are taught the pronunciations of the regularly recurring graphemes in English and a process for blending or synthesizing the sounds of these graphemes into words. • Memorizing irregular words • Words in which at least one grapheme is not pronounced as expected are irregular. Irregular words must be memorized, since they cannot be decoded according to usual symbol–sound relationships. • Structural analysis • Structural analysis involves the study of the most commonly used suffixes and prefixes; recognition of affixes in words helps students find and decode the base word more easily. • Syllable division • Syllable division steps for dividing longer words into syllables are taught, beginning in Kit 2. Skills and concepts prerequisite to dividing words into syllables are taught and practiced in Kit 1. • Context clues • Context clues are helpful for reading irregular words and homographs (words with more than one possible pronunciation, such as (recʹ ord or re cordʹ)). Comprehension skills are taught daily, in the “Verbal Expression” and “Listening” activities. In the beginning, the skills are taught on the oral level. Students listen as a selection on their intellectual level is read and develop skills by participating orally. After students’ decoding skills have become consistently accurate, automatic, and fluent, they can apply the comprehension skills that have developed on the oral level to their own reading. PHONETIC READING MASTERY PROGRESSION: INTRODUCTION, REVIEW, PRACTICE

The most frequent pronunciation of a grapheme is taught as part of the Multisensory Letter Introduction. Directions for teaching each Multisensory Letter Introduction are found in the Teaching Instructions book for each MTA Reading and Spelling kit. After each grapheme has been introduced, it is subsequently reviewed daily in an activity called “Reading Decks.” The Letter Card is used for daily review of the letter’s name, and the Key Word Card is used for daily review of the key word and sound. The reading deck response for a grapheme should be automatic before students practice reading with it. Reading practice for each phonetic grapheme is provided in the Reading Practice Guide in each kit, arranged in three levels: Word List, Review, and Context. Word List practice level is one in which every word contains the new grapheme. Review practice level is a word list that reviews all previously introduced graphemes and concepts, including the newest grapheme Context reading practice is provided in the MTA Reading Practice pages and in the MTA Readers. When students meet stated mastery criteria for each level of practice, they proceed to the next level.

292  APPENDIX B

SITUATION READING MASTERY PROGRESSION: INTRODUCTION, REVIEW, PRACTICE

All graphemes are first introduced as part of a Multisensory Letter Introduction. When a second pronunciation for a grapheme has been presented through the Multisensory Letter Introduction steps, students then need to know how to make a logical choice between pronunciations. A concept introduction teaches students how to make this choice. The Key Word Card for a second pronunciation of a situation reading is added to the reading deck for subsequent daily review after students are taught how to make a logical choice. The concept of how to choose the correct pronunciation is reviewed at least once a week with a Concept Review Card. Students defer reading practice with the second pronunciation until the reading deck responses are automatic. When a second pronunciation of the same grapheme has been taught, four levels of practice are provided: Word List, Choice, Review, and Context. • Word List is one in which every word has same pronunciation for the target grapheme. • Choice word list is one in which every word contains the target letter pronounced two different ways: Students must choose the correct pronunciation based on their knowledge. • Review word lists review all previously taught graphemes and concepts, including the newest grapheme. • Context reading practice is provided in the MTA Reading Practice pages and in the MTA Readers. When students meet stated mastery criteria for each level of practice, they proceed to the next level. READING PRACTICE MATERIALS

The amount of practice required for mastery of a grapheme or skill varies among students. A variety of practice materials are provided so the teacher can select the appropriate kind and amount of practice each student needs. • MTA Reading Practice • MTA Supplementary Reading Practice • MTA Readers MTA Reading Practice is provided in each MTA Reading and Spelling kit. Black-­line Reading Masters for practice activities are arranged in the practice hierarchies previously discussed. MTA Supplementary Reading Practice, for students needing additional practice with graphemes or concepts, contains masters of lists of words arranged in the practice hierarchies. The MTA Readers, purchased separately, contain stories to be read only after decoding accuracy and fluency have been established. Some students will be ready for the Readers after practicing the MTA Reading Practice pages; others will require additional practice with the MTA Supplementary Reading Practice before attempting the Readers. PLANNING READING PRACTICE ACTIVITIES

The goals of MTA reading practice are that students will become confident, accurate, fluent, and independent readers. These goals can be attained over time by providing appropriate practice activities, teaching students how to monitor their own accuracy as they are reading, and teaching students how to correct errors independently. • Developing Confidence: The teacher can help students develop confidence by planning practice activities with which students will be at least 90% successful. • Developing Accuracy: Students are taught that every good reader prepares before reading aloud. Initially, students prepare by coding the word and immediately reading it silently before reading aloud. As students’ accuracy becomes consistent, they do not need to code every word before reading it but may code words only as needed. • Developing Fluency: Students develop fluency at varying rates; students whose fluency develops slowly will require more extensive practice and a slower rate of presenting new introductions. When students become consistently accurate, the regular series of reading practice activities can be followed as directed 3 or 4 days a week, and fluency practice can be done 1 or 2 days a week. • Developing Independence: To become independent readers, students must be able to monitor their own accuracy and correct errors without assistance. Initially, the teacher assumes all responsibility for pointing out a student’s error as soon as it has been made, and leading the student through the appropriate error correction technique. Evidence of Effectiveness: Results from a 4-­year study (Vickery et al., 1987) showed highly significant gains for all remedial students while students in regular classrooms also showed gains. Teacher Training: Introduction course: 8–10 days, Advanced: 5 days

APPENDIX B  293

Contact and Ordering Information MTS Publications P.O. Box 2 Forney, TX 75126-­0002 Phone: 972-­552-­1090 or 214-­914-­5401 Fax: 972-­552-­9889 Website: mtspublications.com REFERENCE

Vickery, K.S., Reynolds, V.A. & Cochran, S.W. (1987). Multisensory teaching approach for reading, spelling, and handwriting, Orton-­ Gillingham based curriculum, in a public school setting. Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648066

Program: 95 Phonics Core Program® Author: 95 Percent Group Information Provided By: Laura Stewart, Ph.D., Chief Academic Officer at 95 Percent Group Appropriate for Grades: K–5 Description: The 95 Phonics Core Program® is a K–5 phonics program taught with the whole class within the Tier 1 reading block. The program builds critical phonics skills through explicit instruction that meets students where they are and gives them the core phonics knowledge they need to succeed at every step along the way, K–5. The program has its base solidly in the science of reading and is both evidence-­based and research-­proven, earning Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Level 1 Evidence for program efficacy. The design of this program is consistent with a core value of 95 Percent Group, which is that reading instruction should be teacher-­directed. Although digital tools are included, this program is grounded in the belief that the teacher—­not a computer—­teaches students how to read. The 30 weekly lessons in this program are designed to teach for 30 minutes daily as one portion of a comprehensive reading and language arts curriculum. This program serves as the phonics and word study strand that enriches the other important strands of a school’s existing literacy program, including read-­alouds, oral language and vocabulary development, reading of authentic text, comprehension instruction, and process writing. 95 Phonics Core Program® is classroom-­ready, research-­proven phonics instruction for the K–5 literacy block. In addition, the 95 Phonemic Awareness Suite is now available which includes Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction that is aligned with the latest research on phonemic awareness instruction. The intent is to help students build strong foundational skills that will help them become successful readers. Evidence of Effectiveness: ESSA Level 1 Evidence. Teacher Training: 3 hours of product training, ideally preceded by 3 hours of training on the science of reading. Contact and Ordering Information e-­mail: [email protected] Website: 95percentgroup.com Program: One Minute Reader (OMR) Author: Candyce Ihnot, M.A. Information Provided By: Karen McKenna, Director of Curriculum Appropriate for Grades: Students whose reading level is early 1st–grade 5 Description: One Minute Reader includes key features of the classroom-­based Read Naturally Strategy to help students develop fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Students work independently at their own pace and read at an appropriate level of material. The program guides readers through a series of steps and tracks their progress. The One Minute Reader program is designed to be used in a home setting. For a classroom version, see the entry for Read Live. One Minute Reader has six levels and is appropriate for students reading between an early first-­grade level and a fifth-­grade level. An informal placement test is available to help determine the right level for each reader. Each level includes eight books, and each book includes five high-­interest stories written at a length that enables readers to practice without feeling overwhelmed. The independent system includes complete audio for instructions, recordings of each story, vocabulary word definitions, and pronunciation for each word. Game-­like features include automated correction of questions with sounds indicating correct and incorrect responses, calculation of fluency and comprehension scores, points earned for completing activities, and graphing and reporting of performance engage readers. Options allow for customization of the program for individual readers to maximize achievement.

294  APPENDIX B

For the best results, students should use One Minute Reader at least three times a week at home, aiming to complete at least one story per session. Because readers see progress right away, many will be motivated to use the program more frequently. Evidence of Effectiveness: One Minute Reader was developed by reading teachers, is rooted in science, and uses the evidence-­based Read Naturally Strategy. Several well-­designed studies prove the efficacy of the Read Naturally Strategy, including studies that have been found to contain substantial evidence to support use of the strategy under the ESSA (2015). For more information about the evidence and research basis of the Read Naturally Strategy, visit www.readnaturally.com/research. Parent/Tutor Training: An instructional video on the One Minute Reader website (www.oneminutereader.com) shows a student completing and explaining each step of the One Minute Reader program. The website also includes answers to frequently asked questions. Contact and Ordering Information Read Naturally, Inc. 1284 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55121 Phone: 800-­788-­4085 Fax: 651-­452-­9204 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.oneminutereader.com REFERENCE

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-­congress/senate-­bill/1177

Program: PAL II RW Revised User Guide and Instructional Materials Authors: Virginia Berninger, Ph.D. (all) and Sylvia Abbott, Ph.D. (coauthor of instructional tools) Information Provided By: Virginia Berningerand Sylvia Abbott Appropriate for Grades: K–6 or older students at instructional levels between K and 6. Description: Published research supported by 25 years of National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)-­ funded grants was translated into (a) a Revised User Guide for the PAL II RW (Berninger, 2000d) for an assessment tool (PAL II RW, Berninger, 2007), (b) revised instructional tools (Berninger & Abbott, 2020 and Berninger, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c), and (c) assessment-­ instruction links for Screen-­Intervene (Part I), Problem-­Solving Consultation (Part II), and Differential Diagnosis-­Differentiated Instruction (Part III) for Dyslexia and Other Language-­Based Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs)—­Dysgraphia and Oral and Written Language Learning Disabilities (OWL LD) (Berninger, 2020d). DESCRIPTION OF TIER 1 SCHOOL-­WIDE SCREEN-­INTERVENE TO IDENTIFY LOW ACHIEVING READERS AND WRITERS AND PROVIDE THEM WITH EVIDENCE-­BASED LESSONS THAT TEACH TO ALL LEVELS OF LANGUAGE (BERNINGER, 2020D)

Kindergarten: Students who score below criterion on PAL II RW (Berninger, 2007) Screening Measures for one or more Phonological Skills complete instructional activities for Sound Games (Berninger, 2020a); those who score below criterion on PAL II RW Screening Measures for one or more Receptive (Orthographic) Skills complete instructional activities for Looking Games (Berninger, 2002a); and those who score below criterion on PAL II RW Screening Measures for Alphabet Writing 15 and/or Copy A, complete handwriting readiness activities (see Berninger, 2020d for specific ones). First grade: Students who score below criterion on PAL II RW Screening Measures for Phonological Skills, Orthographic Skills, Word Choice (reading real words), Pseudoword Reading (decoding nonwords), and/or Sentence Sense (reading comprehension) complete PAL Lesson Set 1 (Berninger, 2020c; Berninger & Abbott, 2020). Those who score below criterion on PAL II RW Screening Measures for Alphabet Writing 15, Copy Task A, Copy Task B, Word Choice (spelling), and/or Narrative Fluency, complete PAL Lesson Set 3 (Berninger, 2020b; Berninger & Abbott, 2020). Second grade: Students who score below criterion on PAL II RW Screening Measures for Phonological Skills, Orthographic Skills, Word Choice (reading real words), Pseudoword Reading (decoding nonwords), and/or Sentence Sense (reading comprehension) complete PAL Lesson Set 2, PAL Lesson Set 6, and PAL Lesson Set 9 (Berninger, 2020c; Berninger & Abbott, 2020). Those who score below criterion on PAL II RW Screening Measures for Alphabet Writing 15, Copy Task A, Copy Task B, Word Choice (spelling), and/ or Narrative Fluency complete PAL Lesson Set 4 (Berninger & Abbott, 2020). Third grade: In addition to the screening measures given to second graders, morphological awareness/coding and syntax skills are also assessed and students who score below criterion on any of the PAL II RW reading or reading-­related measures complete

APPENDIX B  295

PAL Lesson Set 11 and PAL Lesson Set 13 (Berninger & Abbott, 2020). Third graders who score below criterion on the same handwriting, spelling, and/or composing measures given to second graders complete PAL Lesson Set 5 and PAL Lesson Set 7 (Berninger & Abbott, 2020). Fourth grade: The same screening measures are administered as in third grade except that PAL II RW Expressive (Orthographic) Coding, additional PAL II RW morphological coding measures, and PAL II RW Expository Note Taking and Writing are also administered. Students who score below criterion on reading or reading-­related measures complete PAL Lesson Set 12 and PAL Lesson Set  15 (Berninger & Abbott, 2020). Students who score below criterion on writing or writing-­related measures complete PAL Lesson Set 8, PAL Lesson Set 10, and PAL Lesson Set 14 (Berninger & Abbott, 2020). See The Revised PAL II RW User Guide for additional details about Tier 1 in grade 4. DESCRIPTION OF TIER 2 PROBLEM-­SOLVING CONSULTATION RELEVANT TO INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PLANS

Note: All pages refer to Berninger (2020d). Parent Questionnaire: A parent questionnaire is sent home at the beginning of the school year to all parents to find out about their child’s developmental and educational history, any family history of learning problems, parents’ current concerns, if any, about their child, and thoughts the parents may have about how the school can help their child during the current school year. See pages 38–42. Teacher Referral Forms, Teacher Interviews, and Rating Scale: See Berninger (2020d). The multidisciplinary team (school psychologist, speech and language specialist, special education teacher) encourages general education teachers to complete a teacher referral form for any student they are concerned about regarding reading (see pages 44–45) and/or writing (see pages 48–50). The multidisciplinary team interviews the teacher regarding each form that is received (see pages 23–25 for reading and pages 26–27 for writing, each organized by grade level) and asks the teacher to complete the rating scale for paying attention to instruction (page 52). Assessment Plan: Based on information in parent questionnaire, teacher referral form/s, teacher interview, and rating scale, the multidisciplinary team designs an assessment plan based on multiple normed measures (not only PAL II RW) to determine achievement levels and inventories to determine instructional levels in reading and/or writing. See pages 28–33. Problem-­Solving Plan: Based on all information gathered, the multidisciplinary team creates a learning profile for reading and/or writing and a plan for modifying current instruction and evaluating response to modified instruction to determine if achievement improves or an Individualized Education Program (IEP) should be created for ongoing support. See pages 34–35. DESCRIPTION OF TIER 3 DIFFERENTIAL-­DIAGNOSIS-­DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION

Many students do not receive Screen Intervene in grades K to 4 or multidisciplinary team problem-­solving consultation and may struggle due to undiagnosed SLDs. Students with SLDs are most likely to respond to specialized instruction tailored to the nature of their SLD (Berninger & O’Malley, 2011). See Berninger (2020d) for (a) overview of research showing the genetic, brain, language, and verbal working memory bases of Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, and OWL LD (pages 54–68), (b) research bases and assessment procedures for differential diagnosis of Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, and OWL LD based on learning profiles and phenotype profiles (behavioral markers of genetic and brain variations) using normed tests on page 104, and developmental and educational histories (pages 74–104), and (c) guidelines for planning and implementing differentiated instruction tailored to diagnosis (pages 68–73, 105–113). Dyslexia is impaired word reading and spelling and related phenotype impairments in phonological and orthographic coding and loops. Dysgraphia is impaired letter writing and related phenotype impairments in orthographic coding and loop. OWL LD is impaired listening and reading comprehension and oral and written expression and related phenotype impairments in syntax and morphological coding. Supervisory attention skills may be impaired in all three SLDs. See Exhibit 9.1 in Berninger (2015) for differential diagnosis of the three SLDs and Berninger and Wolf (2009) for workshops for students with diagnosed SLDs that (a) taught all levels of language for reading and/or writing and the phonological, orthographic, and morphological skills for reading and spelling English morphophonemic orthography, (b) engaged students intellectually in science or other areas of the curriculum, and (c) provided hope themes based on the lives of famous individuals who struggled early in schooling but later in life made significant contributions to society. Also see Berninger and Wolf (2019) for review of evidence-­based teaching tips for differentiated instruction for Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, and OWL LD, and the Appendices for Assessment-­Instruction Links for impaired skills in each of the SLDs. Evidence of Effectiveness: The Revised User Guide for PAL II RW (Berninger, 2020d) cites representative research on which Tiers 1, 2, and 3 are based. See Berninger and Abbott (2020) for the published research article on which each of 15 Lesson Sets for low achieving readers or writers in grades 1, 2, 3, or 4 is based, and Berninger and Wolf (2009) for published research article on which each Workshop for students in grades 4 to 9 diagnosed with Dyslexia or Dysgraphia is based. Materials and procedures for Problem-­Solving Consultation are based on translation of research into clinical and educational practice. See Berninger (2015 and 2020a) and Berninger and Wolf (2019) for overview of research showing effectiveness of teaching tips and instructional methods for Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, or OWL LD.

296  APPENDIX B

Research has found that despite the genetic and brain bases for these SLDs, the brains of students with Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, or OWL LD showed positive brain response to specialized differentiated instruction, for example, Richards et al. (2017, 2018). Professional Development: A multidisciplinary team (general and special education teachers, school psychologist, and speech and language specialist) can review Tiers 1, 2, and 3 in Berninger (2020d) and other resources in the references to make and implement a plan for linking assessment and instruction for low-­achieving readers or writers and students with diagnosed Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, or OWL LD and annually evaluate its effectiveness. Contact and Ordering Information For Revised User Guides for PAL II Reading and Writing (PAL II RW) and Revised PAL Instructional Materials, go to the Mimeo Marketplace site link: https://marketplace.mimeo.com/pearsonPAL NCS Pearson, Inc Phone: 800-­627-­7271 Website: www.pearsonassessments.com REFERENCES

Berninger, V. (2007). Process Assessment of the Learner II for Reading and Writing (PAL II RW). NCS Pearson. Berninger, V. (2020a). PAL Revised Guides for Intervention. Reading and Writing. NCS Pearson. Berninger, V. (2020b) PAL Revised Handwriting Lessons. NCS Pearson. Berninger, V. (2020c). PAL Revised Talking Letters Teacher’s Guide. NCS Pearson. Berninger, V. (2020d). Revised User Guide for Process Assessment of the Learner II for Reading and Writing (PAL II RW). NCS Pearson. Guidance in applications of PAL II RW Linked to Instructional Materials for Screen-­Intervene, Problem Solving-­Consultation, and Differential Diagnosis-­Differentiated Instruction. Berninger, V. W. (2015). Interdisciplinary Frameworks for Schools: Best Professional Practices for Serving the Needs of all Students. American Psychological Association. Written in collaboration with an advisory panel (32 members) representing 10 disciplines. Companion Websites with Readings and Resources and Advisory Panel papers at http://www.apadivisions.org/division-­ 16/publications/interdisciplinary-­ frameworks-­supplement/index.aspx Berninger, V., & Abbott, S. (2020). PAL Revised Research Based Reading and Writing Lessons. PAL Reproducible Instructional Materials are used with the lessons. Berninger, V., & O’Malley May, M. (2011). Evidence-­based diagnosis and treatment for specific learning disabilities involving impairments in written and/or oral language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 167–183. Berninger, V., & Wolf, B. (2009). Helping students with dyslexia and dysgraphia make connections: Differentiated instruction lesson plans in reading and writing. Brookes Publishing. Berninger, V., & Wolf, B. (2016, 2nd printing 2019). Dyslexia, dysgraphia, OWL LD, and dyscalculia: Lessons from teaching and science, Second edition. Brookes Publishing. Available as e-­book. Richards, T., Berninger, V., Yagel, K., Abbott, R., & Peterson, D. (2017, April). Changes in DTI diffusivity and fMRI connectivity cluster coefficients for students with and without specific learning disabilities in written language: Brain’s response to writing instruction. Journal of Nature and Science (JNSCI), 3(4) e350, 1–11. NIHMS869458 PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28670621 Richards, T., Berninger, V., Yagel, K., Abbott, R., & Peterson, D. (2018). Brain’s functional network clustering coefficient changes in response to instruction (RTI) in students with and without reading disabilities: Multi-­leveled reading brain’s RTI. Cogent Psychology Neuroscience, 5(1424680), pp. 1–19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5877472

Program: Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling, 2nd ed. Authors: Marcia K. Henry, Ph.D. and Nancy C. Redding, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Marcia K. Henry Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 6–0 to 18–11; 1–12 Description: This second edition of Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling is an ideal program for teachers, tutors, and others wanting a Structured Literacy approach. The lessons range from beginning phonics to advanced vocabulary. The program includes a Teacher Manual with approximately 150 lessons in the following three parts: Letter–Sound Correspondences; Syllable Patterns, Affixes, and Additional Phonics; and Morpheme Patterns. The Print Manual and E-­Book Bundle include a full-­color Teacher’s Manual in both print and E-­Book; easy-­to-­follow teacher scripts within the lessons; and online access to reproducible resources with word lists, exercises, reading and spelling assessments, and four sets of cards for phonics, prefixes, suffixes, and Latin and Greek roots. The color-­coded set of large, sturdy cards contains all of the cards needed to implement the program and can be purchased separately. It is suitable for use with individuals or small groups.

APPENDIX B  297

Evidence of Effectiveness: The program is used in classrooms and by tutors throughout the country. Teacher Training: All necessary training is provided in the manual. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78705-­4248 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 email: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com ADDITIONAL READINGS

Henry, M. K. (1988). Beyond phonics: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction based on word origin and structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 259–275. Henry, M. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing. Henry, M. K. (Spring, 2017). Morphemes matter: A framework for instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy (pp. 23–26). International Dyslexia Association.

Program: Phonic Reading Lessons: Skills and Practice (PRL) Authors: Skills: Samuel A. Kirk, Ph.D., Winifred D. Kirk, Esther H. Minskoff, Ph.D., Nancy Mather, Ph.D., Rhia Roberts, Ph.D.; Practice: Rhia Roberts, Ph.D. and Nancy Mather, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Rhia Roberts Appropriate for Ages: 5–0 to adult Description: When the original version of Phonic Reading Lessons was published in 1936 by education pioneers Thorleif G. Hegge, Samuel A. Kirk, and Winifred D. Kirk, the program was groundbreaking. After direct, explicit phonics instruction using multisensory methods withstood the test of time, the work was revised in 1985 by S. A. Kirk, W. Kirk, E. Minskoff. The program was again revised extensively in 2006 by Mather and Roberts to reflect current research in phonics instruction and to update and expand the scope and sequence. Phonic Reading Lessons is a two-­volume program with an easy-­to-­use, systematic method of teaching reading. One volume focuses on skills and the other volume focuses on practice. Each 10-­to 15-­minute lesson involves modeling, instruction, practice, and assessment: approaches endorsed by educational research. The lesson begins with the teaching of skills and sight words followed by decoding practice, review, and assessment of those skills. The lessons are carefully planned to include only skills that have been introduced previously. All of the lessons are reproducible so that the program can be used in small group instruction. The scope and sequence include the following 10 units: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

One Letter, One Sound. Final -­e and Consonant Digraphs (two letters, one sound). Consonant Blends and More Digraphs. R-­Controlled Vowels, Vowel Digraphs (two vowels, one sound), and Diphthongs (two vowels, two sounds). Common Word Endings and Spelling Rules. Alternative Pronunciations and Spellings. Prefixes. Suffixes. Latin Roots. Greek Roots.

Stories are presented from the first lesson and increase in complexity and interest as the lessons progress. The program has eight features that are designed to support and help struggling students: 1. One response to one symbol; students practice one phoneme (sound) per grapheme (symbol) at a time to avoid confusion. Variations are added later as skill develops. 2. Minimal change; sound–symbol associations are supported early in the program by the clustering of words into onsets and rimes. 3. Progression from easy to more challenging; careful attention has been paid to ensuring student success.

298  APPENDIX B

4. Frequent repetitions; opportunities to practice are built into each lesson and are included in the Practice volume and in subsequent lessons. 5. Review; students practice what they have learned. 6. Verbal responses; verbal expression promotes learning and retention. 7. Multimodal learning; the program combines reading, saying, hearing, and writing each sound and word, to help with memory. 8. Selective attention; the spacing between letters (or groups of letters) shows students the graphemes that make up the words they are learning. Evidence of Effectiveness: Phonic Reading Lessons meets the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002), as well as the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (2000) for evidence-­based instruction: individualized or small group instruction, systematic sequence of phonic skills, built-­in practice and review, and practice reading decodable text. Teacher Training: One of the strengths of this program is that little training is required other than the self-­study training that is provided in the Introduction; parents, support staff, and teachers can easily and effectively use the lessons. Contact and Ordering Information Academic Therapy Publications 20 Leveroni Court Novato, CA 94949-­5746 Phone: 800-­422-­7249 Available only online: https://highnoonbooks.academictherapy.com/i/phonic-­reading-­lessons-­skills-­and-­practice e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.AcademicTherapy.com Program: Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme–Grapheme Mapping Author: Kathryn E. S. Grace, M.Ed., CAGS Language & Learning Disabilities Information Provided By: Kathryn E. S. Grace Appropriate for Grades: K–6 Description: Phoneme-­Grapheme Mapping was created to help students understand that the number of sounds (phonemes) they hear in a word may differ from the number of letters used to represent those sounds. This procedure employs a variety of mapping methods to illustrate the complex, yet predictable, phoneme/grapheme relationships in our written language. Graphemes are letters (and letter combinations) that correspond to individual speech sounds and are used in highly predictable patterns and sequences. Phoneme–grapheme mapping highlights the phoneme–grapheme relationships, thereby helping students understand the internal details of both spoken and written words and the patterns that represent them in print. Mapping also helps them to understand the alphabetic principle in an engaging, logical, organized fashion. By mapping sounds to print, students acquire a metacognitive approach to both decoding and spelling. S

ou

n

d

B

o

e

s

are

f

u

n!

The sequential, systematic, and explicit lessons in the text Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme–Grapheme Mapping are a direct outcome of the author’s experience teaching young children. The program also incorporates the following best-­practice principles based on empirical research: • Knowledge of English orthography is acquired in a continuous progression. • Awareness of phoneme–grapheme correspondences, regular and irregular, is how students hold words in memory. • Reading and spelling development is mediated by phonological awareness. Phoneme–grapheme mapping builds a bridge between phonological awareness and phonics. It continues to strengthen phonemic awareness while simultaneously building an association of sounds to the spellings of words. • Spelling is linked to word reading. • Spelling is not “auditory” or “visual” but phonological, orthographic, and sensory-­motor. The multisensory elements of Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme–Grapheme Mapping help to bridge the brain’s phonological and orthographic processors to strengthen learning and recall. • The program supports the development of automaticity and fluency with reading and spelling for all ages in one-­on-­one tutoring, in small groups, and whole-­group settings.

APPENDIX B  299

• Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme–Grapheme Mapping provides the one-­to-­one correspondence easily grasped and familiar to young students as a math concept, but not with sound-­to-­spelling relationships because of the multiple-­letter graphemes used to represent a single sound (e.g., “ph” or “gh” for /f/). Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme–Grapheme Mapping provides lessons for a wide range of reading and spelling skill levels. It is organized by syllable type, and most lessons begin with a teacher tutorial that explains the sound/symbol concept and its unique mapping procedure. Many lessons include a TEACH box that provides a student-­friendly script and guidelines for teaching students the target concept. Each lesson also illustrates the phoneme–grapheme mapping of the target concept and provides comprehensive word lists that give teachers many word options for creating either single or multisyllable word lists for their students. Any lesson can be adapted for children from a very young age to adults, since the words range from simple to complex within each pattern of study. The program can be used by general or special educators, paraprofessionals, remedial teachers, or parents. MATERIALS:

• Text: The lessons in this book are organized by phoneme–grapheme concept. The teacher tutorials (TEACH) sections offer teaching tips and lists of concept words that accompany the lessons. Explicit mapping procedures are provided for each newly introduced phoneme–grapheme pair. • Six to ten square tiles in two colors are included for each student to manipulate. One color represents the vowel sound, whereas the other color represents the consonant sounds. The number of tiles needed for each lesson depends on the number of phonemes in the concept words because each tile stands for just one sound. Using two colors helps children see where the vowel sound occurs in each word, which is especially important in differentiating between open and closed syllables as well as depicting where you hear a long vowel sound in a word, since that offers a clue to its spelling. • Phoneme–grapheme mapping paper. • Plain and colored pencils. • Colored tiles for use with an overhead projector or Smart Board. • Several auxiliary products are available through the author’s website: phoneme-­graphememapping.com Evidence of Effectiveness: Classroom tested. Growth shown in both decoding and spelling when used weekly to introduce new concepts. Teacher Training: Professional Development is available directly from the author. Contact and Ordering Information: Really Great Reading PO Box 46 Cabin John, MD 20818-­0046 Phone: 886-­401-­7323 Fax: 240-­465-­0478 Website: www.ReallyGreatReading.com Author Contact Information Ms. Kathryn E.S. Grace 144 South Main St. Waterbury, VT 05676 Phone: 802-­522-­6494 (cell) 802-­244-­6419 (home) email: [email protected] or [email protected] Website: phoneme-­graphememapping.com Program: Phono-­Graphix, Reading Reflex Authors: Carmen McGuinness, Ph.D. and Geoffrey McGuinness, B.A. Information Provided By: Carmen McGuinness and Erin Duncan, Chief Executive Officer Appropriate for Grades: PreK–adult (remedial) Phono-­Graphix; K–6 (home use) Reading Reflex Description: Phono-­Graphix is a structured, systematic, multisensory, speech-­to-­print reading and spelling program for both teachers and parents. Reading Reflex: The Foolproof Phono-­Graphix Method is a parent book containing thorough instructions and materials for teaching kindergarteners and elementary students at home. The theoretical underpinnings of Phono-­Graphix are remarkably straightforward and sensible. It is based simply on the nature of the English code, the three skills needed to access that code, and teaching these in keeping with the way children learn. The following describes this in greater detail.

300  APPENDIX B

THE NATURE OF THE ENGLISH CODE

Letters are pictures of sounds.

• So these are pictures of sounds “b oa t.” • Can children understand this? Children can understand this perfectly well. Children have a remarkable ability to assess visual figures. Sound pictures can be one or more letters.

• In , the pictures can be made of one letter (b and t) or more letters (oa). So has three sounds /b/-­/o–/-­/t/, and three sound pictures b—­oa—­t. • Children can manage this because they combine and reassess figures in the world around them every day. When they see a triangle on top of a square, they recognize a simple drawing of a house. There is variation in the code; most of the sounds can be shown with more than one picture.

• For example, the sound /o/ can be represented as in , in , in , in , in , and in . • Children manage variation in visual figures the world around them every day. Flowers vary in so many ways, yet all share the same name: “flower.” There is overlap in the code; some of the pictures are used for more than one sound.

• Overlap refers to the fact that some sound pictures can represent more than one sound. For example, as in and as in . • Children can manage this because they reuse figures in the world around them every day. A round figure might represent a ball, a moon, an orange, or any number of things in the world around us. THE THREE SKILLS NEEDED TO ACCESS THE CODE

• Segmenting: To learn and use a sound picture code, children must be able to break apart the sounds within words. • Blending: To use a sound picture code, children must be able to push sounds together into words. • Phoneme Manipulation: To use a code that contains overlap, children must be able to slide sounds in and out of words that contain overlap spellings described in the earlier text. CHILDREN LEARN BEST IN CONTEXT AND THROUGH ACTIVE DISCOVERY

Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget said, “The child only deeply understands that which he has created.” Through directed discovery, the Phono-­Graphix lessons help the child to create a schema for the code that is based on its true nature and the way children learn. Evidence of Effectiveness: A number of studies (see References) document the effectiveness of Phono-­Graphix. In addition, a report by the Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org) indicates that the content and design of Phono-­Graphix is based on research and includes the critical elements of beginning reading instruction. Teacher Training: Professionals can receive training on Phono-­Graphix online or at a 4-­day training available at various locations. The Phono-­Graphix website (www.phono-­graphix.com) provides information regarding training. Reading Reflex is suitable for parent use. Contact and Ordering Information Phono-­Graphix Reading Company 14125 W State Highway 29 Suite B203 LMB 125 Liberty Hill, TX 78642 Phone: 800-­732-­3868 e-­mail: contact@phono-­graphix.com Website: www.phono-­graphix.com REFERENCES

Dias, K., & Juniper, L. (2002). Phono-­Graphix—­who needs additional literacy support? An outline of research in Bristol schools. Support for Learning, 17, 34–38. Endress, S. A. (2007). Examining the effects of Phono-­Graphix on the remediation of reading skills of students with disabilities: A program evaluation. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 1–20.

APPENDIX B  301

McGuinness, C., McGuinness, D., & McGuinness, G. (1996). Phono-­Graphix: A new method for remediating reading difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 73–96. McGuinness, C., & McGuinness, G. (1999). Reading reflex: The foolproof Phono-­Graphix method. Simon and Schuster. Palmer, S. (2000). Assessing the benefits of phonics intervention on hearing-­impaired children’s word reading. Deafness and Education International, 2(3), 12–19. Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M., & Papanicolau, A. C. (2002). Dyslexia-­specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203–1212. Wright, M., & Mullan, F. (2006). Dyslexia and the Phono-­Graphix reading programme. Support for Learning, 21(2), 77–84.

Program: RAVE-­O Author: Maryanne Wolf, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Maryanne Wolf and Yvonne Gill, B.A. Appropriate for Grades: 2–4 (new hybrid in the near future for grades 1—­4) Description: RAVE-­O (Reading Automaticity through Vocabulary, Engagement with Language, and Orthography) combines knowledge from the cognitive neurosciences about the multiple components in the reading brain’s circuit with metacognitive strategies and whimsical, engaging strategies for learning. Explicit emphases in teaching are placed on three large areas: (1) phonological, orthographic, semantic, syntactic, and morphological processes (thus the acronym POSSUM); (2) accuracy and fluency at the phoneme, letter pattern, word, and connected text levels; and (3) deep-­reading comprehension strategies that elicit the child’s background knowledge, empathy/perspective-­taking, inferential reasoning, critical analysis, and novel thought capacities. (See Wolf, 2018). As such, this approach represents a bridge between systematic emphases on expanded foundational skills found in phonics-­inclusive approaches and emphases on word knowledge and stories in balanced literacy approaches. RAVE-­O is now an extensively researched and evaluated reading intervention that targets the multiple foundational components underlying reading fluency alongside deep reading comprehension processes for children with reading challenges such as dyslexia and other forms of reading impediment. Its unique, multicomponent approach targets the varied sources of reading impairment at the same time that it addresses the multiple dimensions of knowledge about a word, as words are encountered (Wolf et al., 2009; Wolf et al., 2000). Thus, a child learns the meanings, phonemes, orthographic patterns, syntactic functions, and morpheme options of a word at the moment of learning, not at separate moments in time. In this way, the approach uniquely simulates what the expert reading brain does when it reads words: it connects all its component parts. In addition, the program provides engaging metacognitive strategies for learning each of these linguistic dimensions and key, deep reading comprehension strategies for approaching text. A new emphasis on the child’s own novel thought about the text is incorporated along with motivating methods to accelerate fluency, comprehension, and deep reading skills. Toward these ends, RAVE-­O employs a disarmingly simple method. Instructors teach a small corpus of carefully selected core words every week that embody what the child’s brain needs to learn to activate when it reads any word. Each of the four to five core words learned every week serves as a pivot for learning multiple aspects of linguistic knowledge. Thus, each word incorporates the most common English orthographic patterns, multiple meanings, multiple syntactic functions, and many morpheme options. For example, the word jam represents at least seven common meanings, three syntactic functions, and many options for exemplifying how morphemes work in English (e.g., jams, jammed, unjammed). This is based on psycholinguistic research that is the basis for the RAVE-­O premise—­ the more the child knows about a word, the faster and better the word is read and understood. Based on the most common, major impediments to reading development across all languages (i.e., phoneme processing and fluency-­ related or RAN deficits) and a multicomponent conceptualization of reading and fluency (see Wolf & Katzir-­Cohen, 2001), RAVE-­O attempts to address in systematic, explicit instructional activities the major known impediments to reading development at the letter, word, and connected text levels. Furthermore, every effort is made to make each activity memorable, creative, and often whimsical to facilitate memory storage and foster mutually engaged teachers and learners. The program actively seeks to elicit and harness what children already know about oral language to help teach them what they don’t know yet about written language, which is of critical importance to children with bilingual or multilingual backgrounds. In the process, the program promotes an approach in which children view themselves anew as successful learners, poised to learn to read through their own efforts, rather than as failed readers. A major goal of RAVE-­O is that students not only decode and understand what they read but interact with words and bring their own novel thoughts to the text. RAVE-­O students become word detectives who uncover the “treasures” inside words and what they can mean in varied contexts. Students learn metacognitive tips through RAVE-­O Town characters who are introduced each week to teach students important linguistic strategies that will enhance their understanding and recall of information (e.g., the colorful spider, Ms. MIM, who teaches how words have Many Interesting Meanings, which serves to teach children the broader linguistic concept of polysemy and prepares them for the fact that half of the child’s early words have different meanings). Every other day the child reads

302  APPENDIX B

Minute Stories that embody all of the meanings, syntactic functions, and morpheme options of the core words that week (e.g., Sam tracked the tracks by the tracks.). Students build their own thoughts, opinions, and acquire new knowledge in response to what they read in the Minute Story Anthologies—­collections of progressively difficult stories with wonderfully imaginative illustrations that actively engage new ways of thinking about text. The ultimate goals of the RAVE-­O program are thoughtful, engaged readers who read with a level of accuracy and fluency that allows them to think their own thoughts about the text and begin their own reading life. Program Materials: The RAVE-­O materials are contained within the RAVE-­O toolkit. In addition, in 2024, teacher and student materials in digital formats will be available. • Teacher Guides Volumes 1 & 2 contain instruction for units 1–16. The program is fully scripted to enable teachers to implement the program with fidelity until they are confident; then the Activity Summary can be used. The lesson plans are given with objectives and the aspects of language on which each activity focuses. A new version of RAVE-­O includes digital slides for teachers and students that provide easy access to each day’s lessons. • The Teacher’s Resource Guide provides a program overview, Assessment Guidelines, types of word introductions, additional resource materials, and research articles. It is now available digitally. • Online Resources, including unit assessments, additional black-­line masters (master sheets for activities and word lists), and home–school connections (parent letters and materials). • Student Minute Story Anthologies (two volumes). • Student Word Work Books (two volumes). • Additional Materials: 1. Large format RAVE-­O Town Poster. 2. Large format Word Web. 3. Sixteen Posters used to introduce metacognitive tips and characters. 4. Card sets—­Core words, Spelling pattern cards, Image cards, Word Wall cards, and Eye-­spy word cards. 5. Dice. 6. Sound sliders. 7. Magnifying glasses. 8. Sand timers. 9. Digital games for orthographic practice will be available in 2024. Evidence of Effectiveness: Extensive efficacy databases for the RAVE-­O program are based on several large, three-­city (Boston, Atlanta, and Toronto), 5-­year, NICHD randomized treatment control studies of multiple interventions, conducted by Robin Morris, Maryanne Wolf, and Maureen Lovett. Their goals were to investigate the efficacy of single-­component and multicomponent state-­of-­the-­ art reading intervention packages with discrete subtypes of children with reading disabilities. Children who received the RAVE-­O program or the other multicomponent program (PHAST or EMPOWER by Lovett and her group) showed significantly more gains in all reading and oral language measures, except rapid name retrieval, than children who received the more unidimensional programs (phonology only) or the control treatment. (See Lovett et al., 2017, 2022; Morris et al., 2012). Students who received the RAVE-­O program showed more significant gains on measures of reading fluency and fluent comprehension and expressive vocabulary on polysemy tasks for trained and untrained words than all other programs, a finding maintained a year later. RAVE-­O was also evaluated by Tufts University’s Center for Reading and Language Research in two other contexts: afterschool settings in Phoenix, Arizona, and Lowell, Massachusetts, through grants from private foundations and the Institute for Educational Science; and summer school in Malden, Massachusetts. Students who completed the RAVE-­O curriculum showed significant gains in both specific and global reading skills across all studies, with most gains seen in the school hour context. When combined with Lovett’s program in grade one, RAVE-­O and Empower students made gains across 16 reading measures, with effect sizes of 0.99 (Lovett et al., 2017). First-­grade interventions were more efficacious than when conducted at grade three. Multicomponent interventions were more efficacious than phonics-­only programs. Teacher Training: Training is provided by RAVE-­O trainers. The 12-­hour professional development program, distributed over 1 and a half days, prepares professionals to implement the curriculum immediately. Attendees learn: 1. an overview of recent reading and brain research, 2. methods and materials of the RAVE-­O curriculum, 3. instructional strategies for putting the RAVE-­O curriculum into practice in classrooms and tutorial settings, 4. considerations for the integration of RAVE-­O with other phonological-­based programs. Contact and Ordering Information Nidolearning.com

APPENDIX B  303

REFERENCES

Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Wolf, M., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2017). Early intervention for children at risk for reading disabilities: The impact of grade at intervention and individual differences on intervention outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000181 Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., De Palma, M., Lacerenza, L., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2022). Interpreting comprehension outcomes after multiple-­component reading intervention for children and adolescents with reading disabilities. Learning and Individual Differences, 100, 102224. Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R. A., Steinbach, K. A., Frijters, J. C., & Shapiro, M. B. (2012). Multiple-­component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status, and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 109(7), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355472 Wolf, M., Gottwald, S., & Orkin, M. (2009). Serious word play: How multiple linguistic emphases in RAVE-­O instruction improve multiple reading skills. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 21–24. Wolf, M., & Katzir-­Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading (Special Issue on Reading Fluency), 5, 211–238. Wolf, M., Miller, L., & Donnelly, K. (2000). The retrieval, automaticity, vocabulary elaboration, orthography (RAVE-­O): A comprehensive fluency-­based reading intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 375–386. Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world. Harper Collins.

Program: Read Live Author: Candyce Ihnot, M.A. Information Provided By: Karen McKenna, Director of Curriculum Appropriate for Grades: 1–8 (reading level) Description: Read Live combines four instructional programs under one platform to help struggling and developing readers become skilled readers. Read Live is compatible with Windows, Macs, Chromebooks, and iPads. The Read Live platform includes the following four programs: • Read Naturally Live, which builds fluency and phonics with support for vocabulary and comprehension at levels 0.8 (early first grade) through 8.0 (eighth-­grade reading level). Several of the levels in this program focus specifically on phonics skills. • Word Warm-­ups Live, which provides direct, explicit phonics instruction and practice to build automaticity in decoding for students needing to develop phonics skills from short vowels to multisyllabic words (three levels available). • Read Naturally Live—­Español, which builds Spanish reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension for Spanish-­speaking students (or students learning Spanish) reading at a first-­through fifth-­grade level. • One Minute Reader Live, which is an independent reading program that builds fluency, phonics, and comprehension for students reading at a first-­through fifth-­grade level. Every Read Live license includes full access to all four programs. Educators can choose which program(s) to implement with their students. The Read Live programs use the evidence-­based Read Naturally Strategy, rooted in science, to help students become successful readers. Students build fluency with increasingly complex text so that they can understand the meaning—­the ultimate goal of reading. The programs have many options for differentiating instruction and can be customized to be effective with a variety of students in a wide range of educational settings. In many cases, teachers may assign students to work in multiple Read Live programs to address their needs. For example: • A student with dyslexia who has phonics and fluency needs may work in the Word Warm-­ups Live program while simultaneously using Read Naturally Live or One Minute Reader Live to build fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The explicit phonics instruction delivered in Word Warm-­ups Live builds mastery and automaticity in phonics, decoding, and word analysis and can be customized so that each student is working on the specific phonics skills they need to develop. When students use Word Warm-­ups Live to build automaticity in decoding, they are often able to progress more efficiently through the leveled stories in Read Naturally Live and One Minute Reader Live. • A student may work in Read Naturally Live to build fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension at one point during the instructional day and then work in One Minute Reader Live for independent reading at another time during the day, such as during Sustained Silent Reading time or at home. • A student may work in Read Naturally Live—­Español to build Spanish reading fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, and then work on the same stories in Read Naturally Live to develop reading proficiency in English.

304  APPENDIX B

Evidence of Effectiveness: Each program in Read Live was developed by reading teachers, is rooted in science, and uses the evidence-­based Read Naturally Strategy. Several well-­designed studies prove the efficacy of the Read Naturally Strategy, including studies that have been found to contain substantial evidence to support use of the strategy under the ESSA (2015). For more information about the evidence and research basis of the Read Naturally Strategy and the Read Live program, visit www.readnaturally.com/research. Teacher Training: Educators receive free training in a variety of formats, including online courses, training seminars, customized small-­group trainings, video guides to train students, and public webinars. Additional free resources include user guides, an extensive Knowledge base, and customer service support. Read Live teacher trainers also offer a data analysis service. Contact and Ordering Information Read Naturally, Inc. 1284 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55121 Phone: 800-­788-­4085 Fax: 651-­452-­9204 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.readnaturally.com REFERENCE

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-­congress/senate-­bill/1177

Program: Read, Write, & Type! Author: Jeannine Herron, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Talking Fingers, Inc. Appropriate for Ages: 5 to 7 or older children struggling with reading or learning English. Description: Read, Write, & Type! (RWT) is a 40-­lesson sequential software program providing instruction and games for enriching any early reading curriculum. It teaches phoneme awareness, phonics, reading, writing, spelling, and touch-­typing. The unique premise of this program is that spelling out words develops fluent phonics skills and is a powerful route to reading. Children are introduced to the 40 speech sounds in English and learn to associate each phoneme with a letter or combination of letters and also a finger stroke on the keyboard. Using eyes, ears, speech, and muscle memory, they sound out and spell hundreds of words, phrases, and engaging stories. Immersed in the meaning of the words, they read without effort as they write. The Talking Fingers approach is based on a simple idea: text is speech made visible! We use our mouths to talk, to make the sounds of words. We use our fingers (with a pencil or keyboard) to represent those sounds on paper. When children learn to link speech sounds with letters, they can use the alphabet code to write any word they can say. Their fingers are talking. In the RWT storyline, two houses represent the two sides of the keyboard (one for each hand). The houses are inhabited by storytellers who want to get to the Story Tree to write their stories. A mischievous alien called Vexor tries to steal the letters and prevent the storytellers from writing down their stories. Two Helping Hands, Lefty and Rightway, help children foil Vexor through 40 exciting lessons, building hundreds of animated sentences and stories as they go. Children are rewarded with certificates of advancement after every four letters. Each lesson includes at least four games: (1) identifying beginning, middle, and ending sounds; (2) blending sounds together to type a word or phrase across the screen; (3) sounding-­out and spelling a pictured word; and (4) writing a four-­ sentence rhyming story to dictation. There is also a simulated e-­mail game where children use word processing to write a message, then “send” it and “receive” a prestored message from a 6-­year-­old somewhere else in the world. Ongoing progress is assessed periodically for Phonics, Spelling, and Reading Comprehension throughout the program and records are available for individual students and classes. The player’s first response is recorded (and can be displayed or printed), but cues are still given so that the child can complete each task correctly. RWT, funded in part by the NICHD, is widely used for early reading instruction, intervention for children struggling with reading, and for children learning English as a second language. Voice-­over help is available in English, Spanish, Malaysian, Tagalog, Mandarin, Japanese, Arabic, and Farsi. The programs are available for online play by subscription. Subscription pricing for schools or districts is described on the Talking Fingers website. Materials for Teachers: An Activity Book provides tips and lesson plans to accompany each of the 40 lessons. A sturdy paper “keyboard” picturing the two houses enables children to warm up before going to the computer. The Talking Fingers website (www.talkingfingers.com) provides printable materials such as 18 level-­appropriate decodable stories, or clip art of the storytellers to paste into original stories children write.

APPENDIX B  305

Evidence of Effectiveness: Research with at-­risk first graders comparing Read, Write & Type with LiPS was carried out by Torgesen et al. (2010). At the end of first grade, there were no differences in student reading performance between students assigned to the different intervention conditions, but the combined-­intervention students performed significantly better than control students who had been exposed to their school’s normal reading program. Significant differences were obtained for phonemic awareness, phonemic decoding, reading accuracy, rapid automatic naming, and reading comprehension. A follow-­up test at the end of second grade showed a similar pattern of differences, although only differences in phonemic awareness, phonemic decoding, and rapid naming remained statistically reliable. Teacher Training: There are numerous videos that can be used to introduce the program or train teachers on the Talking Fingers website. Training webinars for preparing teachers to get maximum benefit from the programs can be set up by contacting Talking Fingers. Contact and Ordering Information: Talking Fingers, Inc. 830 Rincon Way San Rafael, CA 94903 Phone: 415-­472-­3103 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.talkingfingers.com REFERENCE

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Herron, J., & Lindamood, P. (2010). Computer assisted instruction to prevent early reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(1), 40–56.

Program: REWARDS Intermediate, REWARDS Secondary, REWARDS Plus Authors: Anita L. Archer, Ph.D., Mary Gleason, Ph.D., Vicky Vachon, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Anita L. Archer Appropriate for Grades: 4–6 (REWARDS Intermediate); 6–9 (REWARDS Secondary and Reward Plus) Description: REWARDS Secondary and REWARDS Intermediate are intense, short-­term intervention programs for older students who have mastered the basic reading skills associated with first and second grade but experience difficulty reading multisyllabic words and/or who read slowly (i.e., 60–120 correct words per minute). REWARDS is an acronym for Reading Excellence: Word Attack and Rate Development Strategies. REWARDS Secondary and REWARDS Intermediate are parallel programs designed to teach flexible strategies for fluently reading long words consisting of two to eight syllables that appear in content area texts. A further expectation is an increase in vocabulary and fluency. REWARDS Intermediate is for students in grades 4–6 and consists of 25 lessons, while REWARDS Secondary is for students in grades 6–9 and consists of 20 lessons. Lessons from both programs are approximately 50 minutes in length and can be done in two shorter sessions if necessary. The programs may be taught by teachers or paraprofessionals in small group, whole group, or one-­on-­one as part of general education classes, remedial reading classes, or intensive summer school or after school classes. REWARDS Intermediate differs from REWARDS Secondary in the following ways: (a) additional lessons are provided, (b) sentences and passages are matched to fourth-­to-­sixth-­grade levels, (c) all lessons include additional explicit instruction in vocabulary, (d) vowels and affixes are introduced at a slower rate, and (e) sentence reading is introduced before passage reading. Both REWARDS programs consist of a series of preskill lessons followed by strategy lessons that lead students in a step-­by-­step fashion from carefully scaffolded practice to independent decoding of multisyllabic words in sentences and content passages. Preskill lesson activities focus on learning the component skills necessary for applying the flexible decoding strategy, including blending word parts to form a word; accurately pronouncing single vowels, vowel combinations, and prefixes and suffixes; correcting mispronounced words; and learning the meanings of prefixes and suffixes. During the strategy lessons, students learn, practice, and apply the flexible decoding strategy (circle the prefixes and suffixes, underline the vowels, say the parts, say the word, make it a real word), which is the essence of the REWARDS program. Students also receive vocabulary instruction, practice in reading word families (e.g., reform, reformation), spelling dictation, and repeated reading practice to build fluency. The Teacher’s Guide for both programs includes three parts: (a) a detailed introduction containing information for successful implementation; (b) preskill and strategy lessons based on explicit instruction and the use of instructional routines; and (c) an appendix containing black-­line masters, student reference charts, pretest, post-­test and generalization tests, fluency graphs, and an incentive program for either motivational purposes or for determining student grades. The consumable student workbook contains all the student materials necessary for the program. In addition, displays for each lesson are found online and other supplemental materials.

306  APPENDIX B

REWARDS Plus is a supplemental reading program designed for middle and high school struggling readers who have completed REWARDS Secondary and would benefit from continued decoding and fluency practice with additional focus on vocabulary, comprehension, and writing. Two versions of the program are offered, one with social studies articles and the other with science articles. The instructional activities are organized into before reading (introducing the pronunciation of words, the meaning of words, and word families), during reading (silent and oral reading of passage segments, answering oral questions), and after reading (repeated readings, answering multiple choice and short answer questions, writing passage summaries). Evidence of Effectiveness: All the REWARDS programs were designed to reflect current research on decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, as well as the research on explicit instruction (Archer & Hughes, 2011). REWARDS programs have been used successfully in a variety of settings across the country for many years, including large implementation projects in Washington (use of REWARDS Intermediate with all 4th graders in a district), Michigan (a state initiative addressing reading and behavior), New York State (a Striving Readers Grant focused on struggling readers in seventh grade), and California (a Response to Instruction and Intervention state project). The effectiveness of REWARDS has been validated in a number of small intervention studies (Archer, 1981; Archer et  al.,  2010; Shippen et  al.,  2005; Vachon,  1998). A review of related research is found at the back of each Teacher’s Guide. The REWARDS programs were positively reviewed by the Florida Reading Center (www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/rewards_report.pdf ) with no weaknesses indicated. The recommendations in the Educators Practice Guide titled Providing Reading Interventions for Students in Grades 4–9 mirror the content taught in REWARDS and REWARDS Plus, adding credence to the programs (Institute of Educational Sciences Educators Practice Guide, 2022). Available at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/29 Teacher Training: Training on implementation of the REWARDS programs is addressed in a number of ways. First, each lesson provides a general description of instructional procedures followed by a detailed lesson, including wording that can be used during lesson delivery. In other words, the teacher’s manual provides lesson-­by-­lesson teacher training. Second, on-­line training is provided through the publisher (www.voyagersopris.com), which includes information on each segment of the program, demonstrations and practice led by Anita Archer, and classroom video clips to illustrate the instructional procedures. In addition, Voyager Sopris Learning provides several professional learning options including Face-­to-­Face and Virtual-­Facilitated professional learning sessions. Finally, a yearly training is held for district leaders who wish to provide training of local teachers in the implementation of all REWARDS programs. Contact and Ordering Information Voyager Sopris Learning Phone: 800-­547-­6747 Fax: 888-­819-­7767 Website: www.voyagersopris.com REFERENCES

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Publishing. Archer, A. L. (1981). Decoding of multisyllabic words by skill deficient fourth and fifth grade students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1981). Archer, A. L., Gleason, M. M., Vachon, V., & Hollenbeck, K. (2010). Instructional strategies for teaching struggling fourth-­and fifth-­grade students to read long words. Unpublished manuscript. Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. (2005). A comparison of two direct instruction reading programs for urban middle school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 175–182. Vachon, V. L. (1998). Effects of mastery of multisyllabic word reading component skills and of varying practice contexts on word and text reading skills of middle school students with reading deficiencies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene).

Program: Road to the Code: A Phonological Awareness Program for Young Children Authors: Benita A. Blachman, Ph.D., Eileen Wynne Ball, Ph.D., Rochella Black, M.S., Darlene M. Tangel, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Maria S. Murray, Ph.D.; Updated by Doreen L. Mazzye, Ph.D. Appropriate for Grades: K–1 Description: Road to the Code is an evidence-­based phonological awareness intervention that targets phoneme awareness and letter–sound correspondences so that children can develop the awareness that spoken words can be segmented into phonemes and that these segmented units can be represented by the letters of the alphabet. This program is ideally suited for small group instruction or for use with individual students, making it especially applicable in settings using an RTI model. Forty-­four developmentally sequenced lessons (approximately four 15–20-­minute lessons a week over an 11-­week period) are provided that primarily focus on the explicit and systematic research-­based strategy of segmenting and blending phonemes. The program focuses phoneme awareness instruction on

APPENDIX B  307

isolating, blending, segmenting, and manipulating one, two, and three phonemes and mapping those phonemes to graphemes. By the successful completion of the program, students will be able to blend, spell, and read three-­phoneme, closed syllable words (e.g., mat, ram, sit). Each lesson is comprised of three parts: 1. Say-­It-­And-­Move-­It (a segmenting and blending activity based on the work of Elkonin, 1973): students move a disk for every phoneme they hear in a spoken word. 2. Letter Name and Sound Instruction: students learn the names and sounds of the letters with illustrated alphabet cards, sound boards, and a variety of games. 3. Phonological Awareness Practice: students are given additional opportunities to practice phoneme awareness, also using a variety of games and activities (e.g., sound Bingo, puppets). Each lesson has a script, as well as suggestions for differentiating instruction to meet individual needs. Teachers are encouraged to be flexible and use their judgment in introducing concepts more slowly or moving lessons along more quickly based on the skill levels of the students. Evidence of Effectiveness: Evidence of effectiveness for Road to the Code strategies has been evaluated in numerous studies (Ball & Blachman, 1988, 1991; Blachman et al., 1994; Blachman et al., 1999; Tangel & Blachman, 1992, 1995) that have appeared in peer-­ reviewed journals. Several of these studies were selected for inclusion in the methodologically rigorous meta-­analyses that appeared in the National Reading Panel Report (NRP, 2000). The strategies used in Road to the Code were proven to be effective in improving phonological awareness and beginning reading and spelling abilities in kindergarten and first grade children. For example, in one study, the program was evaluated for use by kindergarten teachers and their teaching assistants (Blachman et al., 1994). Results showed that after the 11-­week intervention, treatment children significantly outperformed control children on measures of phoneme segmentation, letter name and letter sound knowledge, reading measures, and a measure of invented spelling. Furthermore, these students also received a reading program in grade 1 emphasizing the alphabetic code (see Road to Reading). It was found that the students who participated in these programs were better readers at the end of grades 1 and 2 than similar students who did not participate in these programs (Blachman et al., 1999). In addition, a study of over 300 kindergarten children found that children who used Road to the Code in small groups had significantly more sophisticated invented spelling at the end of kindergarten than children who did not use the program (Murray, 2009). Further, studies, such as Hulme et al., 2012, demonstrate the causal role that early training in phonological awareness has in the development of children’s early word level reading skills. Additionally, Kjeldsen et al. (2014) provide evidence that “early phonological training is associated with a systematic reading gain through Grades 3 to 9” (p. 463). Savage et al. (2018) found that the groups in their study that were specifically linking phonemes to print held gains in word level reading. Although Road to the Code was published in 2000, it is grounded in timeless principles based on a body of gold standard research that continues to expand and support the efficacy of the program. Teacher Training: Road to the Code can be effectively used by educators who have read the manual and prepared materials. Teacher notes accompany the lessons, and all necessary materials are easily reproducible from the manual. More in-­depth professional development and training can be arranged by contacting Brookes Training at www.brookespublishing.com/training/. Contact and Ordering Information Brookes Publishing Company P.O. Box 10624 Baltimore, MD 21285-­0624 Phone: 800-­638-­3775 Fax: 410-­337-­8539 Website: https://products.brookespublishing.com/Road-­to-­the-­Code-­P322.aspx REFERENCES

Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect on reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 208–225. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66. Blachman, B., Ball, E., Black, S., & Tangel, D. (1994). Kindergarten teachers develop phoneme awareness in low-­income, inner-­city classrooms: Does it make a difference? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–17. Blachman, B. A., Tangel, D. M., Ball, E. W., Black, R. S., & McGraw, C. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two-­year intervention with low-­income, inner-­city children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239–273. Elkonin, D. B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551–579). Macmillan.

308  APPENDIX B

Kjeldsen, A-­C, Kärnä, A., Niemi, P., Olofsson, Å., & Witting, K (2014). Gains from training in phonological awareness in kindergarten predict reading comprehension in grade 9. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(6), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.940080. Hulme, C., Bowyer-­Crane, C., Carroll, J., Duff, F., & Snowling, M. (2012). The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-­sound knowledge in learning to read. Psychological Science, 23, 572–577. Murray, M. (2009). Identifying predictors of end-­of-­year kindergarten invented spelling (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts International (UMI No. AAT 3410018). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-­ 4769). U.S. Government Printing Office. Savage, R., Georgiou, G., Parrila, R. & Maiorino, K. (2018). Preventative reading interventions teaching direct mapping of graphemes in texts and set-­for-­variability aid at-­risk learners, Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(3), 225–247, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1427753 Tangel, D., & Blachman, B. (1992). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on kindergarten children’s invented spelling. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 233–261. Tangel, D. M., & Blachman, B. A. (1995). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on the invented spelling of first grade children: A one year follow-­up. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 153–185.

Program: Road to Reading: A Program for the Prevention and Remediation of Reading Difficulties Authors: Benita A. Blachman, Ph.D. and Darlene M. Tangel, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Kristen Munger, Ph.D. and Maria S. Murray, Ph.D.; Updated by Doreen L. Mazzye, Ph.D. Appropriate for Grades: 1–3, can be adapted for use with older struggling readers. Description: Road to Reading is a systematic, explicit, cumulative, and diagnostic program grounded in the science of reading to help all children develop accurate and fluent word identification. Appropriate for use with students who can demonstrate beginning levels of phonemic awareness and who know some letter names, Road to Reading focuses on understanding the alphabetic principle, accurate and fluent decoding, oral reading, and spelling. It is ideal for settings using an RTI model because lessons can be adapted in terms of both group size (from flexible classroom groups, to small intervention groups, to individual instruction) and intensity (lesson length and number of lessons taught) to meet the needs of students at varying levels of skill acquisition. The program has six levels, which increase in complexity as students make progress. The levels are based on the six syllable patterns of the English language, and the level at which a student begins is determined by letter-­sound and decoding assessments that are included on the companion website. The Road to Reading program is unscripted so that teachers have the flexibility to custom-­design lessons in terms of content, time requirements (30 minutes or longer), or age (first grade or higher). To help teachers prepare lessons, the manual includes lists of words for each step, book suggestions for oral reading, and lists of words and sentences for dictation, as well as over 200 pages of materials that can be downloaded and printed from the companion website. Each lesson consists of five steps: 1. Review sound–symbol correspondences—­students develop accuracy and automaticity with sound–symbol correspondences. 2. Teach or review new decoding skill—­students practice making words with new phonetic patterns, reinforcing both phoneme awareness and phonics skills. 3. Review phonetically regular words (PRWs) and high-­frequency words (HFWs)—­students develop fluency in reading previously introduced phonetically regular words and high-­frequency words and extend vocabulary. 4. Read orally in context—­students read orally to develop fluency and comprehension. 5. Dictation—­students spell dictated words and write sentences to reinforce skills taught earlier in the lesson. Evidence of Effectiveness: Road to Reading has been shown to be effective in a variety of settings, including general education classrooms (either as a supplement to the core reading program or as the primary reading program in classes with many students at risk for reading difficulties), remedial reading programs, resource rooms, and one-­to-­one tutoring. In addition, effectiveness has been documented by empirical research studies conducted since the 1980s, when Blachman (1987) developed an instructional model that could be used by primary grade teachers in general education classrooms with children who had difficulty learning to read. Additional research using this model (Blachman et al., 1999; Tangel & Blachman, 1995) found that children who participated in the 5-­step program described in Road to Reading (and also participated in a phonological awareness program in kindergarten; see Road to the Code) were better readers at the end of grades 1 and 2 than children who did not participate in these programs. Results from several early studies were selected for inclusion in the meta-­analyses that appeared in the influential National Reading Panel Report (2000) providing extensive evidence regarding the value of phoneme awareness and phonics for teaching children to read. In 2004, Blachman and her colleagues (Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Clonan, B. Shaywitz, & S. Shaywitz) expanded the 30-­to 40-­minute lessons in Road to Reading to 50-­minute lessons used in one-­to-­one instruction with second and third grade struggling readers. After eight months of instruction and when assessed again at a 1-­year follow-­up, children who were randomly assigned to participate in the program

APPENDIX B  309

significantly outperformed children who did not participate on multiple measures of reading and spelling. An additional follow-­up study by Blachman et al. (2014) examined the effects of the Road to Reading program a decade later. The treatment group demonstrated a moderate to small effect size advantage on reading and spelling measures. Further, the treatment group held higher high school graduation rates and reported greater enrollment levels in post-­secondary education. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of the Road to Reading intervention performed during the primary grades impacting reading ability into adulthood. Teacher Training: Road to Reading can be effectively used by educators who have read the manual and prepared the materials (e.g., sound cards, sound boards, word cards). Printable materials are included with the manual features lesson plan forms to use as a template for preparing lessons, assessment forms, syllable reference sheets, and most of the materials needed for the lessons (e.g., all letter and word cards needed for the first three steps of the lesson can be printed from companion website). Teacher notes are distributed widely throughout the program manual in order to provide suggestions regarding topics such as pacing, how to implement the lessons, and how to find appropriate reading materials. Sample lesson plans are also included. The lessons are not scripted; therefore, teacher knowledge of various aspects of linguistics and pedagogy is recommended. This program is inexpensive and highly effective when implemented with fidelity to produce word level reading gains with struggling readers. More in-­depth professional development and training can be arranged by contacting Brookes Training at www.brookespublishing.com/training/. Contact and Ordering Information Brookes Publishing Company P.O. Box 10624 Baltimore, MD 21285-­0624 Phone: 800-­638-­3775 Fax: 410-­337-­8539 Website: https://products.brookespublishing.com/Road-­to-­Reading-­P383.aspx REFERENCES

Blachman, B. (1987). An alternative classroom reading program for learning disabled and other low-achieving children. In R. Bowler (Ed.), Intimacy with language: A forgotten basic in teacher education (pp. 49–55). Orton Dyslexia Society. Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Murray, M. S., Munger, K. A., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3-­Are there effects a decade later? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033663 Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-­year follow-­up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.96.3.444 Blachman, B. A., Tangel, D. M., Ball, E. W., Black, R. S., & McGraw, C. (1999). Developing phonological awareness and word recognition skills: A two-­year intervention with low-­income, inner-­city children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 239–273. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-­4769). U.S. Government Printing Office. Tangel, D. M., & Blachman, B. A. (1995). Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on the invented spelling of first grade children: A one year follow-­up. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 153–185.

Program: Scottish Rite Bridges: A Dyslexia Intervention Connecting Teacher, Avatar, And Student Author: Scottish Rite for Children staff, lead author: Karen Avrit, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Sheryl Frierson, Medical Director of the Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders at Scottish Rite for Children, Dallas, Texas Appropriate for Ages/Grades: Grade 2–adult, ages 7–adult Description: Bridges was developed by staff of the Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and became available in 2023. Bridges presents the exact same comprehensive content as Take Flight, but provides additional tools to increase accessibility; namely, a certified teacher with 2 weeks of training can be ready to effectively deliver Bridges instruction, in contrast to the 2 years of training necessary to become a dyslexia therapist. The additional tools include an avatar co-­teacher, named Miss Hallie. Miss Hallie accurately and consistently introduces the most challenging-­to-­deliver new learning and spelling concepts that comprise 15% to 30% of each instructional session. The other 70% to 85% of instructional time is led by the certified teacher with the support of a fully scripted teacher’s manual. Bridges is appropriate for students 7 years and older. It is designed to be taught 4 days per week (60 minutes per day) or 5 days per week (45 minutes per day) for 230 hours of direct instruction. It is intended for one-­on-­one or small group instruction with no more than six students per class.

310  APPENDIX B

Bridges is a comprehensive program designed to move the student with dyslexia quickly through the initial grapheme–phoneme rules (first 35 lessons) to allow time for application lessons that facilitate the transition from a therapy setting to “real world” learning. There are 132 new learning lessons and 98 critically important application lessons. These built-­in, regular opportunities for application of new skills in connected text set the stage for lifelong learning beyond the therapy setting. Bridges contains the five components of effective reading instruction supported by the National Reading Panel: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Each of the five components is presented and applied in each of the seven books of Bridges. EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Research in public schools shows growth in students receiving Bridges instruction with a trained certified teacher that is comparable to those receiving traditional Take Flight instruction (Middleton & Frierson, 2022). Teacher Training: Using the Bridges program and support tools, a certified teacher with 2 weeks of in-­person training can be ready to effectively deliver Bridges instruction, in contrast to the 2 years of training necessary to become a dyslexia therapist. VIDEOS:

A video of Bridges can be found at: https://vimeo.com/714208315/deb0c10eb0 A video of a student “before and after” use of the Bridges program:  https://vimeo.com/704257835/a074d2569b Contact and Ordering Information: Scottish Rite for Children Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders 2222 Welborn Street Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-­559-­7773 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: https://scottishriteforchildren.org/research-­and-­education/education/dyslexia-­educator-­center REFERENCE

Middleton, A.E., & Frierson, S.L. (2022). Luke Waites Center Curriculum Efficacy Project: Report of Interim Findings [White Paper]. Scottish Rite for Children: https://scottishriteforchildren.org/research-­and-­education/clinical-­research/dyslexia-­research

Program: Scottish Rite Build: A K–1 Early Reading Intervention Author: Scottish Rite for Children staff, lead author: Karen Avrit, M.Ed. Information Provided by: Sheryl Frierson, Medical Director of the Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders at Scottish Rite for Children, Dallas, Texas Appropriate for Ages/Grades: Grade K–1, ages 5–7 Description: Build is a comprehensive 100-­lesson reading intervention that explicitly addresses all five reading pillars (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and reading comprehension). It is suitable for small group instruction of young students in kindergarten and first grade who have been identified either as having dyslexia or being at risk for dyslexia. It is designed to be taught by a certified teacher who has completed the 1-­day training. Build has been designed to meet the needs of young children identified with dyslexia and appropriate to use as a supplemental intervention (Tier II) for struggling kindergarten and first grade students, even when the diagnosis of dyslexia has not yet been established. Build is designed to provide explicit, structured, sequential instruction that lays a solid foundation for building strong reading skills while also building the student’s confidence as a reader. At the end of the 100 lessons, it should be clearer which students do and do not have dyslexia. The students without dyslexia may be ready to return to regular reading instruction and the students with dyslexia will be well prepared for success in their dyslexia intervention program. Although much research to date has investigated response to treatment in both populations of students at risk and students with dyslexia separately, we are unaware of any study which investigated the relative effects of a single treatment across these two populations. Given that the nature of the differences across these groups is quantitative in nature, findings of such a study may provide important information regarding efficacy of a single treatment method in both the prevention of and intervention of reading disabilities.

APPENDIX B  311

EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS:

• In pilot research, young students with dyslexia receiving Build instruction in the Luke Waites Center Dyslexia Laboratory showed growth in alphabet mastery, phonological awareness, and decoding (Middleton et al., 2023). • Additional research regarding the effectiveness of the Build intervention program in public school settings is underway and findings will be disseminated as they are available. Teacher Training: It is designed to be taught by a certified teacher who has completed the 1-­day training which can be done in person or online. Contact and Ordering Information: Scottish Rite for Children Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders 2222 Welborn Street Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-­559-­7773. e-­mail: [email protected] Website: https://scottishriteforchildren.org/research-­and-­education/education/dyslexia-­educator-­center REFERENCE

Middleton, A.E., Frierson, S.L., & Avrit, K. (2023). Build: A K-­1 Early Reading Intervention: A Review of Supporting Evidence [White Paper]. Scottish Rite for Children: https://scottishriteforchildren.org/research-­and-­education/clinical-­research/dyslexia-­research 

Program: Scottish Rite Take Flight: A Comprehensive Intervention for Students with Dyslexia Author: Scottish Rite for Children staff, lead author: Karen Avrit, M.Ed. Information Provided by: Sheryl Frierson, Medical Director of the Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders at Scottish Rite for Children, Dallas, Texas Appropriate for Ages/Grades: Grade 2–adult, ages 7–adult Description: Take Flight is a curriculum written by the staff of the Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders of Scottish Rite for Children and published since 2006. Take Flight builds on the success of the three previous dyslexia intervention programs developed at the Luke Waites Center: Alphabetic Phonics, the Dyslexia Training Program, and Texas Scottish Rite Hospital Literacy Program. The Take Flight design incorporates information learned from research in the Luke Waites Center Dyslexia Laboratory and through “real world” trials by therapists in public schools. Take Flight was designed for use by dyslexia therapists for students with dyslexia ages 7 and older. The 2-­year program is designed to be taught 4 days per week (60 minutes per day) or 5 days per week (45 minutes per day) for 230 hours of direct instruction. It is intended for one-­on-­one or small group instruction with no more than six students per class. Take Flight is a comprehensive program designed to move the student with dyslexia quickly through the initial grapheme–phoneme rules (first 35 lessons, Book One & Book Two) to allow time for application lessons that facilitate the transition from a therapy setting to “real world” learning. There are 132 new learning lessons and 98 critically important application lessons. These built-­in, regular opportunities for application of new skills in connected text set the stage for lifelong learning beyond the therapy setting. Take Flight contains the five components of effective reading instruction supported by the National Reading Panel. Each of the five components is presented and applied in each of the seven books of Take Flight. • Phonemic Awareness: Take Flight provides a systematic exploration of the articulation of phonemes and is fully integrated within decoding and spelling instruction. • Phonics: All phoneme–grapheme correspondence rules are introduced early in the program to allow time for additional practice for automatic application of phonic skills, for additional guided reading practice including use of uncontrolled text, and expanded instruction in word analysis strategies. • Fluency: Take Flight incorporates guided and timed repeated reading of decodable words, phrases, and connected text. Incentives, visual tracking of progress, and daily home practice are also important elements of fluency training. • Vocabulary: Exposure to vocabulary in reading is enhanced and enriched by developing knowledge of morphology and word origins (Anglo-­Saxon in Books One through Five, Latin in Book Six, and Greek in Book Seven), word relationships, figurative language, syntax, and semantics.

312  APPENDIX B

• Reading Comprehension: A combination of techniques is used for instruction in reading comprehension, including comprehension monitoring, question generation, story structure, summarizing, and inferencing. Students learn how to utilize graphic and semantic organizers when reading narrative and expository texts. EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS:

• Research shows significant growth in all measure areas of reading skill in students who complete Take Flight instruction (Ring et al., 2017). • Sustained improvement in word reading skills and continued growth in reading comprehension have been documented in students 1 year after completing Take Flight instruction (Black et al., 2019). • Take Flight  is effective when used in schools by teachers with advanced training in treating learning disorders (Middleton et al., 2022). • It is currently used in over 50% of the school districts across Texas. It is also used in 41 states and 7 countries. Teacher Training: Take Flight is taught by 28 training courses in 47 locations. Dyslexia therapists trained using other dyslexia interventions can complete a 5-­day supplemental training to be certified to use the Take Flight curriculum. VIDEOS

A 60-­second overview video of all curricula can be found at: https://vimeo.com/783424440/9845a973be A video of Take Flight can be found at: https://vimeo.com/751226959/dc6ecf0053 A student “before and after” use of the Take Flight program: https://vimeo.com/714488400/873e8af859 Contact and Ordering Information: Scottish Rite for Children Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders 2222 Welborn Street Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-­559-­7773. e-­mail: [email protected] Website: https://scottishriteforchildren.org/research-­and-­education/education/dyslexia-­educator-­center REFERENCES

Black, J.L., Ring, J., Middleton, A.E., Frierson, S.L. (2019). Technical Report on Treatment Efficacy [White Paper]. Scottish Rite for Children: https://scottishriteforchildren.org/research-­and-­education/clinical-­research/dyslexia-­research Middleton, A. E., Farris, E. A., Ring, J. J., & Odegard, T. N. (2022). Predicting and evaluating treatment response: Evidence toward protracted response patterns for severely impacted students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(4), 272–291. https://doi. org/10.1177/00222194211047633 Ring, J.J., Avrit, K.J., & Black, J.L. (2017) Take Flight: The evolution of an Orton Gillingham-­based curriculum. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­017-­0151-­9

Program: Scottish Rite Jet: A Fast-­Paced Reading Intervention Author: Scottish Rite for Children staff, lead author: Karen Avrit, M.Ed. Information Provided by: Sheryl Frierson, Medical Director of the Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders at Scottish Rite for Children, Dallas, Texas Appropriate for Ages/Grades: Ages 14–adult Description: Jet is a 124-­lesson reading intervention suitable for learners with dyslexia, ages 14 years and older, who have the capacity to benefit from a fast-­paced intervention. Jet provides explicit instruction, at an age-­appropriate level, across all five components of effective reading instruction supported by the National Reading Panel research meta-­analysis and mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act: Phonemic Awareness, Phonic Skills, Vocabulary, Reading Fluency, and Reading Comprehension. All components are presented in a logical, systematic, and cumulative way so that new learning builds on previously taught skills. Jet is modeled on the comprehensive content of the Take Flight intervention, but modified to keep older learners engaged by using a much faster pace of presentation and age-­appropriate materials. While Take Flight typically takes 2 school-­years to complete, Jet can typically present an equivalent amount of information within one school-­year (two semesters).

APPENDIX B  313

Jet is designed for small group instruction (four–six students) for a minimum of 45 minutes per day, 5 days each week. Alternatively, the lessons can be taught for 60 minutes each day for 4 days a week. It is designed for use by academic language practitioners and academic language therapists who have been taught to use the program with fidelity. EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS:

• Jet has been successful in a small pilot setting. • Clinical trials are underway in several public school districts in two southwestern states of the U.S. Results will be made publicly available as soon as possible. Teacher Training: For interventionists who have already achieved status as an academic language practitioner or academic language therapist, Jet requires 1 day of training with ongoing support as necessary. Contact and Ordering Information: Scottish Rite for Children Luke Waites Center for Dyslexia and Learning Disorders 2222 Welborn Street Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: 214-­559-­7773. e-­mail: [email protected] Website: https://scottishriteforchildren.org/research-­and-­education/education/dyslexia-­educator-­center Program: Slingerland® Approach Author: Beth H. Slingerland, B.A. Information Provided By: Slingerland® Literacy Institute Appropriate for Grades: Grades K–8, special education, adult literacy Description: The Slingerland® Approach is a classroom adaptation of the Orton–Gillingham method. The multisensory, multimodal, structured language Slingerland® Approach is effective for any general education classroom and particularly effective for struggling readers (e.g., dyslexia, ELL, or other language barriers). This multisensory (multimodal) teaching approach simultaneously uses three channels of language learning—­auditory, visual, and kinesthetic-­motor. It is the linkage of the three channels that often presents difficulties for individuals with dyslexia. The Slingerland® Approach starts with the smallest unit of sight, sound, and feel—­a single letter—­and expands to words, phrases, and sentences to link the three channels of learning to strengthen the intersensory associations that enable the stronger channels of learning to reinforce the weaker channels. Successful students are motivated students. If students are taught what they need to know to become competent readers and writers, and how to do what is expected of them, they will be motivated to read and write. Students who appear to be “unmotivated” are those who, despite innate intelligence and consistent effort, are met with daily failure as they struggle to attain success that is never within their reach. Slingerland teachers take the job of preventing their students from making mistakes seriously. Knowing that some errors are inevitable, Slingerland teachers teach systematic proofreading strategies. Students are taught a systematic approach for editing that includes proofreading and correcting errors—­as well as rewriting of longer pieces of written expression. Students are taught to learn from errors—­so they become opportunities to learn instead of experiences of failure. The Slingerland® Approach teaches students of all ages to learn how to learn before they are left to fail. Slingerland’s comprehensive, multisensory, structured language program includes all five pillars promoted by the science of reading: • • • • •

Phonological awareness. Phonics and word recognition. Reading fluency. Vocabulary. Comprehension.

Unlike many other Structured Literacy programs, the Slingerland® Approach includes oral language and handwriting components for both manuscript and cursive—­reinforcing kinesthetic-­motor pathways for students. The Slingerland® Approach can be used across an entire educational curriculum, not just reading and writing instruction, and it is adaptable to most English Language Arts (ELA) and content area materials used at any school. Training includes discussion of effective methodologies for classroom management and meaningful parent communications.

314  APPENDIX B

Evidence of Effectiveness: The effectiveness of the Slingerland® Approach has been demonstrated in classrooms across the planet. Since 1960, thousands of teachers throughout the United States and in Canada, Australia, Dubai, and the Philippines have received Slingerland training. Today, many schools have embraced the Slingerland® Approach as the core of their model of literacy instruction. The Slingerland® Approach can benefit students of any age. The approach encompasses learning concepts from pre-­reading skills through complex language structures. It has been used with great success in general education classrooms, remediation programs, programs for students with language-­based learning differences like dyslexia, English language learner programs, and in adult literacy programs. Research confirms that the Slingerland® Approach has been effectively teaching reading for over 60 years. Teacher Training: Scientifically informed literacy instruction is beneficial to all students and especially to those who struggle with reading and written language. Slingerland® offers a comprehensive, multisensory, Structured Literacy program that includes all pillars promoted by the science of reading. Slingerland® Literacy Institute offers many options for educators who need: • Targeted areas of literacy/language training (Short Classes). • Training that is more integrated in scope (Basics Class). • Comprehensive training of skills (Comprehensive Classes). Contact and Ordering Information Slingerland® Literacy Institute P.O. Box 1648 Bellevue, WA 98009 Phone: 425-­453-­1190 Fax: 425-­635-­7762 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.slingerland.org Program: Sonday System Author: Arlene Sonday, B.S. Information Provided By: Winsor Learning, Inc. Appropriate for Grades: PreK–adult Description: The Sonday System instructional materials and methods have been compiled to help teachers effectively use proven literacy instructional strategies. The Sonday System is based on Orton–Gillingham instructional principles that have been well documented over time. The Orton–Gillingham approach has been the subject of five major reading research studies over the last 70 years, in 1940, 1956, 1969, 1979, and 1984. Citing these, the National Reading Panel identified Orton–Gillingham as one of the effective methodologies that address the needs of struggling students (National Reading Panel, 2000). The Sonday System materials have been carefully crafted to incorporate the essential components of reading (phonemic awareness, phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) identified by the National Reading Panel and to integrate the critical systematic spelling component. When reading and spelling are taught together, progress is faster, learning is more secure, and the learner becomes a writer as well as a reader. Spelling offers an opportunity for kinesthetic/tactile practice through tracing and writing, and provides immediate diagnostic information regarding sounds, rules, and concepts that have (or have not) been learned. This intentional integration allows students to become more proficient at reading and spelling as well as writing. Teachers can expand the spelling activities to extended writing assignments and include comprehension strategies to help children become independent readers. Reading and writing skills are developed sequentially and cumulatively. The Sonday System is offered in kits for various settings: • Let’s Play Learn (Early Childhood—­PreK and K). • Sonday System 1 (Beginning Reading and Interventions). • Sonday System 2 (Intermediate Reading and Interventions). Evidence of Effectiveness: Thirteen years of data collected from school districts using the Sonday System demonstrate a high degree of effectiveness. Educational experts in industry-­leading organizations such as the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), and Reading First offices in several states have independently evaluated the Sonday System and found that the program contains the required elements for successful reading identified by the National Reading Panel (2000). Additional information, including Sonday System effectiveness reports and how to access the analysis reports from NCLD and IDA, is available (www.winsor learning.com).

APPENDIX B  315

Teacher Training: Winsor Learning provides extensive training, coaching, and consulting services to support the use of the Sonday System. With ongoing, sustained professional development that includes initial training and follow-­up coaching, teachers learn through explanation, demonstration, and role-­playing. The strategies are consistent with those recommended by the National Reading Panel (2000). Contact and Ordering Information Winsor Learning, Inc. 3001 Metro Drive, Suite 480 Bloomington, MN 55425 Phone: 800-­321-­7585 Website: www.winsorlearning.com REFERENCE

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-­4769). Government Printing Office.

Program: SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing™ Authors: Kenn Apel, Ph.D., Julie Masterson, Ph.D., Jan Wasowicz, Ph.D., Anne Whitney, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Jan Wasowicz, SPELL-­Links Author; Founder & CEO of Learning By Design, Inc./SPELL-­Links Appropriate for Grades: K–adult Description: SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing (SPELL-­Links) is a research-­based and psychometrically proven Structured Literacy curriculum for students with dyslexia. SPELL-­Links is a comprehensive program that uses explicit, direct, and systematic instructional strategies for teaching foundational reading and writing skills and application of these foundational word study skills to sentence-­and passage-­level reading and writing. SPELL-­Links uses a “speech-­to-­print” word study approach that leverages the brain’s innate, biological wiring and organization for oral language (Wasowicz, 2021). With SPELL-­Links, students first learn how to attend to the sound structure of spoken English words, and then how to connect and combine sounds, letter patterns, and meanings to read and spell words. Spelling is introduced first and as a gateway to reading. Instructional time is spent on both spelling and reading (decoding and word recognition), first at the word level and then with immediate application to connected reading and writing. SPELL-­Links uses the multi-­linguistic, connectionist model of word study instruction supported by current research: phonological, orthographic, semantic, and morphological instruction is integrated throughout and across all grades to facilitate neural functional connectivity of the language literacy network. With SPELL-­Links, students develop meta-­linguistic abilities and build executive function proficiency. This empowers them to apply their word study knowledge, skills, and strategies to successfully and independently read, write, and spell every day—­not just during the lesson or on the weekly test. SPELL-­Links will meet the instructional needs for intervention for students in general education, special education, EL, and Title 1 Reading services across all grades and tiers of instruction. It provides instruction in: • • • • • • • • • •

Phonological awareness (phonemes, syllables, onset–rimes, syllabic stress). Orthographic pattern awareness (alphabetic principle, sound–letter correspondences, letter patterns and rules). Vocabulary knowledge and semantic awareness (word meaning, homophones, multiple meanings). Morphological knowledge and awareness (prefixes, suffixes, word roots). Storage and retrieval of orthographic representations in long-­term memory. Spelling. Decoding. Automatic word recognition, reading fluency. Writing. Oral expression.

SPELL-­Links aligns with the science of reading research and checks all the boxes of the Reading League’s Curriculum Evaluation Guidelines (2022) for desirable instructional practices.

316  APPENDIX B

EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS

• SPELL-­Links Outcome Data: The Impact of Transcription Writing Interventions for First-­Grade Students (Wanzek et al., 2017) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10573569.2016.1250142 • In this study conducted by the Florida Center on Reading Research (FCRR), low-­performing first grade students who received SPELL-­Links intervention in small groups outperformed the control group with moderate effect sizes across different measures of spelling and curriculum-­based writing. • The Effects of Tailored Word Study on Spelling Performance in Children in Grade 2 in a Title 1 School, Coffman, 2006 (https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/1927/). • The study explored whether tailored spelling instruction in a Title 1 second grade classroom would improve spelling performance. Word study instructional activities were based on students’ specific needs in phonological awareness, orthographic knowledge, morphological knowledge, and the ability to store mental orthographic images. The class was placed into three groups based on the results from SPELL. Word study lessons from SPELL-­Links were administered from September to February. Overall group changes in pre-­to post-­instruction means were associated with a moderate effect size on mean raw score from the Test of Written Spelling-­4 (d = 0.73), large effect sizes on short (d = 0.85) and long (d = 0.86) vowels, and moderate effect sizes on consonant and consonant digraphs correct (d = 0.51, d = 0.58, respectively). These findings suggest that SPELL-­Links could feasibly be implemented in a classroom setting and result in improved spelling scores. • Criterion Validity of the Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language and Literacy—­SPELL (Mooney & Masterson, 2006) http:// www.spell-­links.com/download/Validity%20of%20SPELL.pdf • The criterion validity of SPELL spelling assessment software was established by its significant correlation with the Test of Written Spelling-­4 and the Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery. • Outcomes Report: SPELL-­ Links to Reading & Writing  (Apel et  al.,  2004)  http://www.spell-­ links.com/download/ LNXoutcomesstudy1.pdf • Third-­and fourth-­grade students who received 9 weeks of SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing word study and Structured Literacy instruction demonstrated large, statistically significant gains in spelling skills in comparison to students who received traditional spelling instruction. • Outcomes Report: SPELL & SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing (Kelman & Apel, 2004) http://www.spell-­links.com/download/LNXoutcomesstudy2.pdf A fourth-­grade student showed significant gains in spelling and decoding skills after receiving the SPELL assessment and 9 weeks of word study intervention using the Structured Literacy instruction methods of the SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing word study curriculum. TEACHER TRAINING

SPELL-­Links Professional Development services are offered to school districts, administrators, classroom teachers, and specialists to equip all educators with essential knowledge, effective methods, and practical skills for word study skills assessment, instruction, and progress monitoring. Professional development options include the following: • Webinars: SPELL-­Links webinars offer all the conveniences and all the time and cost savings of virtual learning. Use the foundational knowledge and skills you acquire in SPELL-­Links webinars to more effectively implement your existing word study curriculum or to lay the groundwork for successful implementation of SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing. • Workshops: In SPELL-­Links product implementation workshops, you’ll gain hands-­on experience through role-­playing activities leading to in-­depth understanding of SPELL-­Links to help you create the learning environment you need to accomplish your literacy goals. Participants leave workshops with action-­ready ideas. • Community Resources: SPELL-­Link’d—­the online Professional Learning Community for SPELL-­Links users and all speech-­to-­ print enthusiasts—­provides bonus educational content, instructional tips, and more. After subscribing, educators can access premium content including video demonstrations of activities, live case study webinars, open Q&A with SPELL-­Links authors and SPELL-­Links Certified Providers, and exclusive instructional materials. • Coaching: SPELL-­Links Authors and SPELL-­Links Certified Providers/Trainers are available to come to you, in person or virtually, to demonstrate word study best practices and help find solutions for individual students. SPELL-­Links experts provide guided practice with SPELL-­Links, answer specific questions, and help solve obstacles unique to your students and your setting. • Certification: The SPELL-­Links Certified Provider Program is a multi-­phased process that equips you with an in-­depth understanding of the speech-­to-­print, multi-­linguistic, and meta-­linguistic framework and research basis of the SPELL-­Links assessment

APPENDIX B  317

(SPELL-­3) and the SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing curriculum and related instructional materials. The SPELL-­Links Certified Provider Program also provides you with the clinical training and experience that will enable you to implement the SPELL-­Links assessment and the SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing curriculum with fidelity. After successfully completing the process, you will receive a variety of support tools to use in highlighting your certification and to promote your practice. Professional learning focuses on students’ development of foundational literacy skills with application of those skills to sentence­and passage-­level reading and writing. Contact and Ordering Information Learning By Design, Inc. / SPELL-­Links email: spell-­[email protected]; [email protected] Website: www.learningbydesign.com REFERENCES

Apel, K., Masterson, J. J., & Hart, P. (2004). Outcomes report: SPELL-­Links to Reading & Writing. (2004). Language and Literacy in the Schools. http://www.spell-­links.com/download/LNXoutcomesstudy1.pdf Coffman, J. (2006). The effects of tailored word study on spelling performance in children in grade 2 in a Title 1 school. MSU Graduate Theses. 1927. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/1927 Kelman, M., & Apel, K. (2004). The effects of a multiple linguistic, prescriptive approach to spelling instruction: A case study. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(2), 56–66. Mooney, R., & Masterson, J. (2006). Criterion validity of the spelling performance evaluation for language and literacy – SPELL. ASHA. http://www.spelllinks.com/download/Validity%20of%20SPELL.pdf Wanzek, J., Gatlin, B., Al Otaiba, S., & Kim, Y. S. G. (2017). The impact of transcription writing interventions for first-­grade students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(5), 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1250142 Wasowicz, J. A. (2021). Speech-­to-­Print approach to teaching reading. LDA Bulletin, 53(2), 10–18.

Program: Spellography: A Fun Guide to Better Spelling Authors: Louisa Moats, Ed.D. and Bruce Rosow, Ed.D. Information Provided By: Louisa Moats, Ed.D. Appropriate for Grades: 4–6 (Intervention Grades: 5–7) Description: Spellography is a comprehensive word study program for intermediate students that is designed to improve spelling, word recognition (reading), vocabulary, and general insight into language structure. The current edition is a completely revised and rewritten version of the original, which was published by Sopris West in 2003. Spellography, through a sequential and progressive series of lessons, explores why words are spelled the way they are. This approach teaches students to understand and think about the structure of words in relation to sound, spelling patterns, meaning, and usage. Students are much more likely to remember words they have thought deeply about than to remember words through rote memorization practices. Spellography is a structured language approach. The program aims to build the underlying language competencies that weak spellers usually lack and that good spellers enjoy. These aspects of language are taught in each unit: • • • • • •

Phoneme awareness and syllable stress patterns in multi-­syllable words (phonology). Sound–spelling associations (phoneme–grapheme correspondences). Syllable spelling patterns and conventions for combining syllables. Prefix, root, and suffix constructions (morphology). Sentence structure (syntax) and the roles words play in sentences (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs). Idioms, figures of speech, homophones and homographs, contractions, and more.

The history of the English language is often invoked to explain how words derived from Old English, Old French, Latin, and Greek differ in their structures and spelling patterns. Spellography is designed to be fun and engaging. The narrative voice is that of an adolescent, Indian-­American spelling whizz (Hari), who is helping his younger sister (Tara) improve her spelling. They and their dog, Yogi, as well as their friends and acquaintances, provide ample material for humorous illustrations and vignettes. A light and amusing tone is maintained on purpose to relieve students of the anxiety they might feel in tackling a subject that may be challenging. The lessons, which average about 30 minutes each, are teacher-­led. Students are not handed books and told to practice memorizing lists on their own. Rather, the teacher maintains a continuous dialogue with students, leading phoneme awareness exercises relevant to

318  APPENDIX B

the lesson, presenting new concepts, ensuring that students are pronouncing target words accurately, dictating or explaining words for written exercises, and—­most importantly—­providing immediate corrective feedback once exercises are completed. Program Structure: This new, revised version of Spellography has four books, each with a Teacher’s Edition and a Student Edition: • • • •

Book A (Units 1–6). Book B (Units 7–12). Book C (Units 13–18). Book D (Units 19–24).

Books A and B will typically be used with 4th graders, and Books C and D with 5th graders who have had—­or who have already mastered—­the concepts and skills in the first two books. Placement is determined by students’ performance on diagnostic spelling surveys provided with each book and by teachers’ observations. Each unit’s lessons typically take 2 weeks to teach, with 3 lessons per week. Each unit and each book ends with a review. A spelling inventory accompanies each book so that teachers can monitor their students’ growth from pre-­to post-­testing. The teacher’s guide has all the answers to the students’ exercises as well as tips on how to present the instructional activities. Teachers who have participated in LETRS Professional Development will be well prepared to teach this structured language program, as Dr. Moats is an author of both. Evidence of Effectiveness: The original Spellography’s lessons were written and revised over several years, classroom-­tested with public school students in Southern Vermont and used in language tutorials at the Greenwood School, serving students ages 9–14 with language-­based learning difficulties. Although the research base for teaching spelling is far less substantial than the research base for teaching reading, Spellography embodies instructional content and methods that are consistently supported by interdisciplinary research on learning to read and spell. Selective findings of research, guiding the content and instructional approach of Spellography, are as follows: Design and Content of Spellography

Supporting Research

• • • • •

A meta-­analysis of 53 “gold standard” studies (Graham & Santangelo, 2014) provided strong and consistent support for teaching spelling explicitly and systematically. Effects were strong for improvement in spelling, spelling during writing, reading, and phonological awareness, with most effect sizes over 0.5 for each of these aspects of literacy development. Gains in spelling were maintained over time. Positive outcomes were consistent across grades and literacy levels. Explicit teaching practices in general have strong support in educational psychology (Kirschner & Hendrick (2020).

Explicit teaching of concepts Cumulative sequencing Guided practice Application Immediate feedback and self-­correction of errors • Review and re-­teaching as necessary

LEARNING TO SPELL DEPENDS PRIMARILY ON LANGUAGE PROCESSES

Design and Content of Spellography • Brief, distributed practice of phoneme awareness relevant to the lesson • Orthographic patterns, morphology, word origin, grammar, and usage in each unit • Continual connection of spoken with written language • No rote memorization of word lists

Supporting Research Phonological awareness (especially phoneme awareness), morphological knowledge, knowledge of print patterns or allowable letter sequences, knowledge of phoneme– grapheme correspondences, and vocabulary knowledge all contribute to the brain’s ability to store mental images of written words (Bourassa & Treiman, 2014; Treiman, 2017; Werfel et al., 2019). To remember words, we do not use “visual” cues, such as word shapes or rote memory for letter strings. On their own, these are not distinctive. Rather, we develop a mental mapping system—­even for irregular words—­in which sounds (phonemes and syllables) are bonded to print (graphemes and letter sequences) and then to meaning (Ehri, 2014). Morphology is the aspect of language that binds together the phonology, spelling, and meaning of a word; teaching morphology enhances word learning, especially for weaker spellers (Bowers et al., 2010).

APPENDIX B  319

THE ORTHOGRAPHY OF ENGLISH IS NOT “CRAZY”: IT CAN BE EXPLAINED AND LEARNED

Design and Content of Spellography

Supporting Research

• Emphasis on thinking through why a word is written the way it is • Explicit teaching of reliable phoneme–grapheme patterns and correspondences • Instruction on morphology and word origin in each unit

The spelling of most English words can be explained by considering one or more of the following: • phoneme–grapheme or sound–symbol correspondences; • arbitrary patterns of letter use, for example, that words in English rarely end in “j” or “v”; • preferred spellings for sounds by their position in a word, for example, that we use “c” to spell /k/ before o, a, and u, we use “k” to spell /k/ before e, I, or y, and we use “ck” to spell /k/ right after a short vowel; • the morphemes or meaningful parts of a word; and • the language stream from which a word came—­especially Old English, French, Latin, and Greek. Taking these factors in consideration, only a small percentage of English words are truly irregular and do not follow such patterns and constraints (Hanna et al., 1966; Moats, 2020; Venezky, 1999).

EXPLICIT TEACHING OF LANGUAGE STRUCTURE, BY AN INFORMED TEACHER, WORKS BEST

Design and Content of Spellography

Supporting Research

• Teachers are active leaders of each lesson • The text and answer keys provide all the information a teacher needs to explain words • Supportive professional learning is available

Both spelling and word recognition instruction is more effective if students learn and practice words that share a linguistic pattern or orthographic feature, as enumerated above (Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Schlagal, 2002). However, the teacher’s knowledge of the language structures that are being taught determines the effectiveness of a structured language approach (Puliatte & Ehri, 2017). Teachers’ linguistic knowledge, including their understanding of spelling conventions, word parts, and phonemes, is strongly associated with student gains in spelling.

SPELLING AND READING ARE RECIPROCAL: ONE INFLUENCES THE OTHER

Design and Content of Spellography

Supporting Research

• Lessons include speaking, listening, reading, and writing • Word analysis and short, word reading fluency exercises reinforce speed and accuracy of pattern recognition • Almost all lessons include dictation of words and sentences for writing

Spelling and reading development are closely correlated overall, and both depend on specific language processes. Spelling requires formation of a completely specified mental image of a word. Knowing a word’s spelling increases the fluency and accuracy of word recognition in reading. Integrating spelling (encoding) into a basic reading lesson improves results in both skills (Graham & Santangelo, 2014; Weiser & Mathes, 2011).

WEAK SPELLERS TYPICALLY STRUGGLE WITH SPECIFIC LINGUISTIC CHALLENGES

Design and Content of Spellography

Supporting Research

• Lessons provide extra practice identifying and manipulating speech sounds that are often a source of error in poor spellers • Lessons focus on specific spelling challenges, such as spelling of final blends with nasals and spelling of unstressed syllables • Word spellings are explained from many angles, including meaning and language of origin, to support students whose memories for sounds and symbols are problematic • The logic of spelling is emphasized so that students can reason through a spelling problem

The errors typically made by both novice and poor spellers show that some speech sounds and speech sound sequences are more challenging to perceive than others (Moats, 1996; Ouelette & Senechal, 2008; Read, 1971; Treiman, 2017). These include the identification of nasal and liquid consonants embedded in spoken words, identification of sounds in blends, and recognition of syllable stress patterns (Moats, 1996, 2020). In addition, certain aspects of orthography are more challenging to learn for spelling than for reading, including spellings for vowel-­r combinations, spellings of unstressed syllables, and spellings for homophones. Weak spellers often do not recognize common morphemes in word structure (Henbest & Apel, 2021; Tops et al., 2012; Werfel et al., 2019) or words that are morphologically related. These challenging aspects of language processing should receive more attention in spelling instruction than they may require for reading.

320  APPENDIX B

EXPLORING LANGUAGE CAN BE INTERESTING, FUN, AND ENGAGING!

Design and Content of Spellography

Supporting Research

• Lead narrators and their story themes add interest and cohesion to the subject matter • Illustrations are light-­hearted and fun • Plays on words are entertaining • Some passages are purposefully silly, designed to promote chuckles • Many exercises and activities can be done with partners or small group collaboration

The inclusion of humor, word play, collaborative activities, and lead characters to which students can relate are designed to enhance students’ attention and engagement with the material. Dehaene (2020) advises teachers to keep children active, curious, and engaged so that students’ attention can be directed to what matters. Learning that is enjoyable is learning that sticks. Kirschner and Hendrick (2020) advise that deeper processing of information is learning that is likely to stick, and the more techniques that promote deeper, active thinking, the more likely it is that information will be remembered and recalled.

Teacher Training: On-­line and in-­person training in the use of Spellography is available from Tools4Reading, a 95 Percent Group LLC company. Contact and Ordering Information Tools4Reading 475 Half Day Road, Suite 350 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Website: www.tools4reading.com REFERENCES

Bourassa, D. C., & Treiman, R. (2014). Spelling development and disability in English. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 569–583). Guilford. Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. Dehaene, S. (2020). How we learn: Why brains learn better than any machine . . . for now. Viking. Ehri, L. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-­analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703–1743. Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, H. (1966). Phoneme-­grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. United States Office of Education Cooperative Research. Henbest, V. S., & Apel, K. (2021). The relation between a systematic analysis of spelling and orthographic and phonological awareness skills in first-­grade children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52, 827–839. Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge. Moats, L.C. (1995). Spelling: Development, disability, and instruction. York Press. Moats, L.C. (1996). Phonological spelling errors in the writing of dyslexic adolescents. Reading and Writing, 8, 105–119. Moats, L.C. (2020). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (3rd ed.). Brookes Publishing. Ouellette, G., & Senechal, M. (2008). A window into early literacy: Exploring the cognitive and linguistic underpinnings of invented spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 195–219. Papadopoulos, T. C., Spanoudis, G. C., & Chatzoudi, D. (2020). A longitudinal investigation of the double dissociation between reading and spelling deficits: The role of linguistic and executive function skills. Reading and Writing, 33, 1075–1104. Read, C. (1971). Preschool children’s knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1–34 Tops, W., Callens, M., Bijn, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Spelling in adolescents with dyslexia: Errors and modes of assessment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 295–306. Treiman, R. (2017). Learning to spell words: Findings, theories, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 265–276. Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. Guilford. Weiser, B., & Mathes, P. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best-­evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81, 170–200. Werfel, K. L., Schuele, C. M., & Reed, P. (2019). Linguistic contributions to word-­level spelling accuracy in elementary school children with and without specific language impairment. American Journal of Speech-­Language Pathology, 28(2), 599–611.

Program: S.P.I.R.E., 4th Edition Author: Sheila Clark-­Edmands, M.S.Ed. Information Provided By: EPS/School Specialty Literacy and Intervention Appropriate for Grades: PreK-­8+

APPENDIX B  321

Description: Based on Structured Literacy elements and principles and developed by Orton–Gillingham Fellow Sheila Clark-­ Edmands, S.P.I.R.E. incorporates research-­based best practices for reading and language development. S.P.I.R.E. is a comprehensive and multisensory reading intervention and instructional program that integrates phonological awareness, phonics, handwriting, fluency, vocabulary, spelling, and comprehension in an instructional design that is based upon how struggling readers learn. S.P.I.R.E. has been used throughout the country with remarkable success by thousands of elementary, middle, and high school students. This includes students with characteristics of dyslexia, or SLDs, or students who need direct, explicit, systematic, and sequential instruction in reading. Each S.P.I.R.E. lesson employs 10 steps that enhance student learning and memory by engaging multisensory pathways to the brain in rapid succession. The research around best practices for reading instruction concludes that reading lessons should be explicitly taught, systematically planned and organized, and sequenced in a way that moves from simple to complex. The 8  levels of S.P.I.R.E. are systematically ­structured to meet these criteria and follow a 10-­step lesson plan that ensures students experience continuous and visible success. The 10-­step lesson plan may be viewed in action (eps.schoolspecialty.com/SPIRE). After a placement assessment, students start in the level that corresponds to concepts that they need to master. For each concept, such as short a, there is an introductory lesson and up to five reinforcing lessons to ensure students master each concept before they move on to the next one. All text in S.P.I.R.E. is decodable. Students receive direct and explicit instruction in each concept before they apply this knowledge to controlled, decodable text. Following is the scope and sequence of the program: • • • • • • • • •

Pre-­Level 1: Sounds Sensible: Phonological awareness and beginning phonics, consonants, short a, and beginning handwriting. Level 1: Short vowels (a, e, i, o, u), consonant digraphs (sh, ch, th, wh), and welded sounds (ang, ing, ong, ung, ank, ink, onk, unk). Level 2: Double consonants (ff, ll, ss), al as in ball, wa as in wasp, qu, ck, trigraph tch, (a-­e, i-­e, o-­e, u-­e, e-­e), and V-­se. Level 3: Open syllables (so, he, fly), (ild, old, ind, ost, oll), -­ay, three sounds of -­ed, suffixes without base changes (-­s, -­es, -­ing, -­er, -­est, -­en, -­ish, -­ly, -­y, -­ful, -­ness, -­less), twin-­consonant syllable division, non-­twin-­consonant syllable division, ou, and prefix a. Level 4: ea (eat, bread, steak), consonant -­le, oa, ai, ee, oo, igh, and ie (pie, chief ). Level 5: Soft c and g (er, ur, ir, ear, wor), dge, s = /z/, ow (snow, plow), kn, oe, and (or, ar). Level 6: (Prefix a-­, ending -­a, suffix -­able), ph, (ought, aught), (ue, ew, tu), (oi, oy), (aw, au), ey (donkey, prey), (kn, wr, mb, gh, gu), suffix -­age, and open syllables (a/CV, i/CV, o/CV, u/CV, e/CV). Level 7: V/V syllables, ct (ei, eigh), open syllables i (alligator, radio), (suffixes -­tion, -­sion, -­ci, -­ti), (suffixes -­tu, -­ture, -­sure), suffix -­ous (suffixes -­ence, -­ent, -­ance, -­ant, -­cy, -­ency, -­ancy), (ui, eu), and suffixes -­er, -­or, -­ar, -­ard. Level 8: (r-contolled vowels arV, arrV, irV, erV, errV, urV), (prefixes dis-­, mis-­, pre-­, pro-­, re-­, de-­, ex-­), (suffixes -­al, -­en, -­on, -­an, -­ain, -­ine, -­et, -­ite, -­ate, -­ic), (suffixes -­ive, -­ary), (prefixes in-­, im-­, il-­, ir-­, un-­, under-­, sub-­, con-­, com-­, cor-­, col-­), (prefixes para-­, ab-­, ad-­, per-­), and (i = /y/, ch = /k/ and /sh/, and qu = /kw/).

Materials: Teacher materials needed for implementation include Initial Placement Assessment, Teachers Guide, Blackline Masters, Word Cards, Phoneme Segmentation Chart, and Phonogram Cards. Materials needed for each student include Student Workbook, Sound Circles and Rectangles, Magnet Board and Letters, and Illustrated Decodable Readers. Evidence of Effectiveness: S.P.I.R.E. has been used throughout the country with great success by thousands of students who need a direct, systematic, and sequential approach to reading. A recent report funded by the Utah State Board of Education shows how well S.P.I.R.E. program faired against competitors. “In Year 1, a chi-­square analysis of the percentage of students falling into each category for the beginning of the year by intervention program was not statistically significant, but the end of the year comparison was statistically significant (chi-­square = 7.09, p < 0.05), with a higher percentage of students at or above benchmark at the end of the year in the S.P.I.R.E. program.” “In Year 1, the percentage of students ‘at or above benchmark’ in S.P.I.R.E. intervention schools improved by about 7 percentage points from the beginning of the year to the end, while the percentage of students at or above benchmark at S.P.I.R.E. comparison schools decreased by about 2 percentage points” (p. 23). The following is a link to this independent Utah State Board of Education study: https://le.utah.gov/interim/2018/pdf/00004483.pdf Teacher Training: EPS School Specialty’s Professional Development (PD) program integrates comprehensive teacher training with proven instructional strategies, classroom coaching, and ongoing support to meet the needs of diverse populations and close the achievement gap for all learners, including special populations. Through ongoing training and support, our PD team will work in close partnership with all involved parties within the district, including school administrators, principals, lead staff, and teachers, to ensure that our programs are properly implemented with a high rate of accountability and success. Before beginning S.P.I.R.E. implementation, we will work with district and school leaders to define student growth goals, address local issues, and optimize integration with current professional development strategies. To support the teachers of the district with the implementation and monitoring of S.P.I.R.E., we offer a blend of onsite introductory PD and follow-­up coaching sessions. Our experienced PD team will work closely with teachers as they instruct and support students using the S.P.I.R.E intervention program. Support/coaching day(s) can be scheduled where a S.P.I.R.E. trainer goes into classes and

322  APPENDIX B

observes, models, and/or coaches during a S.P.I.R.E. lesson. If an observation is conducted, a S.P.I.R.E. or Sounds Sensible Fidelity Checklist is completed, which is reviewed with the teacher and district personnel. After all support days, a formal report is prepared for the district lead. This report clearly states what was observed, modeled, or taught during the support visit, and gives formal next steps and suggestions that will improve the fidelity of S.P.I.R.E. implementation. Contact and Ordering Information EPS/School Specialty Customer Service 80 Northwest Blvd Nashua, NH 03063 Phone: 800-­225-­5750 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: https://eps.schoolspeciality.com/spire Program: The Superkids Reading Program Author: Pleasant Rowland, B.A. Information Provided By: Zaner-­Bloser Appropriate for Grades: K–2 Description: The Superkids Reading Program is a comprehensive, K–2 literacy curriculum designed specifically for primary students and how they learn to read and decode, based on the science of reading. Our program motivates students from day one with joyful reading experiences and captivating stories about the Superkids characters. These characters are charming and relatable—­everyone has a favorite, and their adventures provide the framework for the whole program. Superkids is comprehensive, covering all English language arts and reading skills, including the elements of Structured Literacy: phonology, sound–symbol association, syllables, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Skills are taught systematically and cumulatively, and new letter-­sounds are introduced with a consistent “hear it, see it, say it, write it” routine. Zaner-­Bloser supports Superkids schools with a dedicated team of literacy experts who ensure teachers succeed with the program. A large body of evidence shows that The Superkids Reading Program is highly effective in improving reading achievement for K–2 students of all backgrounds in all types of schools, including students with dyslexia. Because of our unique, systematic, and explicit instructional path, students develop the literacy skills they need to be successful in grade 3 and beyond. Evidence of Effectiveness: The Superkids Reading Program is included as a qualifying program that meets the required federal definition of evidence-­based on the “Evidence for ESSA” website, developed by the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University and which provides up-­to-­date and reliable information on programs that meet ESSA evidence standards. The Superkids Reading Program features two qualifying evaluations that “found significant positive outcomes on measures of sound and word reading,” and therefore reaches the second of three levels of evidence, “Moderate,” that are required for funding by The Every Student Succeeds Act: https://www.evidenceforessa.org/programs/reading/superkids-­reading-­program. In addition, The Superkids Reading Program has been subjected to evidence-­based research that meets other levels of the federal requirements and other evidence-­based requirements. To date, research on Superkids has been conducted in schools in nearly every region of the United States and with every major student group since the program’s inception in 2003. The research studies were conducted by independent evaluators and by the program’s founders. In these studies, Superkids shows statistically significant effects on reading achievement. Below is a list of the independent studies. For more information about these studies and the evidence for Superkids, go to https://www.zaner-­bloser.com/reading/superkids-­reading-­program/index.php • • • • • • • • •

Three-­Year Longitudinal Study Shows Impressive Gains for 1,800 Superkids Students. Study by Ohio State University Professor Shows Strong Effects for Superkids. Peer-­Reviewed Scientific Study Confirms Superkids Superior Results. Superkids Students Dramatically Outperform Control Group. Independent Researchers Discover Rapid Student Progress with Superkids Rowland Reading Foundation Research. Third-­Grade Scores Improve Dramatically for Students Taught with Superkids K–2. Catholic Students Achieve Superior Results in National Study of the Superkids. Lutheran Schools in Nationwide Trial of the Superkids Achieve Extraordinary Results. Study Shows that Superkids Program Is Highly Effective with Beginning Readers.

Teacher Training: Working together in a true partnership, we’ll design a plan for collaborative, classroom-­focused professional learning that is fulfilling and enjoyable and impacts teachers’ knowledge and practice. You can count on us to help you meet the high

APPENDIX B  323

ESSA standards for professional development and to build expertise and effectiveness. Our research-­based approach aligns with these key features of effective professional development: • • • • • • •

Is content-­focused. Incorporates active learning. Supports collaboration, typically in job-­embedded contexts. Uses models and modeling of effective practice. Provides coaching and expert support. Offers opportunities for feedback and reflection. Is of sustained duration.

Contact and Ordering Information Zaner-­Bloser PO Box 16764 Columbus, OH 43216-­6764 Phone: 800-­421-­3018 Fax: 800-­992-­6087 Website: zaner-­bloser.com Program: UFLI Foundations Authors: Holly Lane, Ph.D. and Valentina Contesse, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Wendy Wall, M. A. Appropriate for Grades: K–2 for whole group, small group, or individualized instruction; any grade level for remedial intervention. Description: UFLI Foundations is an explicit, systematic phonics program that targets essential, foundational skills necessary for skillful reading. The program offers 148 highly structured, carefully sequenced lessons in a clear, teacher-­friendly format. The scope and sequence begin with single letters and corresponding phonemes, and then progresses through short vowel (CVC) words, digraphs, silent-­e words, closed and open syllables, trigraphs and ending patterns, r-­controlled vowels, vowel teams, diphthongs, silent letters, suffixes and prefixes, suffix spelling changes, low-­frequency spellings, and additional affixes. Lessons provide extensive review, where students have opportunities to practice previously learned concepts repeatedly as they learn new concepts. Students begin each lesson with phonemic awareness tasks that involve blending and segmenting words (having the phoneme that will be introduced later in the lesson). After this, students complete a visual drill and an auditory drill to review phoneme–grapheme correspondences. Next, the blending drill allows students to practice decoding words with phonemes and graphemes they know, which facilitates decoding automaticity. After these review and practice activities, new concepts are taught through a multi-­step process: 1. The teacher explains the new concept, which could be a new grapheme–phoneme correspondence, spelling pattern, or morpheme. 2. The teacher describes the placement of the grapheme within the word (e.g., initial, medial, or final position). 3. The teacher explains the articulatory gestures for producing the new sound and places the associated visual card on the sound wall. 4. Students learn the written form of the new letter and may review forming other letters as needed. 5. Students practice reading and spelling words with the new pattern (and only those that have been previously learned). This ­portion of the lesson is presented in an “I Do, We Do, You Do” format. 6. Students develop orthographic mapping skills through “Word Work” tasks that may entail changing graphemes to form new words, sorting words, completing word meaning activities, and decoding and blending multisyllabic words. 7. Students practice reading and spelling phonetically irregular, or “heart” words—­those words that have unique phoneme–­ grapheme correspondences or patterns that have not been taught. 8. Students then apply new skills to connected text. They read or write sentences using words with new and previously taught concepts. Decodable texts provide practice with the new concept and may include strategies such as echo reading, partner ­reading, and choral reading. These decodable texts help students reach the goal of independent reading. UFLI offers teachers a myriad of free instructional materials and resources that accompany the teacher’s manual. These can be found on the UFLI website and include lesson slides, decodable passages, a decodable text guide, manipulative letters, work mats, sound wall cards, grapheme cards, heart word cards, home practice worksheets, printable games, center activities, and apps for virtual word work and blending activities. Their website has a Dyslexia Resource Hub containing numerous webinars and resources for parents, students, and advocates. This Hub has a Dyslexia 101 webinar that offers information on dyslexia and available resources.

324  APPENDIX B

Evidence of Effectiveness: UFLI Foundations is based on decades of research on how reading skills are acquired and effectively taught. The program’s content, structure, and instructional procedures align with the Science of Reading and the authors’ own prior research. UFLI Foundations was piloted for 2 years in one school and then in 21 schools from a single school district. Data on student growth revealed that this program was an effective tool for building foundational reading skills. Teacher Training: UFLI describes their program as “educative,” which means that, as teachers implement the program, they acquire knowledge about effective reading instruction. The UFLI manual explains the essential background knowledge teachers need and the procedures for instruction. Self-­directed YouTube videos are online to train teachers on how to implement the program at https://www. youtube.com/@ufli. They offer inservice professional development, an online dyslexia certificate program, and graduate degree programs. Contact and Ordering Information Ventris Learning P.O. Box 981 Sun Prairie, WI 5359 Phone: 888-­439-­6699 Website: www.ventrislearning.com Online Materials at UFLI website: https://ufli.education.ufl.edu/foundations/toolbox/ REFERENCES

Lane, H., & Contesse, V. (2022). UFLI foundations. Ventris Learning. UFLI Foundations. University of Florida, https://ufli.education.ufl.edu/foundations/, (accessed April 20, 2023). UFLI Foundations. University of Florida, https://ufli.education.ufl.edu/foundations/toolbox/, (accessed April 13, 2023). University of Florida Literacy Institute, (2022, August 10). Implementation Overview. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/@ufli.

Program: Wilson Fluency®/Basic Author: Barbara A. Wilson, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Wilson Language Training®, publisher Appropriate for Grades: 1–12 and adult Description: Wilson Fluency®/Basic is a supplemental fluency program appropriate for younger students with beginning reading skills or older students who are not reading fluently due to decoding deficits. Extended reading passages provide students with focused practice at their instructional reading levels to improve fluency and comprehension. Wilson Fluency/Basic specifically supplements Steps 1–3 of the Wilson Reading System® (WRS) but can be used with Wilson Just Words®, Wilson Fundations®, and other Structured Literacy programs that directly teach closed syllable word structure where one vowel is followed by at least one consonant, making the vowel short (e.g., “mug, wish”). Program features include: • It provides phonetic and high-­frequency word (phonetically regular and irregular patterns) practice to improve accuracy and automaticity. • It presents controlled short phrases with taught word patterns and high-­frequency/sight words to practice with connected text. • It uses longer phrases, presented in meaningful chunks, to develop prosody containing both taught and untaught concepts. • It develops improved phrasing and expression by having students first practice a phrased version of a story and then read the unphrased version. • It incorporates comprehension instruction throughout by asking students to develop a coherent mental model of the text and retell stories while self-­monitoring their understanding. • It enhances listening and reading comprehension skills and vocabulary by having students practice with enriched and decodable passages. • It supports students’ transfer of emerging decoding skills to reading of authentic text through use of non-­controlled decodable passages. • It contains assessment tools to measure student rate, accuracy, and prosody for each text; laminated Tally Sheets and Student Recording Forms monitor student progress and allow students to graph their own progress. • It features detailed instructions to measure student fluency levels in words correct per minute (WCPM) and prosody using the four-­level scoring rubric developed by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

APPENDIX B  325

There are four Fluency Readers. Fluency Readers 1–3 correspond to WRS Steps 1–3 and the Basic Reader includes additional decodable stories paired to enriched text passages. Each Fluency Reader contains five stories/reading passages of 200–300 words and corresponding word lists, phrases, and phrased and unphrased passages. The Wilson Fluency/Basic kit provides materials for teachers and students. The teacher materials include the Instructor Guidebook, Student Record Books to monitor student progress, High Frequency Word Cards, Laminated Blank Word Cards, Laminated Tally Sheets corresponding to each Student Fluency Reader, and Enriched Text Passages. Student materials include four Student Fluency Readers (six per level included in the kit). Wilson Fluency/Basic lessons are designed to be used in small-­group or one-­on-­one settings. Each lesson is approximately 10–20 minutes long and should occur one to three times per week, depending on the lesson format of the program it is supplementing. Evidence of Effectiveness: An independent review by the Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org) noted the following: “Wilson Fluency was designed based on the research findings identified in the Report of the National Reading Panel (2000). The important relationship between fluency and reading comprehension has been well-­established in the research (National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow et al., 1998). Students who are able to read smoothly, effortlessly and with proper expression are more likely to understand what they are reading. This program clearly addresses these aspects of fluency. Providing multiple practice opportunities via repeated reading is a key focus of this program as students are asked to read words and phrases up to four times.” Contact and Ordering Information Wilson Language Training 47 Old Webster Road Oxford, MA 01540 Phone: 800-­899-­8454 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wilsonlanguage.com REFERENCES

Florida Center for Reading Research. (2007). Wilson Fluency/Basic (p. 2). Author. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.

Program: Wilson Fundations® Author: Barbara A. Wilson, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Wilson Language Training®, publisher Appropriate for Grades: K–3 Description: Wilson Fundations® is a Structured Literacy program that provides foundational skills instruction informed by an extensive research base to achieve success with a wide variety of young learners in grades K–3. Based on Wilson’s flagship program the Wilson Reading System®, Fundations is explicit, systematic, cumulative, interactive, and data-­driven. Skills are presented across four Levels—­K, 1, 2, and 3—­with a Pre-­K Activity Set also available. Fundations Ready to Rise® is a summer or early fall acceleration program that helps teachers instruct their rising first and second graders. Fundations focuses extensively on systematic phonemic awareness, decoding, spelling, and handwriting instruction in an integrated approach rather than addressing them in isolation. By directly teaching and reinforcing handwriting and spelling skills, students build a strong foundation in writing, an essential component of literacy instruction. Fundations provides strong Tier 1 foundational skills instruction and targeted Tier 2 intervention within a Response to Intervention/ Multi-­tiered System of Supports(RTI/MTSS) framework: • Prevention Model (Tier 1): A standard lesson is provided to all students in the general education classroom for 30 minutes daily. Fundations is paired with a literature-­based ELA program to provide comprehensive Structured Literacy word study instruction for all students. • Early Intervention (Tier 2): For at-­risk students, Fundations is conducted in a small-­group setting up to six students. This targeted intervention consists of an additional 30-­minute lesson 3–5 times per week. Fundations can be part of a multi-­tiered literacy solution for schools and districts, including a literature-­based language arts program in grades K–3; Just Words®, a Tier 2 intervention program for grades 4–12; and WRS, a Tier 3 intensive intervention program for grades

326  APPENDIX B

2–12 and adults. Progress monitoring is built into Fundations so students who require a more intensive program such as WRS can be identified early before undergoing years of struggle with reading and spelling. Materials and Content: Fundations provides K–3  materials for teachers and students. Teacher materials, available for each Fundations Level along with multilevel options, include a Teacher’s Manual that comes with a companion membership in the Fundations Learning Community on Wilson Academy®. To aid classroom instruction, teachers use sound/syllable/word cards; sentence and syllable frames; reference posters; and an Echo the owl puppet, an effective tool to prompt student responses. Extensive additional resources are available online via the previously mentioned Fundations Learning Community. Student materials and manipulatives, including a magnetic letter board and letter tiles, a dry erase writing tablet, and various notebooks are used in the multimodal, interactive activities. In addition, Home Support Packs, available in both English and Spanish for each Level, encourage parental involvement. The Fundations Virtual Resource Hub (FUN HUB®) is an additional online resource. It includes Fundations InterActivities, an interactive teaching tool with Sound Cards and additional digital materials. The FUN HUB also offers video demonstrations of new concepts, practice worksheets for students, Unit test trackers, videos of targeted lessons for each Unit/Week, guidance and support for families, and digital manual access. Evidence of Effectiveness: Fundations was developed based on the evidence of effectiveness of WRS. An independent review of Fundations by the Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org) noted that the content and instructional design of the program are aligned with reading research. The report noted that Fundations employs multisensory teaching methods; is highly systematic, both within lessons and across lessons; and presents a variety of techniques so students can analyze multisyllabic, unknown words, and words with spelling options. Lastly, the program offers frequent practice and review which help students achieve mastery. Studies have shown that kindergarten students who received Fundations instruction demonstrated better learning of letter knowledge, larger gains in phonological and phonemic awareness and phonological decoding, and a reduction in risk of later reading difficulties. First-­grade students who received Fundations instruction demonstrated larger gains in oral reading fluency, improvement in phonemic awareness (phoneme segmentation) and phonological decoding (reading nonsense words), significant gains in basic reading skills, and a reduction in risk of later reading difficulties. First-­grade English learners (ELs) who received Fundations instruction demonstrated greater gains in phonemic awareness and oral reading fluency. An independent analysis of data from a Florida district meeting a Tier 3 ESSA evidence scale rating determined that Fundations in the general classroom (Tier 1) is associated with better performance on four of six tested DIBELS scores in first grade and the DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) subtest in kindergarten. A further study in a Pennsylvania district meeting a Tier 3 ESSA evidence scale rating found that Fundations is associated with better performance on DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) and Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) for first-­grade students. The study was sufficient for a rating of “Promising Evidence” (Tier 3) on the U.S. Department of Education’s ESSA evidence scale. Other studies have shown that kindergarten students who received Fundations instruction demonstrated better learning of letter knowledge, larger gains in phonological and phonemic awareness and phonological decoding, and a reduction in risk of later reading difficulties. First-­grade students who received Fundations instruction demonstrated larger gains in oral reading fluency, improvement in phonemic awareness (phoneme segmentation) and phonological decoding (reading nonsense words), significant gains in basic reading skills, and a reduction in risk of later reading difficulties. First-­grade English learners who received Fundations instruction demonstrated greater gains in phonemic awareness and oral reading fluency. Additional effectiveness of program effectiveness is provided at wilsonlanguage.com. Teacher Training: The goal is to work collaboratively with districts to improve student outcomes by fully implementing the Wilson programs with increasing fidelity. To implement Fundations, Wilson recommends: • For Tier 1: Fundations Level-­specific Launch Workshops for Levels Pre-­K, K, 1, 2, and 3, combined with yearlong Virtual Implementation Support (VIS). • For Tier 2 settings: Fundations Level-­specific Launch Workshops for Levels Pre-­K, K, 1, 2, and 3. In addition, the Fundations Intervention Workshop focuses on the Intervention lesson and the use of the Fundations curriculum-­based measurement tool to monitor progress. To help districts move toward fidelity and sustainability, additional coaching visits and courses are recommended, as well as the development of site-­based Fundations Facilitators and Presenters. Furthermore, extensive Fundations support is available online via the Fundations Learning Community and the Fundations Virtual Resource Hub (FUN HUB). Contact and Ordering Information Wilson Language Training 47 Old Webster Road Oxford, MA 01540

APPENDIX B  327

Phone: 800-­899-­8454 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wilsonlanguage.com REFERENCE

Florida Center for Reading Research. (2004). Fundations. Author. https://www.wilsonlanguage.com/wp-­content/uploads/2015/04/FCRR_ Fundations_Report.pdf

Program: Wilson Just Words® Author: Barbara A. Wilson, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Wilson Language Training®, publisher Appropriate for Grades: 4–12 and adults Description: Wilson Just Words® is a word-­level SL intervention program for students who need additional support learning to read and spell at grade level. Explicit, systematic, cumulative, highly interactive, and data-­driven, Just Words is “just the word study” part of the intensive Wilson Reading System® program and focuses on decoding and spelling at an accelerated pace. The program is appropriate for students in grades 4–12 and adults who have mild-­to-­moderate gaps in their decoding and spelling proficiency but do not require intensive intervention. It features the progression of the six English syllable types; sound–symbol correspondence as related to syllable patterns; study of phonetically regular and high-­frequency irregular words; orthographic (spelling) rules; and morphological patterns of prefixes, common Latin roots, and suffixes. Just Words can be part of a multi-­tiered literacy solution that includes Fundations®, a Tiers 1 and 2 foundational skills program for grades K–3; Just Words, as a Tier 2 intervention program for grades 4–12; and WRS, as a Tier 3 intensive intervention program for grades 2–12 and adults. Materials and Content: Just Words provides materials for teachers and students. Teacher materials include an Instructor Manual with detailed instructions and controlled text resources for each of the 14 Units and two bonus Units. Each Unit takes an average of 2 weeks to complete. Instruction is designed to be implemented 5 days per week, 45 minutes per session, in a yearlong curriculum in a class of up to 15 students. The curriculum also can be presented 3 days per week; in this case, the program will be completed over a year and a half. To aid classroom instruction, teachers use sound/syllable/word cards; syllable and suffix frames; a reference chart; additional resources and planning materials available via the online Just Words Learning Community; and Just Words InterActivities, an optional interactive whiteboard application. Student materials and manipulatives, including a magnetic journal and letter tiles, a dry erase writing tablet, and workbooks, are used in a multimodal, interactive way. Assessments determine appropriate placement and progress through the program and measure students’ mastery of and ability to apply concepts taught. Evidence of Effectiveness: Just Words was developed based on the evidence of effectiveness of WRS. Almost two decades of data collected from school districts experiencing success using WRS led to the creation of Just Words, a research-­based program designed to bring word-­level intervention to students in grades 4–12. In three studies examining reading comprehension for seventh-­grade students, oral reading fluency among fourth-­and fifth-­grade students, and word recognition and decoding among struggling sixth-­and seventh-­grade students, researchers found that: • Seventh-­grade students who received instruction through the Just Words program made larger gains in reading comprehension than their peers who received instruction as usual, resulting in a large reduction in students classified as severely at risk. • English learners in seventh grade who received Just Words instruction made greater gains in reading comprehension than EL students who received instruction as usual. • Fourth-­and fifth-­grade students with word-­level deficits who received instruction through the Just Words program made significant gains on word reading fluency and reading accuracy after receiving a semester of Just Words instruction. This allowed many students to close the gap and meet benchmarks. • ELs with word-­level deficits in fourth and fifth grades who received instruction through the Just Words program made significant gains in word reading fluency and reading accuracy. Prior to receiving Just Words instruction, these students were well below benchmark in oral reading fluency and word reading accuracy. After a semester of Just Words instruction, these students’ scores were at or approaching benchmark. • The gains made by EL students in oral reading fluency and word reading accuracy were equivalent to the gains made by their native English-­speaking peers. • Sixth-­and seventh-­grade students who received three semesters of Just Words instruction experienced an average gain of two grade levels in word recognition and an average gain of 3.4 grade levels in their ability to decode words. • Additional evidence of program effectiveness also is provided at wilsonlanguage.com.

328  APPENDIX B

Teacher Training: To implement Just Words, Wilson recommends the Just Words Launch workshop and at least four Coaching Visits throughout the year. Teachers also have extensive Just Words support via the online Just Words Learning Community on Wilson Academy® that includes lesson planning, animated demonstrations, printable teaching aids, monthly expert tips, and a discussion board monitored by Wilson Literacy Specialists. To help districts move toward fidelity and sustainability, additional coaching visits and courses are recommended, as well as the development of site-­based Just Words Facilitators. The goal is to work collaboratively with districts to improve student outcomes by fully implementing Wilson programs with increasing fidelity. Contact and Ordering Information Wilson Language Training 47 Old Webster Road Oxford, MA 01540 Phone: 800-­899-­8454 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wilsonlanguage.com Program: Wilson Reading System® Author: Barbara A. Wilson, M.Ed. Information Provided By: Wilson Language Training®, publisher Appropriate for Grades: 2–12 and adults Description: The Wilson Reading System® is an intensive program for students in grades 2–12 and adults who are making insufficient progress in their current intervention or who may require intensive multisensory language instruction due to dyslexia or other language-­ based learning disabilities. As a result, WRS is widely used with elementary school students, adolescents, and adults who have not been successful learning how to read and write. Many students who benefit from the program have deficiencies in phonological awareness and/or orthographic processing, which makes it challenging to learn to read and spell without a more intensive, diagnostic Structured Literacy approach. WRS can be part of a multi-­tiered literacy solution that includes: Fundations®, a Tiers 1 and 2 foundational skills program for grades K–3; Just Words®, a word-­level intervention program for grades 4–12; and WRS, an intensive reading intervention program for grades 2–12 and adults. WRS is the flagship program of Wilson Language Training® and the foundation of all other Wilson® programs. WRS directly teaches the structure of the English language at both word and text levels using an integrated instructional approach to phonology, morphology, and orthography (internalizing the rules that govern written English). It provides extensive instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, word automaticity, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The following are distinguishing characteristics of the program: • A ten-­part lesson plan addresses all the above elements of instruction in a sensible and logical fashion. • WRS uses a systematic, explicit, cumulative, intensive, and multimodal approach to teach the structure of the English language/ total word structure for decoding and encoding, progressing from basic word skills to more complex language structure, including morphological principles from the beginning. • A unique “sound-­tapping system” attunes students to the separate phonemes in a word and facilitates phoneme segmentation and blending. • Automaticity and fluency instruction is integral from the beginning with one of the most extensive collections of controlled and readable text (word lists, sentences, or stories). Three levels of vocabulary and text are provided, including one for older students. A penciling technique for scooping sentences and passages into meaningful phrases facilitates reading with prosody. • Comprehension of both narrative and expository text is directly and systematically taught with scaffolded support. • Structured Literacy principles are followed, making all instruction explicit, systematic, cumulative, highly interactive, and data-­ driven. Consistent links are made between visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-­tactile pathways to enhance memory and learning of written language. • Program material is presented in 12 steps that do not correspond to school grade levels. Steps are further divided into 63 cumulative and incremental substeps. Formative assessments are built into the program to measure student progress and success. Mastery of each substep is required before progressing to the next one, making the demands of the subsequent substep manageable and achievable. Materials and Content: The WRS materials provide teachers with a comprehensive program for daily implementation. The WRS Introductory Set (Steps 1–6) provides materials needed to teach Steps 1–6 of the program, including teacher manuals, manipulatives, and one set of student materials (consumable and durable). The WRS Advanced Set provides teacher and student materials necessary to teach Steps 7–12. Each item is also sold separately.

APPENDIX B  329

Teachers use sound/syllable/word element/word cards, student progress recording forms, and online resources to aid in instructional delivery. Student materials and manipulatives include a Student Reader for each WRS Step with controlled word lists, sentences, and stories, a magnetic journal with color-­coded letter tiles for word-­part manipulation, workbooks, a portfolio which contains sections for a notebook, vocabulary dictionary and comprehension work, and a progress booklet to chart and monitor their own progress through the program. WRS is organized into an integrated and sequential system of 12 steps, all of which address word study, spelling, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. As the program progresses, instruction becomes increasingly challenging in each of these areas. Mastery of each component of a step is required to advance to the next step. Throughout the 12 steps, students engage in instruction in: • Word Identification Accuracy and Spelling: Word-­level instruction incorporates a focus on sounds, patterns, and meaning while systematically and concurrently developing students’ phonemic awareness, morphological awareness, and orthographic awareness skills. Word structure for both reading (decoding) and spelling (encoding) is taught simultaneously to reinforce learning. • Automaticity and Fluency: Lessons move from accuracy to an automaticity of word reading focus with many exposures of the words within each substep. Students engage in extensive practice of connected text through scaffolded silent reading and guided oral reading of both controlled decodable text and non-­controlled readable text. Fluency is always linked with comprehension and includes a scooping technique that is utilized to graphically represent phrasing for meaning. Progress is charted to determine student advancement to the next substep. • Vocabulary: Vocabulary instruction includes teaching the meaning of core and academic words that correspond to the current substep. Explicit instruction to build vocabulary is woven into current and subsequent lessons for reinforcement. Additionally, students develop vocabulary through discussion that incorporates word-­learning strategies when reading or listening to narrative and informational text. • Comprehension: The Comprehension S.O.S.TM process (Stop, Orient, Scaffold/Support) is a Wilson-­developed strategy to help students learn how to visualize and understand both narrative and expository text during listening comprehension and reading comprehension tasks. Individual instructional needs are addressed through a framework of comprehension phases (foundational, initial, secondary, and proficient) and progression based on a staircase of text complexity. WRS follows a ten-­part lesson plan that moves at a quick pace but ensures constant interaction between teacher and student. The lesson is divided into three blocks: Parts 1–5 emphasize word study/foundational reading skills, Parts 6–8 emphasize spelling/foundational writing skills, and Parts 9–10 emphasize fluency and comprehension. WRS lessons are ideally taught by (or under the direct guidance of ) a WRS certified instructor (Wilson® Dyslexia Practitioner or Wilson® Dyslexia Therapist). Instruction may be delivered 4–5 times per week for a minimum of 45–60 minutes in a tutorial or a small-­group setting of up to four students (an experienced instructor may take up to six students). Depending on frequency and intensity of delivery, the 12-­step curriculum can take 2–3 years, or longer, to complete. Evidence of Effectiveness: An independent review of WRS by the Florida Center for Reading Research (www.fcrr.org) noted that the content and instructional design of the program are aligned with reading research. The report states, “The Wilson Reading System provides extensive instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.” In summary, it states, “Our conclusion from reviewing current research on the Wilson Reading System is that it is consistent with the idea that the program can be used effectively to help ‘close the gap’ in reading skills for struggling readers.” In the Closing the Reading Gap study, a specific hypothesis about the impact of word-­level instruction was studied by researchers, so the comprehension and vocabulary components of the WRS program were excluded. WRS students demonstrated statistically significant effects in the area of alphabetics, and, despite the partial implementation, evidenced statistically significant gains in passage comprehension (Torgesen et al., 2007). Findings were confirmed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and considered substantively important according to WWC criteria. A study of fourth-­and fifth-­graders with an educational disability and special reading instruction based on their IEP found that students who had failed to demonstrate gains in reading skills prior to WRS made statistically significant gains in the areas of decoding, reading fluency, and reading comprehension during the 2 years they received WRS (Stebbins et al., 2012). A further independent study of 51 students with disabilities in grades 2–7, approximately 80% of whom qualified for free and reduced lunch and 52% were minority students, found that WRS produced statistically significant growth in oral reading fluency and reading comprehension as measured by the AIMSweb curriculum-­based assessment (R-­CBM and R-­MAZE) following 1 year of WRS (Duff et al., 2016). Additional evidence of program effectiveness is provided at wilsonlanguage.com. Teacher Training: Wilson has focused on teacher support and professional learning since 1992 and works collaboratively with school districts and literacy organizations to improve student outcomes by fully implementing the Wilson programs with increasing fidelity. Comprehensive support and professional learning for WRS include WRS Level I and Level II Certifications, which incorporate

330  APPENDIX B

coursework and supervised practicums, including observations. These certifications have received the Accreditation Plus distinction from the IDA, the highest recognition offered for Tier 3 instruction. Wilson Language Training also offers a Wilson® Credentialed Trainer Development Program which includes a yearlong internship, requiring application and acceptance. To broaden its reach, Wilson partners with organizations and higher education institutions who meet standards for excellence in the delivery of Wilson professional learning and are authorized to offer professional learning opportunities for Wilson’s programs. Wilson has been recognized by the National Staff Development Council as one of the programs for inclusion in their research-­based initiative, What Works in K–12 Literacy Staff Development. Contact and Ordering Information Wilson Language Training 47 Old Webster Road Oxford, MA 01540 Phone: 800-­899-­8454 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.wilsonlanguage.com REFERENCES

Duff, E., Miller, L., & Bruce, J. (2016). Online virtual simulation and diagnostic reasoning: A scoping review. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(9), 377–384. Florida Center for Reading Research. Wilson Reading System (p.  2 &  4). Author. https://www.wilsonlanguage.com/wp-­ content/ uploads/2015/04/FCRR_WilsonReadingSystem_Report.pdf Stebbins, M. S., Stormont, M., Lembke, E. S., Wilson, D. J., & Clippard, D. (2012). Monitoring the effectiveness of the Wilson Reading System for students with disabilities: One district’s example. Exceptionality, 20(1), 58–70. Torgesen, J., Schirm, Al., Castner, L., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Myers, D., Javorsky, R., & Haan, C. (2007). Closing the reading gap: First year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. Volume II: National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report to Congress [NCEE 2008-­4013]. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Program: WORDS, 2nd ed. Author: Marcia K. Henry, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Marcia K. Henry Appropriate for Ages/Grades: 10 to 15; 3–9 in general education; 3–12 for students in need of specific, systematic instruction in reading Description: This new edition of WORDS emphasizes decoding and spelling based on word origin and word structure, thus strengthening students’ ability to decode, comprehend, and spell. It now includes reproducible student activities and expanded progress-­ monitoring tools. WORDS includes five units of instruction: Letter–Sound Correspondences; Syllable Patterns; Anglo-­Saxon, Latin, and Greek Word Roots; Morphemes (prefixes, suffixes, Latin roots, Greek roots, or combining forms); and Strategies for Decoding and Spelling Long, Unfamiliar Words. Students will master new vocabulary across the core curriculum subjects. The program includes lesson plans, teacher scripts, objectives, multiple examples of the concepts taught, pre-­tests, post-­tests, and unit quizzes, and online access to reproducible materials. It is suitable for individuals or small groups. Evidence of Effectiveness: The program is used in several Masonic Children’s Learning Center training programs, in classrooms, and by tutors throughout the country. Teacher Training: All necessary training is provided in the manual. Contact and Ordering Information PRO-­ED, Inc. 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78705 Phone: 800-­897-­3202 email: [email protected] Website: www.proedinc.com REFERENCES

Henry, M. K. (1988). Beyond phonics: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction based on word origin and structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 259–275. Henry, M. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

APPENDIX B  331

Program: Wordy Qwerty: Foundations for Reading & Writing Fluency Author: Jeannine Herron, Ph.D. Information Provided By: Talking Fingers, Inc. Appropriate for Ages: 7 to 10 Description: Wordy Qwerty, funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, demystifies spelling and makes it fun to learn to spell new words. This software is designed for 7–10 year olds who have learned the basics of word encoding and decoding and are poised to master more complex spelling skills. Wordy Qwerty uses games, songs, rhymes, and storytelling to teach children 20 spelling rules, introduce them to word families, and challenge them with “outlaw words.” Familiarity with spelling conventions and the structure of words, and how parts of words are combined and recombined, is critical for comprehension and fluency. Children confidently tackle new words because they have learned the strategies and rules that will help them succeed. In each of 20 lessons, children do 6 activities: (1) learn to recognize spelling patterns in words and use them to spell new words, (2) learn a karaoke song that represents an important spelling rule, (3) learn to recognize and spell homonyms, (4) learn to recognize and spell “outlaw” words by popping the correct word balloons, (5) write dictated four-­line stories (improving their typing skills), and (6) read stories and fill in missing words, developing comprehension and fluency. The stories include words that use the spelling rule or “outlaw words” learned in that lesson. The storyline for Wordy Qwerty involves two engaging characters: Midi the musician and Qwerty the word coach. They enlist children to help them accumulate “spheres” that are needed to play Midi’s amazing music machine. As a reward, players get to see the amazing music machine being built, and after every four lessons they get to see a part of the music machine play (animated machines are by Animusic). Wordy Qwerty is available as a hybrid CD (upgraded for any operating system) or it can be played online by purchasing yearly subscriptions. Evidence of Effectiveness: Research on the effectiveness of Wordy Qwerty is still in progress. However, there are many testimonials at www.talkingfingers.com to attest to its effectiveness in practical classroom situations, and with individual students who are struggling with reading and spelling. Wordy Qwerty includes a periodic spelling assessment that is scored and can be displayed or printed out for individual or class records. Teacher Training: Downloadable materials and videos can be found at www.talkingfingers.com for introducing teachers and ­parents to Wordy Qwerty. Training webinars can be arranged by contacting Talking Fingers. Contact and Ordering Information Talking Fingers 830 Rincon Way San Rafael, CA 94903 Phone: 415-­472-­3103 or 415-­342-­3080 e-­mail: [email protected] Website: www.talkingfingers.com

Appendix C MOBILE APPS AND WEBSITES TO SUPPORT READING AND WRITING INSTRUCTION

Elaine Cheesman The following is a detailed list of apps and websites that can be used to support instruction for students with dyslexia, as well as others who are struggling with reading and writing development. WORD READING AND SPELLING

Word Reading and Spelling

Letter Identification Phonological and Writing Awareness

Decoding

GraphoGame

x

Phoneme Isolation with Rhyming

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

Phonemic Awareness Bubbles

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

Letter Free Phonics

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

Sound Beginnings

x

Bob Books Reading Magic Series

x

x

x

http://bobbooks.com

ABC Magic Phonics Series

x

x

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

ABC Reading Magic

x

x

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

ABC Spelling Magic Series

x

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

Word Reading Magic Letter School Cursive Letter School**

x

Sentence Reading Magic

x

Sight Spelling Words URL x

x

https://graphogame.com/game/

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

x

https://www.letterschool.com/

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

Alphabet Dots

x

Letter Quiz*

x

Handwriting Without Tears

x

https://wetdrytry.com

ABC Ninja

x

www.alligatorapps.com

Reading Magic Apps Oz Phonics Series Word Wizard Montessori Crosswords

x

https://elliesgames.com x

http://tantrumapps.com

x

x

x

x

x

x

http://ozphonics.com

x

https://lescapadou.com/wp/en/ educational-­apps-­for-­kids/

Fry Words Sight Words Sight Word Fluency PhrasesReading Ninja

x

x

http://www.preschoolu.com

https://apps.apple.com/us/ developer/innovative-­mobile-­ apps/id420345423?see-­all= i-­phonei-­pad-­apps (continued )

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 333

334  APPENDIX C

Word Reading and Spelling

Letter Identification Phonological and Writing Awareness

Decoding

Sight Spelling Words URL

Sight Words by Photo Touch

x

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/sight-­ words-­by-­photo-­touch/ id421341850

Sight Words by Little Speller

x

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ sight-­words-­by-­little-­speller/ id42082842

Name That Rule

x

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ name-­that-­rule/id1456292449

Name That Syllable

x

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ name-­that-­syllable/ id1453778296

Name That Cutting Pattern

x

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ name-­that-­cutting-­pattern/ id1459658133

Starfall

x

x

x

x

x

http://starfall.com

Lexia Core 5 and PowerUp

x

x

x

x

x

https://www.lexialearning.com

*teaches that the letter X links to the /z/ sound at the beginning of a word, rather than to the /ks/ sound at the end of a word. **Caution: Uses Orange (a poor choice) as the keyword for capital O.

COMPREHENSION AND COMPOSITION

App/Website

Vocabulary Syntax & Inference/ Text Assistive Background Morphology Grammar Metaphor Structure Typing Technology URL

Lexia Core 5 Lexia PowerUp Lexia Reading Plus

x

English Word Information

x

x

x

x

https://www. lexialearning.com https://www. lexiaforhome.com/ https://wordinfo.info

Sentence Builder Sentence Builder Teen Rainbow Sentences

x

http://mobile-­ educationstore.com/

Preposition Builder

x

http://mobile-­ educationstore.com/

Story Builder Sentence Master Preposition Master NoRedInk Crack the Books Interactive Science Books

x x

x

http://mobile-­ educationstore.com/

x

x

http://www. masterkeygames.com

x

x

x

https://www. noredink.com/ http://www. masterkeygames.com

Vocabulary.com

x

https://www. vocabulary.com/

List of English Suffixes

x

https://www. learnthat.org/pages/ view/suffix.html

Mini Matrix-­Maker

x

http://www. neilramsden.co.uk/ spelling/matrix/ index.html

APPENDIX C  335

App/Website

Vocabulary Syntax & Inference/ Text Assistive Background Morphology Grammar Metaphor Structure Typing Technology URL

Root Words & Prefixes: Quick Reference

x

https://www. learnthat.org/pages/ view/roots.html

List of English Suffixes

x

https://www. learnthat.org/pages/ view/suffix.html

Math Vocabulary Cards

x

https://www. mathlearningcenter. org/apps

WordHippo

x

https://www. wordhippo.com

EnglishClub

x

x

https://www. englishclub.com/

TypingClub

x

https://www. typingclub.com/

Free Typing Lessons

x

https://edu. gcfglobal.org/en/ typing

Free Typing Games

x

https://www. freetypinggame.net

Touch-­type Read and Spell

x

https://www. readandspell.com/us/

KidzType

x

https://www. kidztype.com/

Online Etymology Dictionary

x

https://www. etymonline.com/

YourDictionary

x

https://www. yourdictionary.com/

Wordnik

x

http://www.wordnik. com/

Grammarly

x

https://app. grammarly.com/

Ginger Software

x

https://www. gingersoftware.com

x

https://www. inspiration-­at.com/ inspiration-­rd/

Inspiration

x

GLOSSARY

A Accommodations:  Alterations to the learning environment, delivery of instruction, and/or instructional materials that enable ­students with disabilities to access and participate in general education curriculum (e.g., providing a student with extra time to take a test); accommodations do not alter the content of the curriculum (see modifications). Accuracy:  See reading accuracy. Acquired:  Refers to a disease or disorder that develops over time and is not present at birth. Affix:  An element added to a base word to form a new word (e.g., prefixes and suffixes). Alexia:  A reading problem that results from a brain injury, sometimes referred to as acquired alexia. Alphabetic mapping:  Phonological decoding, the ability to translate a printed word into its corresponding phonemes. Alphabetic orthography:  A writing system that uses symbols to represent the sounds existent in a given language (e.g., English, French, Spanish). Alphabetic principle:  The basic understanding that spoken language is made up of speech sounds (phonemes) that can be represented by a letter or letter string (graphemes). Ability–achievement discrepancy:  See discrepancy formula. Analogy phonics approach:  An instructional approach that teaches new words by analogy to known words. For example, if the person knows the word “think”, then the rime -­ink can be used to learn unfamiliar words such as “brink”, “sink”, or “blink”. Word ­families are often used in this approach. Analytic phonics approach:  An instructional phonics approach which teaches analysis of whole words to detect phonetic and ­orthographic patterns and then splits them into smaller parts. It assumes that some level of phonemic awareness is present. Anterior:  Situated at the front, such as the front portion of the brain (as used here). Aphasia:  An acquired language disorder resulting from brain damage in which one or several language modalities are affected. Apps:  Short form of applications commonly used for files that can be downloaded from the web that are designed for specific purposes. Arcuate fasciculus (AF):  A cerebral white matter tract that connects Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas and enables the conversion of ­written words into spoken language and the comprehension of written text. Assistive technology (AT):  Hardware or software that improves the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. Attention-­deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD):  A condition characterized by inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. Auditory dyslexia:  Dyslexia that is characterized by difficulty hearing the differences among speech sounds; trouble remembering the sounds of letters; difficulty discriminating short vowel sounds; difficulty with blending and segmentation; and, sometimes, increased reading abilities when reading silently versus when reading orally. Automaticity:  The ability to read a word immediately without conscious use of effort or attention. Axon:  An appendage, or tail, of a neuron that sends electrical signals to other neurons. B Blending:  The ability to combine individual sounds together to create spoken words. Bound base elements:  Base elements that cannot stand alone and carry meaning (e.g., -­s, -­er, -­ed, un-­); also known as bound morphemes. Brain stem:  The lower portion of the brain that connects with the spinal cord and controls reflexes (e.g., breathing).

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 337

338 GLOSSARY

Broca’s area:  An anterior system in the inferior frontal gyrus of the brain that is associated with articulation and also serves an important function in word analysis. Broca’s area acts as one of the three functional neural systems that is particularly important for reading. Brodmann’s areas:  Fifty-­two distinct areas of the cerebral cortex, identified by Korbinian Brodmann, that represent specific cognitive functions and abilities. Brodmann’s areas act as a map of the cerebral cortex. C Cerebellum:  A part of the brain that coordinates and regulates a wide range of processes and functions in the brain and the body, including voluntary movements. Cerebral cortex:  The neural tissue that covers the cerebrum and is folded in on itself, giving the brain its characteristic appearance of ridges and furrows. It is responsible for higher cognitive functions such as memory, language, perception, and reasoning. Cerebral white matter (CWM):  Serves as the brain’s wiring; it consists of millions of myelinated axons that connect neurons within and between different regions of the brain, the brain stem, and the spinal cord. Cerebrum:  The largest part of the brain, divided into two hemispheres, each with four lobes: frontal, parietal, temporal, and occipital. Chatbot:  A software program that is designed to mimic human conversation. Closed syllable:  A syllable consisting of a short vowel followed by one or more consonants. Coarticulation:  Refers to how, when saying a word or words aloud in natural speech, the phonemes, or sounds, overlap and are not heard individually. Cognate:  A word that has a similar look and meaning in two different languages (e.g., telephone and teléfono). Cognitive:  Of, or pertaining to, cognition (mental processes). Comorbidity:  Two different disorders that are present within an individual but do not cause each other. Complex syllable:  A syllable containing one or more consonant clusters (e.g., tree, stick). Concept map:  Also known as a graphic organizer or a mind map; helps students organize and synthesize information. Congenital:  Refers to a disease or disorder that is present at birth. Consolidated alphabetic reading:  A reading stage characterized by accurate and automatic reading; the reader uses both orthographic and morphological knowledge. Consolidated alphabetic writing:  A writing stage characterized by awareness of many conventions of English orthography. Content words:  Words that carry lexical (semantic) meaning (e.g., nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives). Conventional spelling:  The final spelling stage where the writer incorporates knowledge of phonology, orthography, and morphology into spelling attempts. Correlate:  An underlying associated ability that affects performance (e.g., phonemic awareness and dyslexia). Corpus callosum:  The cerebral white matter structure that links the left and right hemispheres of the cerebrum and allows them to communicate and coordinate their functions. D Decodable text:  Reading materials that are used to practice common phonic elements; includes words with regular sound–symbol correspondences (e.g., hat, cat, rat). Decoding:  Applying knowledge of sound–symbol correspondences to correctly pronounce a written word; word recognition. Deep dyslexia:  A subtype of dyslexia that is characterized by semantic errors and severely impaired nonsense word reading. Often defined as an acquired reading disorder following a stroke or head injury. Deep orthography:  A written language that does not have a one-­to-­one correspondence between the phonemes (speech sounds) and graphemes (written letters). Words are not always spelled the way they sound and are influenced by orthography, morphology, and various syllable structures. Dendrites:  The branching process of a neuron that receives electrical impulses from other neurons, gathers electrochemical information, and keeps the process going between neurons. Derivational morphemes:  Bound morphemes that form new words from a root word, often resulting in a change in the part of speech (e.g., adding -­ful to the noun beauty to form the adjective beautiful). Developmental dyslexia:  See dyslexia. Developmental language disorder (DLD):  A communication disorder that impairs an individual’s ability to learn, use, and understand spoken language. Differentiated instruction (DI):  A framework for instructional planning that maximizes student learning through flexible approaches; suggests how to vary the content, process, or product to meet individual student needs.

GLOSSARY  339

Diffusion-­weighted imaging (DWI):  A structural MRI technique that allows study of the connections between different parts of the brain by revealing the directionality and magnitude of water molecules to generate images. Digraph:  Two adjacent consonant or vowel letters that make one new sound (e.g., ph, oa). Diphthong:  Two adjacent vowel sounds that slide together when pronounced (e.g., ou, ow, oi, and oy) and make a new sound. Discrepancy formula:  A formula that predicts a person’s potential for reading based on the difference, or discrepancy, between measured intelligence and the achievement area. Double-­deficit theory of dyslexia:  Having a deficit in both phonemic awareness and rapid automatized naming. Dyscalculia:  A specific learning disability that impairs an individual’s ability to learn, perform, and understand numerical and mathematical concepts. Dysfluent:  Lacking automaticity of decoding or encoding or speaking. Dysgraphia:  A specific learning disability that impairs an individual’s fine motor skills and ability to write. Dysphonetic:  Describes difficulty connecting sounds to symbols and an impaired ability to identify and remember phoneme–grapheme correspondences; it often involves an impaired ability to blend individual phonemes into words. Dyslexia:  A neurobiological disorder that causes a marked impairment in the development of basic reading skills, reading rate, and spelling. Dysphonetic spelling error:  A type of spelling error that demonstrates a poor understanding of phonics and phoneme–grapheme correspondences; dysphonetic spelling errors often result from an under-­reliance on phonology. E Elkonin method:  A method for teaching phoneme–grapheme relationships by using boxes or tiles to represent each sound in a word. Embedded phonics:  An implicit approach that embeds phonics instruction within authentic reading experiences. Often used in conjunction with a whole language approach. Encoding:  Spelling, the process of translating speech sounds into graphemes. English learner (EL):  Someone whose first language is not English. Epigenetics:  The study of how one’s environment may influence the functions of one’s genes. Etiology:  The origin or cause of a disease or disorder. Etymology:  The study of word origins and how word meanings develop over time. Explicit instruction:  An approach that involves direct instruction; the teacher demonstrates the task and provides guided practice with immediate corrective feedback before the student attempts the task independently. F Fissures:  Large sulci (grooves) in the cerebral cortex of the brain. Fluency (reading):  The ability to read a text accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression. Free base elements:  Base elements that can stand alone and carry meaning (e.g., dog); also known as free morphemes. Frontal lobe:  The front part of both brain hemispheres; plays a critical role in higher mental functioning (e.g., executive functioning). Full alphabetic:  A reading phase characterized by accurate connections between sounds and letters. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI):  An MRI technique that measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood oxygenation and flow that occur while performing a specific task; fMRI studies of dyslexia focus on brain activity, functional connectivity, and brain networks related to reading. Function words:  Words that carry little lexical meaning and serve a structural or grammatical purpose within a sentence (e.g., pronouns, determiners, conjunctions, and prepositions). G Genes:  Hereditary units located on chromosomes that instruct cells what to do. Genome:  Contains all the biological information needed to build a human and consists of 20,000–25,000 genes, based on current estimates. Genotype:  The inherited characteristics; the genetic makeup of an organism. Glial cells:  Cells in the central and peripheral nervous systems that provide support and protection for neurons. Grapheme:  The fundamental print unit in a written language that is used to represent phonemes, numbers, and punctuation marks; graphemes are also known as orthographic units. Graphophonic:  Refers to the sound–symbol (phoneme–grapheme) correspondences of any given language. Gyrus (plural: gyri):  The raised, smooth areas, sometimes referred to as ridges, in the cerebral cortex of the brain.

340 GLOSSARY

H Heritability:  A measure that describes how variations in individuals’ genes influence their traits. High-­frequency words:  The words that are most commonly used in any given language; high-­frequency words appear frequently in written material. I Individualized Education Program (IEP):  A written plan required by law for all students who are eligible for special education services under IDEA 2004. Inferior fronto-­occipital fasciculus (IFOF):  A cerebral white matter tract that connects the frontal and occipital lobes, facilitating the efficient processing of visual information and the interpretation of the meaning behind written language. Inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF):  A cerebral white matter tract that connects the temporal and occipital lobes, aiding in the recognition and processing of words and letters. Inflectional morphemes:  Bound morphemes that change the form of a word to give it a different meaning without changing the part of speech (i.e., adding -­ed to the present tense verb “cook” to form the past tense verb “cooked”); also known as grammatical morphemes. Informal reading inventory (IRI):  A diagnostic tool that determines an individual’s word reading accuracy and level of reading comprehension, thereby identifying the appropriate instructional level at which the individual should be taught to read. Intraindividual variations:  An individual’s unique strengths and weaknesses. Instructional technology (IT):  Hardware or software that is readily available to all students in a classroom and is used as a tool for the delivery of instruction. Irregular words:  Words where one or more letters do not represent their most common sounds (e.g., said, they). L Left temporoparietal system:  One of the three functional neural systems that is particularly important for reading. This region plays a major role in language processing, including the breaking down and manipulation of phonemes, lexical-­semantic processing, reading comprehension, and the integration of visual and auditory information; it includes Wernicke’s area. Lexical access:  The process of retrieving and producing the target sound, syllable, or word from memory; also known as lexical retrieval. Linguistic:  Of or belonging to language. Literacy:  The ability to read and write. Logographic orthography:  A writing system, for example, Chinese or Japanese, that uses visual symbols to represent whole words or word parts, rather than individual sounds (phonemes). Longitudinal study:  A formal study that involves continuous or repeated observation of the same variables, usually over a prolonged period of time. M Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI):  A noninvasive medical imaging technique that uses radio waves and strong magnetic fields to produce images of a body’s internal organs. Memory span:  The number of words, letters, or digits a person can listen to and then repeat verbatim within a short period of time. Meta-­analysis:  A formal study that examines data from multiple independent studies of the same subject in order to draw conclusions about the body of research and identify trends. Modifications:  Alterations to the general education curriculum based on the individual abilities of a student. A modification changes what the student is taught or expected to learn, generally reducing the difficulty (e.g., shortening assignments, using alternative texts). Morphemes:  The smallest units of meaning in a language (e.g., -­s signals plural). Morphemic analysis:  See structural analysis. Morphological awareness:  Describes the awareness of how words may be broken down into smaller units of meaning (i.e., morphemes); also known as morphological knowledge. Morphology:  The study of words, how they are formed, and their relationship to other words; it includes identification, analysis, and description of the structure of morphemes and other units of meaning in a language. Morphophonemic:  Refers to the relationship between morphology and phonology and the fact that spoken and written words provide information about morphemes as well as phonemes. Multimodal or multisensory teaching methods:  Instructional methods that involve multiple senses (e.g., seeing, saying, tracing) to teach a skill, such as print–sound awareness and reading. Myelinated:  Wrapped with myelin, a fatty, white substance, which serves as an electrical insulator and speeds electrical impulses between neurons.

GLOSSARY  341

N Neural signature for dyslexia:  Disruption of posterior reading systems during reading real words and pseudowords that is observed in readers with dyslexia during fMRI studies. Neurobiological:  Having to do with the anatomy and physiology of the nervous system. Neurodevelopmental:  Having to do with the development of the nervous system. Neuron:  A specialized cell that is the main functional unit of the nervous system. Neuronal migration:  A critical developmental process in which neurons move to their appropriate positions to form the brain’s structure and establish functional neural circuits; disruption of neuronal migration could contribute to the development of dyslexia. Nonsense words:  See pseudowords. Nonword repetition:  An assessment approach that evaluates an individual’s ability to repeat nonsense words and involves speech perception, short-­term memory, and phonological working memory. O Occipital lobe:  The posterior part of the brain that is involved in visuospatial visual processing and includes the visual cortex. Onset:  The initial consonant or consonants in a syllable that precede the vowel. Opaque orthography:  See deep orthography. Optical character recognition (OCR):  Software that converts printed text to digital text. Orthography:  The writing system of a language, including the spelling, punctuation, and capitalization rules. Orthographic awareness:  The ability to perceive and manipulate aspects of a writing system and the recall of the visual aspects of reading and spelling, such as the letters, letter patterns, and words. Orthographic knowledge:  Specific information stored in memory regarding how to represent spoken language in written language; orthographic knowledge contributes to reading and spelling performance. Orthographic lexicon:  Sight word vocabulary; the words that the reader already knows. Orthographic mapping:  The process of assigning individual speech sounds to the letters that represent those sounds; this process bonds the spelling, pronunciation, and meaning of a specific word in memory and explains how children learn to read sight words. Orthographic processing:  The mental process through which the brain acquires orthographic knowledge. It describes the ability to recognize, acquire, store, and use a language’s acceptable writing conventions, including letters and spelling patterns. Orthographic processing includes the brain’s ability to recall letter orientation, spelling patterns, and words with both accuracy and speed; it is also known as orthographic coding. Orthographic unit:  See grapheme. Orton–Gillingham:  A multisensory instructional method for teaching reading and spelling that is widely used with students with dyslexia. P Paired-­associate learning:  The learning of items by associating the pairs (e.g., sounds and symbols). Parietal lobe:  The part of the brain that perceives, interprets, and integrates sensory information. Partial alphabetic:  An emergent reading skill characterized by some connection between sounds and letters, particularly consonants and long vowel sounds. Perceptual processing:  The ability to make sense of information taken in through the senses (i.e., vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste). Phenotype:  The observable characteristics that result from the interaction of genetics and environment. Phoneme–grapheme correspondences:  The relationships between the speech sounds (phonemes) and the spellings (graphemes). Phonemes:  The individual speech sounds of spoken language. Phonemic awareness:  A component of phonological awareness that describes the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate phonemes. Phonemic proficiency:  A component of phonemic awareness that involves the automatic, unconscious access to the phonemes in spoken words; phonemic proficiency is foundational for orthographic mapping. Phonetic decoding:  The process by which we read an unfamiliar word by using grapheme–phoneme relationships. Phonetic spellings:  Spellings that demonstrate phoneme–grapheme correspondence; the words are spelled the way they sound even though the correct letter combinations are not used. A word with phonetic spelling is a phonetically regular word. Phonetic spelling error:  A type of spelling error that demonstrates poorly developed orthographic knowledge; phonetic spelling errors often result from an overreliance on phonology (e.g., spelling “said” as “sed”). Phonics:  An instructional reading method for teaching the relationships between sounds and letters and how to represent those sounds in writing.

342 GLOSSARY

Phonics through spelling:  An instructional approach that teaches the student to segment a word into its phonemes and then select the letters that represent each phoneme to spell the word. This approach teaches the student to spell words by ordering the sounds. Phonological awareness:  The ability to perceive and manipulate word parts and sounds of a language. Phonological coding:  Using knowledge of sound–letter (phoneme–grapheme) correspondences to read written language. Phonological dyslexia:  A subtype of dyslexia characterized by difficulty with speech sounds such as connecting sounds to letters and sounding out words. Sometimes referred to as auditory or dysphonetic dyslexia. Phonological loop:  The component of working memory that processes auditory input, including speech. Phonological processing:  Refers to the ability to use the sounds of a language to quickly and accurately process spoken and written language. Phonological sensitivity:  A component of phonological awareness that describes the ability to recognize that words are composed of units of language that are larger than phonemes; phonological sensitivity includes word awareness, syllable awareness, and rhyme awareness. Phonology:  The study of the speech sounds of a language. Planum temporale:  An important functional area of the brain for language and music. Podcast:  A digital media file on the Internet that can be downloaded and played on a computer or MP3 player; can be audio only or video and audio. Posterior:  Situated toward the back (e.g.,the back area of the brain). Pre-­alphabetic reading:  An early stage in reading in which words are recognized based on the environmental cues (e.g., reading “stop” when looking at a stop sign). Prefix:  An affix that precedes a base. Prephonetic spelling:  An early stage of writing characterized by using random letters to spell a word or to communicate a message. Processing speed:  The ability to quickly and accurately perform simple cognitive tasks, such as scanning symbols. Prosody:  The rhythms and intonations of a language (i.e., expression). Pseudowords:  Nonsense words that conform to English spelling rules and patterns. R Rapid automatized naming (RAN):  The ability to name quickly familiar objects or symbols. Reading accuracy:  The ability to recognize or decode words correctly. Reading comprehension:  The ability to read and understand written language. Reading rate:  Speed of reading at the single word level or at the connected text level. Response-­to-­intervention (RTI):  A multi-­tiered educational strategy that focuses on providing students with high-­quality instruction in the general education classroom, closely monitoring student progress, and providing additional supports and interventions to students as needed. Rime:  The ending part of the English syllable that begins with a vowel (e.g., -­ay). S Schwa:  A neutral vowel sound that may represent vowels with nondistinctive or neutral pronunciation; usually in unaccented syllables. Segmentation:  The ability to break apart spoken words into syllables or phonemes. Semantics:  The study of the meaning conveyed by language. Semiphonetic spelling:  An emergent writing stage characterized by the use of a few correct letters to represent the main sounds in a word. Set for variability:  An oral language task that requires the individual to identify the correct pronunciation of a word from a mispronunciation that is close in sound (e.g., the word “wasp” is presented as rhyming with “clasp”). Shallow orthography:  See transparent orthography. Sight words:  Any words that are recognized instantly by sight. Social bookmarking:  A web service that promotes the research process; a way to search, manage, organize, and store web information in order to revisit or share. Specific language impairment (SLI):  A communication disorder that impairs the development of one or more language skills in the absence of a hearing impairment; it may affect reading, speaking, writing, and/or listening. Specific learning disability (SLD):  A broad category of disabilities that includes several types of learning disorders, including dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia.

GLOSSARY  343

SR:  Speech recognition software that converts the spoken word to printed text. Speech sound disorder (SSD):  Refers to one or more difficulties with the perception, production, or phonological representation of individual speech sounds and/or segments of speech sounds. Stealth dyslexia:  A term used to describe highly intelligent children who compensate for their dyslexia with their advanced oral language and good memory. Strephosymbolia:  A term coined by Orton to describe reversal errors in reading and writing that literally means “twisted symbols.” Structural analysis:  The process of analyzing a word and breaking it down into individual morphemes. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI):  MRI techniques that examine the fine and gross anatomical structures of the brain in gray and white matter. See T1-­weighted magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-­weighted imaging. Suffix:  An affix that follows a base. Sulcus (plural: sulci):  The grooves or furrows in the cerebral cortex of the brain. Supramarginal gyri:  Located in the back of the left hemisphere of the brain; thought to be critical for reading. Surface dyslexia:  A subtype of dyslexia characterized by difficulty with whole word recognition and spelling, especially when the words have irregular spelling–sound correspondences. Individuals with this type of dyslexia are sometimes referred to as having visual, dyseidetic, or orthographic dyslexia. Syllabic orthography:  A writing system that uses a symbol to represent every syllable in the spoken language in writing. Syllable:  A unit of speech containing one vowel sound, with or without surrounding consonants. Synthetic phonics approach:  An instructional phonics approach that begins with explicit teaching of single sounds and how to represent those sounds with graphemes and then blend the sounds to pronounce words. T T1-­weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI):  A structural MRI technique that measures gray matter cortical thickness, surface area, white matter volume, and local gyrification index (LGI; a measure of cortical folding). Tactile–kinesthetic learning:  A learning approach that involves touching, experiencing, moving, and doing. Temporal lobe:  Located between the frontal and occipital lobes; associated with sound perception and interpretation; plays a significant role in recognizing and using language. Includes Wernicke’s area. Temporal processing:  Refers to the processing of auditory information which is an important component of understanding speech in various environments (e.g., quiet or noisy environments). Text to speech (TTS):  Software or operating system option that allows text on the screen to be read aloud. Transitional alphabetic reading:  See consolidated alphabetic reading. Transparent orthography:  A writing system that has nearly one-­to-­one correspondence between sounds and the written symbols that represent them; also referred to as shallow orthography. Traumatic brain injury (TBI):  Occurs when the brain is suddenly assaulted by an external force, often as a result of a car or sporting accident. TBIs result in physical damage to the brain and may affect how the brain functions. U Unexpected underachievement:  When an aspect of one’s academic performance (e.g., reading, writing, math) is below other abilities (e.g., oral language, reasoning, general intelligence). Universal design for learning (UDL):  A framework for instructional planning that addresses the needs of a wide range of students and minimizes the need for adaptations. V Visual crowding:  The visual stimuli surrounding the target word interfere with perception; words or letters in the periphery compete for attention, thus requiring many more fixations to identify the target word. Visual dyslexia:  Dyslexia that is characterized by difficulty developing a sight vocabulary; slow rate of word perception; letter reversals, inversions, and transpositions in reading and writing; difficulty retaining visual sequences and reproducing a visual sequence of letters from memory; and confusion of letters and words with similar appearance. Visual word form area (VWFA):  An area of the brain thought to be instrumental in rapid word recognition; this is one of the three functional neural systems that are particularly important for reading, and it is also known as the left occipito-­temporal region. Visuospatial sketchpad:  The component of working memory responsible for processing spatial and visual information.

344 GLOSSARY

W Wernicke’s area:  An area in the temporal lobe that is important to language development and is associated with the comprehension of language. Word blindness:  An early term used to define a type of dyslexia where an individual had trouble memorizing and recalling the visual images of words. Word identification:  Recognizing a word through the application of phonics or a decoding strategy. Word recognition:  The ability to recognize printed words correctly and effortlessly. Working memory:  The capacity to hold information in immediate awareness while manipulating or transforming that information in some way.

REFERENCES

Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Quatroche, D. (2008). Becoming a professional reading teacher. Brookes Publishing. Abu-­Hamour, B. (2010). The relationships among cognitive ability measures and irregular word, nonword, and word reading. Journal of the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, 26, 43–50. Adamaszek, M., D’Agata, F., Ferrucci, R., Habas, C., Keulen, S., Kirkby, K. C., Leggio, M., Mariën, P., Molinari, M., Moulton, E., Orsi, L., Van Overwalle, F., Papadelis, C., Priori, A., Sacchetti, B., Schutter, D. J., Styliadis, C., & Verhoeven, J. (2017). Consensus paper: Cerebellum and emotion. Cerebellum, 16(2), 552–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12311-­016-­0815-­8 Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press. Adams, M. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the “Great Debate.” American Educator, 19, 7–20. Adlof, S. M. (2020). Promoting reading achievement in children with developmental language disorders: What can we learn from research on specific language impairment and dyslexia? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(10), 3277–3292. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 2020_JSLHR-­20-­00118 AIMSWEB. (2006). R-­CBM Norms. Retrieved from https://aimsweb.com Alexander, A. W., & Slinger-­Constant, A. (2004). Current status of treatments for dyslexia: Critical review. Journal of Child Neurology, 19, 744–758. PMid:15559890 Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2015). Understanding working memory (2nd ed.). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2015.14 Allport, S. (1986). Explorers of the black box. The search for the cellular basis of memory. W. W. Norton. Alonzo, C. N., McIlwraith, A. L., Catts, H. W., & Hogan, T. P. (2020). Predicting dyslexia in children with developmental language disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 63(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-­L-­18-­0265 Álvarez-­Cañizo, M., Afonso, O., & Suárez-­Coalla, P. (2023). Writing proficiency in English as L2 in Spanish children with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­023-­00278-­4 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/ appi.books.9780890425787 Anderson, P. L., & Meier-­Hedde, R. (2001). Early case reports of dyslexia in the United States and Europe. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 9–21. http://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400102 Andresen, A., & Monsrud, M-­B. (2022). Assessment of dyslexia –Why, when, and with what? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(6), 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1958373 Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development of phonological awareness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 255–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-­7214.2005.00376.x Apel, K. (2011). What is orthographic knowledge? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42(4), 592–603. https://doi.org/ 10.1044/0161-­1461(2011/10-­0085) Araújo, S., & Faísca, L. (2019). A meta-­analytic review of naming-­speed deficits in developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(5), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1572758 Araújo, S., Reis, A., Petersson, K. M., & Faísca, L. (2015). Rapid automatized naming and reading performance: A meta-­analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 868–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000006 Aravena, S., Snellings, P., Tijms, J., & van der Molen, M. W. (2013). A lab-­controlled simulation of a letter–speech sound binding deficit in dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115, 691–707. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.009 Ardoin, S. P., Binder, K. S., Foster, T. E., & Zawoyski, A. M. (2016). Repeated versus wide reading: A randomized control design study examining the impact of fluency interventions on underlying reading behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 59, 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jsp.2016.09.002 Arena, J. (1978). An interview with Samuel Kirk. Academic Therapy, 13, 617–620. Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 345

346 REFERENCES

Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. National Institute for Literacy. Aro, T., Eklund, K., Eloranta, A. K., Ahonen, T., & Rescorla, L. (2022). Learning disabilities elevate children’s risk for behavioral-­emotional problems: Differences between LD types, genders, and contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(6), 465–481. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00222194211056297 Ashby, J., McBride, M., Naftel, S., O’Brien, E., Paulson, L. H., Kilpatrick, D. A., & Moats, L. C. (2023). Teaching phoneme awareness in 2023: A guide for educators. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1tPwupou7EqctDO50XtfvMGxfJAx7xPk9?usp=share_link Atanga, C., Jones, B. A., Krueger, L. E., & Lu, S. (2020). Teachers of students with learning disabilities: Assistive technology knowledge, perceptions, interests, and barriers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(4), 236–248. Atwill, K., Blanchard, J., Christie, J., Gorin, J., & García, H. (2010). English-­language learners: Implications of limited vocabulary for cross-­ language transfer of phonemic awareness with kindergartners. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9, 104–129. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1538192708330431 Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitivelinguistic skills and literacy skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14, 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021671 Bäck, G. A., Lindeblad, E., Elmqvist, C., & Svensson, I. (2023). Dyslexic students’ experiences in using assistive technology to support written language skills: A five-­year follow-­up. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2161647 Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, 4, 828–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201 Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). Academic Press. Bailey, S. K., Aboud, K. S., Nguyen, T. Q., & Cutting, L. E. (2018). Applying a network framework to the neurobiology of reading and dyslexia. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 10(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-­018-­9251-­z Baird, G., Slonims, V., Simonoff, E., & Dworzynski, K. (2011). Impairment in non-­word repetition: A marker for language impairment or reading impairment? Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 53(8), 711–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14698749.2011.03936.x. Bakwin, H. (1973). Reading disability in twins. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 5, 184–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­8749. 1973.tb15158.x Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading. NCEE 2016-­4000. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Bar-­Kochva, I., & Nevo, E. (2019). The relations of early phonological awareness, rapid naming and speed of processing with the development of spelling and reading: A longitudinal examination. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-­9817.12242 Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. R. (2020). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (7th ed.). Pearson. Becker, J., Czamara, D., Scerri, T. S., Ramus, F., Csépe, V., Talcott, J. B., Stein, J., Morris, A., Ludwig, K. U., Hoffmann, P., Honbolygó, F., Tóth, D., Fauchereau, F., Bogliotti, C., Iannuzzi, S., Chaix, Y., Valdois, S., Billard, C., George, F., Soares-­Boucaud, I., . . . Schumacher, J. (2014). Genetic analysis of dyslexia candidate genes in the European cross-­linguisticNeuro Dys cohort. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG, 22(5), 675–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.199 Becker, N., Vasconcelos, M., Oliveira, V., Santos, F. C. D., Bizarro, L., Almeida, R. M. M., De Salles, J. F., & Carvalho, M.R. S. (2017). Genetic and environmental risk factors for developmental dyslexia in children: Systematic review of the last decade, Developmental Neuropsychology, 42, 7–8, 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2017.1374960 Begeny, J. C., Daly, E. J., & Vallely, R. J. (2006). Improving oral reading fluency through response opportunities: A comparison of phase drill error correction with repeated readings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 15, 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-­006-­9028-­4 Bekebrede, J., van der Leji, A., Plakas, A., Share, D., & Morfidi, E. (2010). Dutch dyslexia in adulthood: Core features and variety. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903117500 Bell, S. M., Taylor, E. P., McCallum, R. S., Coles, J. T., & Hays, E. (2015). Comparing prospective twice-­exceptional students with high-­ performing peers on high-­stakes tests of achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0162353215592500 Ben-­Shachar, M., Dougherty, R. F., & Wandell, B. A. (2007). White matter pathways in reading. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(2), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2007.03.006 Berkhan, O. (1885). Über die Störung der Schriftsprache bei Halbidioten und ihre Ähnlichkeit mit dem Stammeln [About the disorder of written language of half-­idiots and their similarity with dislalia]. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankenheiten, 16(1), 78–86. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF02227300 Berlin, R. (1884). Über dyslexie [About dyslexia]. Archiv fur Psychiatrie, 15, 276–278. Berninger, V. (1990). Multiple orthographic codes: Key to instructional interventions for developing orthographic-­phonological connections underlying word identification. School Psychology Review, 19, 518–533. Berninger, V. W. (2011). Evidence-­based differential diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities with and without comorbidities in oral language, writing, and math. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 203–232). John Wiley & Sons.

REFERENCES  347

Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2008). Why spelling is important and how to teach it effectively. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development (pp. 1–13). Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Retrieved from www.literacyencyclopedia.ca/pdfs/topic.php?topId=234 Berninger, V. W., & May, M. O. (2011). Evidence-­based diagnosis and treatment for specific learning disabilities involving impairments in written and/or oral language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410391189 Berninger, V., & Richards, T. (2010). Inter-­relationships among behavioral markers, genes, brain and treatment in dyslexia and dysgraphia. Future Neurology, 5, 597–617. https://doi.org/10.2217/fnl.10.22 Berninger, V. W., & Wolf, B. (2016). Dyslexia, dysgraphia, OWL LD, and dyscalculia. Lessons from science and teaching (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing. Bertoni, S., Franceschini, S., Ronconi, L., Gori, S., & Facoetti A. (2019). Is excessive visual crowding causally linked to developmental dyslexia? Neuropsychologia, 130, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.04.018. Betts, E. A. (1936). The prevention and correction of reading difficulties. Row, Peterson and Company. Betts, E. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. American Book Company. Bice, H., & Tang, H. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs and practices of technology integration at a school for students with dyslexia: A mixed methods study. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 10179–10205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-­022-­11044-­1 Binder, J. R., Frost, J. A., Hammeke, T. A., Bellgowan, P. S., Springer, J. A., Kaufman, J. N., & Possing, E. T. (2000). Human temporal lobe activation by speech and nonspeech sounds. Cerebral Cortex, 10(5), 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/10.5.512 Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-­analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19(12), 2767–2796. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp055 Binks-­Cantrell, E., Hudson, A., Han, B., Moore, K., Koh, P. W., & Joshi, R. M. (2020). Teacher education: The foundation of the Big Five of reading instruction. Reading League Journal, 1(3), 41–44. Birch, S. L. (2016). Prevalence and profile of phonological and surface subgroups in college students with a history of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414554007 Bishop, D. V. M. (2009). Genes, cognition, and communication: Insights from neurodevelopmental disorders. Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-­6632.2009.04419.x Bishop, D. V. M., Adams, C. V., & Norbury, C. F. (2004). Using nonword repetition to distinguish genetic and environmental influences on early literacy development: A study of 6-­year-­old twins. American Journal of Medical Genetics: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 129, 94–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.30065 Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological Bulletin, 130, 858–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.130.6.858 Blachman, B. A., Tangel, D. M., Ball, E. W., & Black, R. (2019). Combining phonological awareness and word recognition instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(2), 19–22. Black, J. M., Tanaka, H., Stanley, L., Nagamine, M., Zakerani, N., Thurston, A., . . . Hoeft, F. (2012). Maternal history of reading difficulty is associated with reduced language-­related gray matter in beginning readers. NeuroImage, 59(3), 3021–3032. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.neuroimage.2011.10.024 Black, J. M., Xia, Z., & Hoeft, F. (2017). Neurobiological bases of reading disorder Part II: The importance of developmental considerations in typical and atypical reading. Language and Linguistics Compass, 11(10), e12252. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12252 Blackhurst, A. E. (2005). Historical perspectives about technology applications for people with disabilities. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 3–29). Knowledge By Design. Blevins, W. (2001). Building fluency: Lessons and strategies for reading success. Scholastic Professional Books. Blevins, W. (2023). Phonics from A to Z: A practical guide (4th ed.). Scholastic. Boder, E. (1971). Developmental dyslexia: Prevailing diagnostic concepts and a new diagnostic approach. In H. R. Myklebust (Ed.). Progress in learning disabilities, Vol. II, (pp. 293–321). Grune & Stratton. Bonifacci, P., Montuschi, M., Lami, L., & Snowling, M. (2014). Parents of children with dyslexia: Cognitive, emotional and behavioural profile. Dyslexia, 20, 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.146 Borleffs, E., Maassen, B. A. M., Lyytinen, H., & Zwarts, F. (2019). Cracking the code: The impact of orthographic transparency and morphological-­syllabic complexity on reading and developmental dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. 2018.02534 Bouck, E. C., & Long, H. (2021). Assistive technology for students with disabilities: An updated snapshot. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(4), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643420914624 Bowers, P. G. (1993). Text reading and rereading: Determinants of fluency beyond word recognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(2), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969309547807 Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2010). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(5), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­009-­9172-­z Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­009-­9172-­z Boyer, N., & Ehri, L. C. (2011). Contribution of phonemic segmentation instruction with letters and articulation pictures to word reading and spelling in beginners. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 440–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.520778

348 REFERENCES

Brady, S. A. (2011). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post-­NRP research. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69–96). Psychology Press. Brady, S. (2019). The 2003 IDA definition of dyslexia: A call for changes. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(1), 15–21. Brady, S. (2020). A 2020 perspective on research findings on alphabetics (phoneme awareness and phonics): Implications for instruction. Reading League Journal, 1(3), 20–28. Braid, J., & Richlan, F. (2022). The functional neuroanatomy of reading intervention. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16, 921931. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnins.2022.921931 Brambati, S. M., Termine, C., Ruffino, M., Danna, M., Lanzi, G., Stella, G., Cappa, S. F., & Perani, D. (2006). Neuropsychological deficits and neural dysfunction in familial dyslexia. Brain Research, 1113(1), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.099 Brem, S., Maurer, U., Kronbichler, M., Schurz, M., Richlan, F., Blau, V., Reithler, J., van der Mark, S., Schulz, E., Bucher, K., Moll, K., Landerl, K., Martin, E., Goebel, R., Schulte-­Körne, G., Blomert, L., Wimmer, H., & Brandeis, D. (2020). Visual word form processing deficits driven by severity of reading impairments in children with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 18728. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-­020-­75111-­8 Brice, R., & Brice, A. (2009). Investigation of phonemic awareness and phonic skills in Spanish-­English bilingual and English-­speaking ­kindergarten students. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30, 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108327448 Brimo, K., Dinkler, L., Gillberg, C., Lichtenstein, P., Lundström, S., & Åsberg Johnels, J. (2021). The co-­occurrence of neurodevelopmental problems in dyslexia. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 27(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1681 Brizzolara, D., Chilosi, A., Cipriani, P., Di Filippo, G., Gasperini, F., Mazzotti, S., Pecini, C., & Zoccolotti, P. (2006). Do phonologic and rapid automatized naming deficits differentially affect dyslexic children with and without a history of language delay? A study of Italian dyslexic children. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 19(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnn.0000213902.59827.19 Broadbent, W. H. (1872). Cerebral mechanisms of speech and thought. Transactions of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, 55, 145–194. Broca, P. (1861). Remarks on the seat of the faculty of articulated language, following an observation of aphemia (loss of speech). Bulletin de la Société Anatomique, 6, 330–57. Brozo, W., & Puckett, K. (2009). Supporting content area literacy with technology. Allyn & Bacon. Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874–886. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0012-­1649.28.5.874 Brunswick, N. (2010). Unimpaired reading development and dyslexia across different languages. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 131–154). Psychology Press. Bryant, D. P., Smith, D. D., & Bryant, B. (2008). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Allyn & Bacon. Budin, S. G., Mather, N., & Cheesman, E. (2010). Examining promising practices to improve linguistic knowledge and inform practice in teacher education. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 36(4), 13–17. Burns, M. K., Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2023). Evaluating components of the active view of reading as intervention targets: Implications for social justice. School Psychology, 38(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000519 Caffarra, S., Karipidis, I. I., Yablonski, M., & Yeatman, J. D. (2021). Anatomy and physiology of word-­selective visual cortex: From visual features to lexical processing. Brain Structure & Function, 226(9), 3051–3065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-­021-­02384-­8 Calhoon, M. B., Greenberg, D., & Hunter, C. V. (2010). A comparison of standardized spelling assessments: Do they measure similar orthographic qualities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 159–170. Cao, M., Huang, H., Peng, Y., Dong, Q., & He, Y. (2016). Toward developmental connectomics of the human brain. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, 10, 25. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2016.00025 Capin, P., Hall, C., & Vaughn, S. (2020). Evidence-­based practices in the treatment of reading disabilities among English learners. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(2), 26–31. Caravolas, M. (2007). The nature and causes of dyslexia in different languages. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 336–355). Blackwell. Caravolas, M. (2022). Reading and reading disorders in alphabetic orthographies. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 327–352). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch15. Caravolas, M., Volín, J., & Hulme, C. (2005). Phoneme awareness is a key component of alphabetic literacy skills in consistent and inconsistent orthographies: Evidence from Czech and English children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(2), 107–139. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.04.003 Cárdenas-­Hagan, E. (2019). Dyslexia identification within a response to instruction and intervention model. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(1), 35–39. Cárdenas-­Hagan, E. (2020). Literacy foundations for English learners: A comprehensive guide to evidence-­based instruction. Brookes Publishing. Cárdenas-­Hagan, E. (2022, November). Assessment and treatment of dyslexia among English learners [Conference session]. International Dyslexia Association, San Antonio, TX, United States. Carioti, D., Masia, M. F., Travellini, S., & Berlingeri, M. (2021). Orthographic depth and developmental dyslexia: A meta-­analytic study. Annals of Dyslexia, 71(3), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­021-­00226-­0 Carlisle, J. (2004). Morphological processes that influence learning to read. In A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 318–339). Guilford.

REFERENCES  349

Caron, C., & Rutter, M. (1991). Comorbidity in child psychopathology: Concepts, issues, and research strategies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32, 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­7610.1991.tb00350.x Carreker, S. (2005). Teaching reading: Accurate decoding and fluency. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed., pp. 141–182). Brookes Publishing. Carreker, S. (2018a). Teaching reading: Accurate decoding. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (3rd ed., pp. 338–388). Brookes Publishing. Carreker, S. (2018b). Teaching spelling. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (3rd ed., pp. 389–434). Brookes Publishing. Carrion-­Castillo, A., Franke, B., & Fisher, S. E. (2013). Molecular genetics of dyslexia: An overview. Dyslexia, 19(4), 214–240. https://doi. org/10.1002/dys.1464 Carver, R. P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory. Academic Press. Casanova, M. F., El-­Baz, A., Elnakib, A., Giedd, J., Rumsey, J. M., Williams, E. L., & Switala, A. E. (2010). Corpus callosum shape analysis with application to dyslexia. Translational Neuroscience, 1(2), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10134-­010-­0017-­8 Cassidy, B. (2019). Cassidy urges full implementation of First Step Act dyslexia screening. https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-­ releases/cassidy-­urges-­full-­implementation of-­first-­step-­act-­dyslexia-­screening CAST (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47, 149–180. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020965331768 Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271 Catts, H. W., & Adlof, S. (2011). Phonological and other language deficits associated with dyslexia. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 137–151). Psychology Press. Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., Hogan, T. P., & Ellis-­Weismer, S. E. (2005). Are specific language impairment and dyslexia distinct disorders? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1378–1396. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-­4388(2005/096) Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, Z., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-­ based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38–50. https://doi. org/10.1044/0161-­1461(2001/004) Catts, H. W., & Petscher, Y. A. (2022). Cumulative risk and resilience model of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211037062 Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved from https://design.ncsu.edu/research/center-­ for-­ universal-­design/ Center for Universal Design in Education. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/doit/programs/center-­universal-­design-­ education/overview Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Harcourt-­Brace. Chambers, D., Jones, P., Reese, L., & Wilcox, C. (2022). Teachers’ perspectives of what works: Implementation of AT for students with disabilities. Assistive Technology, 34(3), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­019-­09997-­w Chambre, S., Ehri, L., & Nest, (2020). M. Phonological decoding enhances orthographic facilitation of vocabulary learning in first graders. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 33(5), 1133–1162. Chard, D. J., & Dickson, S. V. (1999). Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guidelines. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129903400502 Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219402 0350050101 Cho, E., Dahl-­Leonard, K., Kehoe, K., Capin, P., Hall, C., & Solari, E. (2023). Motivational practices in reading interventions for students with or at risk for dyslexia: Literature synthesis and meta-­analysis. Topics in Language Disorders, 43(2), 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1097/ TLD.0000000000000312 Cho, Y., Kim, D., & Jeong, S. (2021). Evidence-­based reading interventions for English language learners: A multilevel meta-­analysis. Heliyon, 7(9), e07985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07985 Christo, C., Davis, J., & Brock, S. E. (2009). Identifying, assessing, and treating dyslexia at school. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-­0-­387-­88600-­8 Christodoulou, J. A., Del Tufo, S. N., Lymberis, J., Saxler, P. K., Ghosh S. S., Triantafyllou, C., Whitfield-­Gabrieli, S., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2014). Brain bases of reading fluency in typical reading and impaired fluency in dyslexia. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e100552. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100552 Clayton, F. J., West, G., Sears, C., Hulme, C., & Lervåg, A. (2019). A longitudinal study of early reading development: Letter-­sound knowledge, phoneme awareness and RAN, but not letter-­sound integration, predict variations in reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1622546 Clemens, N. H., & Vaughn, S. (2023). Understandings and misunderstandings about dyslexia: Introduction to the special issue. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.499. Clements, S., & Peters, J. (1962). Minimal brain dysfunctions in the school-­age child: Diagnosis and treatment. Archives of General Psychiatry, 6(3), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1962.01710210001001

350 REFERENCES

Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Lehéricy, S., Dehaene-­Lambertz, G., Hénaff, M. A., & Michel, F. (2000). The visual word form area: Spatial and temporal characterization of an initial stage of reading in normal subjects and posterior splitbrain patients. Brain, 123, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.2.291 Cohen, R. A., Mather, N., Schneider, D. A., & White, J. M. (2017). A comparison of schools: Teacher knowledge of explicit code-­based reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 30, 653–690. https://doi.org//10.1007/s11145-­016-­9694-­0 Colenbrander, D., Miles, K. P., & Ricketts, J. (2019). To see or not to see: How does seeing spellings support vocabulary learning? Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 609–628. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-­VOIA-­18-­0135 Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151–216). Academic Press. Coltheart, M. (1980). Reading phonological recording and deep dyslexia. In M. Coltheart, K. Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia (pp. 197–226). Routledge & Kegan Paul. Coltheart, M. (2007). Modeling reading: The dual-­route approach. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 6–23). Blackwell. Coltheart, M., Patterson, K., & Marshall, J. C. (1980). Deep dyslexia. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Conant, L. L., Liebenthal, E., Desai, A., Seidenberg, M. S., & Binder, J. R. (2020). Differential activation of the visual word form area d­ uring auditory phoneme perception in youth with dyslexia. Neuropsychologia, 146, 107543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2020.107543 Conrad, N. J., Kennedy, K., Saoud, W., Scallion, L., & Hanusiak, L. (2019). Establishing word representations through reading and spelling: Comparing degree of orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9817.12256 Cope, N., Harold, D., Hill, G., Moskvina, V., Stevenson, J., Holmans, P., Owen, M. J., O’Donovan, M. C., & Williams, J. (2005). Strong evidence that KIAA0319 on chromosome 6p is a susceptibility gene for developmental dyslexia. American Journal of Human Genetics, 76(4), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1086/429131 Cormier, D. C., McGrew, K. S., Bulut, O., & Funamoto, A. (2017). Revisiting the relations between the WJ-­IV measures of Cattell-­Horn-­ Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement during the school-­age years. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(8), 731–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916659208 Cowan, N., Hogan, T. P., Alt, M., Green, S., Cabbage, K. L., Brinkley, S., & Gray, S. (2017). Short-­term memory in childhood dyslexia: Deficient serial order in multiple modalities. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 23(3), 209–233. https://doi. org/10.1002/dys.1557 Crepeau-­Hobson, F., & Bianco, M. (2011). Identification of gifted students with learning disabilities in a response-­to-­intervention era. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20528 Crisp, J., Howard, D., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2011). More evidence for a continuum between phonological and deep dyslexia: Novel data from three measures of direct orthography-­to-­phonology translation. Aphasiology, 25, 615–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2010 .541470 Crisp, J., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2006). Unlocking the nature of the phonological deep dyslexia continuum: The keys to reading aloud are in phonology and semantics. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.3.348 Critchley, M. (1964). Developmental dyslexia. William Heinemann. Crystal, D. (2012). Spell it out: The curious, enthralling, and extraordinary story of English spelling. St. Martin’s Press. Dandache, S., Wouters, J., & Ghesquière, P. (2014). Development of reading and phonological skills of children at family risk for dyslexia: A longitudinal analysis from kindergarten to sixth grade. Dyslexia, 20(4), 305–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1482 Daniel, J., Capin, P., & Steinle, P. (2021). A synthesis of the sustainability of remedial reading intervention effects for struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(3), 170–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420972184 Darling-­Hammond, L., Chung Wei, R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council. Davies, R., & Cuentos, F. (2010). Reading acquisition and dyslexia in Spanish. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 155–180). Psychology Press. Davis, C. J., Gayán, J., Knopik, V. S., Smith, S. D., Cardon, L. R., Pennington, B. F., Olson, R. K., & DeFries, J. C. (2001). Etiology of reading difficulties and rapid naming: The Colorado Twin Study of Reading Disability. Behavior Genetics, 31(6), 625–635. https://doi.org/ 10.1023/a:1013305730430 Dawson, K., Antonenko, P., Lane, H., & Zhu, J. (2019). Assistive technologies to support students with dyslexia. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918794027 De Benedictis, A., Marras, C. E., Petit, L., & Sarubbo, S. (2021). The inferior fronto-­occipital fascicle: A century of controversies from anatomy theaters to operative neurosurgery. Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences, 65(6), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-­5616.21.05360-­1 DeFries, J. C., Singer, S. M., Foch, T. T., & Lewitter, F. I. (1978). Familial nature of reading disability. British Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.132.4.361 de Groot, B., van den Bos, K., Minnaert, A., & van der Meulen, B. (2015). Phonological processing and word reading in typically developing and reading disabled children: Severity matters. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.973028

REFERENCES  351

Dehaene, S. (2010). Reading in the brain. Penguin Books. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(6), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.003 Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M., & Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004 Dejerine, J. (1891). Sur un cas de cécité verbale avec agraphie, suivi d’autopsie. C. R. Société du Biologie, 43, 197–201. Dejerine, J. (1892). Contribution àl’étude anatomo-­pathologique et clinique des différentes variétés de cécitéverbale. Mémoires de la Sociétéde Biologie, 4, 61–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/neucas/6.4.275 de Jong, P. F., & Share, D. L. (2007). Orthographic learning during oral and silent reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 55–71. de Jong, P. F., & Van der Leij, A. (2003). Developmental changes in the manifestation of a phonological deficit in dyslexic children learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.95.1.22 Demontis, D., Walters, R. K., Martin, J., Mattheisen, M., Als, T. D., Agerbo, E., Baldursson, G., Belliveau, R., Bybjerg-­Grauholm, J., Bækvad-­Hansen, M., Cerrato, F., Chambert, K., Churchhouse, C., Dumont, A., Eriksson, N., Gandal, M., Goldstein, J. I., Grasby, K. L., Grove, J., Gudmundsson, O. O., . . . Neale, B. M. (2019). Discovery of the first genome-­wide significant risk loci for attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder. Nature Genetics, 51(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-­018-­0269-­7 Denckla, M. B., & Cutting, L. E. (1999). History and significance of rapid automatized naming. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 29–42. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11881-­999-­0018-­9 Denckla, M. B., & Mahone, E. M. (2018). Executive function: Binding together the definitions of attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Executive function in education: From theory to practice (2nd ed., pp. 5–24). Guilford. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid “automatized naming” (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-­3932(76)90075-­0 Denton, C. A., & Al Otaiba, S. (2011). Teaching word identification to students with reading difficulties and disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(7), 2–16. Deutsch, G. K., Dougherty, R. F., Bammer, R., Siok, W. T., Gabrieli, J. D., & Wandell, B. (2005). Children’s reading performance is correlated with white matter structure measured by diffusion tensor imaging. Cortex: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 41(3), 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-­9452(08)70272-­7 Devoto, F., Carioti, D., Danelli, L., & Berlingeri, M. (2022). A meta-­analysis of functional neuroimaging studies on developmental dyslexia across European orthographies: The ADOD model. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(3), 285–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/232 73798.2021.1970200 DIBELS. (2010). Benchmark goals. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/ Dorofeeva, S. V., Laurinavichyute, A., Reshetnikova, V., Akhutina, T. V., Tops, W., & Dragoy, O. (2020). Complex phonological tasks ­predict reading in 7 to 11 years of age typically developing Russian children. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(4), 516–535. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-­9817.12327 Doust, C., Fontanillas, P., Eising, E., Gordon, S. D., Wang, Z., Alagöz, G., Molz, B., 23andMe Research Team, Quantitative Trait Working Group of the GenLang Consortium, Pourcain, B. S., Francks, C., Marioni, R. E., Zhao, J., Paracchini, S., Talcott, J. B., Monaco, A. P., Stein, J. F., Gruen, J. R., Olson, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., . . . Luciano, M. (2022). Discovery of 42 genome-­wide significant loci associated with dyslexia. Nature Genetics, 54(11), 1621–1629. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-­022-­01192-­y Duff, D. M., Hendricks, A. E., Fitton, L., & Adlof, S. M. (2023). Reading and math achievement in children with dyslexia, developmental language disorder, or typical development: Achievement gaps persist from second through fourth grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(5), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221105515 Duff, F. J., & Clarke, P. J. (2010). Practitioner review: Reading disorders: What are the effective interventions and how should they be implemented and evaluated? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­ 7610.2010.012310.x Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411 Ebejer, J. L., Coventry, W. L., Byrne, B., Willcutt, E. G., Olson, R. K., Corley, R., & Samuelsson, S. (2010). Genetic and environmental influences on inattention, hyperactivity-­impulsivity, and reading: Kindergarten to Grade 2. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903150642 Eden, G. F., & Vaidya, C. J. (2008). ADHD and developmental dyslexia: Two pathways leading to impaired learning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145, 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1416.022 Edwards, A. A., Steacy, L. M., Siegelman, N., Rigobon, V. M., Kearns, D. M., Rueckl, J. G., & Compton, D. L. (2022). Unpacking the unique relationship between set for variability and word reading development: Examining word-­and child-­level predictors of performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1242–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000696 Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology and mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32(9), 1–24. Edyburn, D. L. (2006). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and Leading with Technology, 34(1), 20–23.

352 REFERENCES

Edyburn, D. L. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 7–24. https://doi/10.1177/001440291308000107 Edyburn, D. L. (2022). Special education technology research: What have we learned lately? Presentation to Closing the Gap. Retrieved from https://uwm.kbd.on-­rev.com/fall22/ctg/index.html Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-­phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Erlbaum. Ehri, L. C. (2000). Learning to read and learning to spell: Two sides of a coin. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 19–36. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/00011363-­200020030-­00005 Ehri, L. C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology: Monograph Series I, 7–28. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s1532799xssr0902_4 Ehri, L. C. (2006). Alphabetics instruction helps students learn to read. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 649–677). Erlbaum. Ehri, L. C. (2007). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 135–154). Blackwell. Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356 Ehri, L. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334. Ehri, L. C. (2022). What teachers need to know and do to teach letter–sounds, phonemic awareness, word reading, and phonics. Reading Teacher, 76, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2095 Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1979). The mnemonic value of orthography among beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.71.1.26 Ellis, C., Holston, S., Drake, G., Putman, H., Swisher, A., & Peske, H. (2023). Teacher Prep Review: Strengthening Elementary Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/review/standard/ Reading-­Foundations Elnakib, A., El-­Baz, A., Casanova, M. F., Gimel’farb, G., & Switala, A. E. (2010, April). Image-­based detection of corpus callosum variability for more accurate discrimination between dyslexic and normal brains. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro (pp. 109–112). IEEE. Engelmann, S. (1969). Preventing reading failure in the primary grades. Science Research Associates. Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge. Erbeli, F., He, K., Cheek, C., Rice, M., & Qian, X. (2023). Exploring the machine learning paradigm in determining risk for reading disability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 27(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2115914 Everatt, J., Ovampo, D., Veii, K., Nenopoulou S., Smythe I., al Mannai, H., & Elbeheri G. (2010). Dyslexia in biscriptal readers. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 221–245). Psychology Press. Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-­114publ95.pdf Farrall, M., & Ashby, M. J. (2019). The role of assessment in structured literacy. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(3), 31–35. Feifer, S. (2011). How SLD manifests in reading. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 21–41). John Wiley & Sons. Fernald, G. M. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. McGraw-­Hill. Fernald, G. M., & Keller, H. (1921). The effect of kinaesthetic factors in the development of word recognition in the case of non-­readers. Journal of Educational Research, 4, 355–377. Ferrer, E., Shaywitz, B. A., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2010). Uncoupling of reading and IQ over time: Empirical evidence for a definition of dyslexia. Psychological Science, 21(1), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354084 Fiez, J. A., & Peterson, S. E. (1998). Neuroimaging studies of word reading. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 914–921. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.3.914 Figueredo, L. (2006). Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-­language influence on the development of English-­as-­a-­ second-­language spelling skill. Reading and Writing, 19, 873–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­006-­9014-­1 Finn, E. S., Shen, X., Holahan, J. M., Scheinost, D., Lacadie, C., Papademetris, X., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., & Constable, R. T. (2014). Disruption of functional networks in dyslexia: A whole-­brain, data driven analysis of connectivity. Biological Psychiatry, 76(5), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.08.031 Fischbach, A., Könen, T., Rietz, C. S., & Hasselhorn, M. (2014). What is not working in working memory of children with literacy disorders? Evidence from a three-­year-­longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 27, 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­013-­9444-­5 Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2018). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford.

REFERENCES  353

Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.003 Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-­group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 16, 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-­8982.00020 Frackowiak, R., Friston, K., Frith, C. J., Dolan, R., Price, C., Zeki, S., Ashbury, J. T., & Penny, W. D. (2004). Human brain function (2nd ed.). Academic Press, Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­264841-­0.X5000-­8 Francis, D. J. (2019). Identification, classification, and treatment of reading and language disabilities in Spanish-­speaking EL students: Introduction to the special issue. In D. J. Francis (Ed.), Identification, classification, and treatment of reading and language disabilities in Spanish-­speaking EL students. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 166, 7–14. Francis, D. J., Kulesz, P. A., & Benoit, J. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904 Fraser, J., Goswami, U., & Conti-­Ramsden, G. (2010). Dyslexia and specific language impairment: The role of phonology and auditory processing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 8–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903242068 Friedman, R. B. (1996). Recovery from deep alexia to phonological alexia: Points on a continuum. Brain and Language, 52, 114–128. https:// doi.org/10.1006/brln.1996.0006 Frith, U. (1999). Paradoxes in the definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 5, 192–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-­ 0909(199912) 5:43.3.CO;2-­E Frost, R. (2007). Orthographic systems and skilled word recognition processes in reading. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 336–355). Blackwell. Frye, R. E., Liederman, J., Malmberg, B., McLean, J., Strickland, D., & Beauchamp, M. S. (2010). Surface area accounts for the relation of gray matter volume to reading-­related skills and history of dyslexia. Cerebral Cortex (New York, NY: 1991), 20(11), 2625–2635. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq010 Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Burish, P. (2000). Peer-­assisted learning strategies: An evidence-­based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1502_4 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27–48. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Text fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3 Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Using CBM for progress monitoring. Retrieved from https://www.studentprogress.org Galaburda, A. M. (1989). Ordinary and extraordinary brain development: Anatomical variation in developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656901 Galuschka, K., Görgen, R., Kalmar, J., Haberstroh, S., Schmalz, X., & Schulte-­Körne, G. (2020). Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: A meta-­analysis and systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2 019.1659794 Garnett, K. (2018). Fluency in learning to read: Conceptions, misconceptions, learning disabilities, and instructional moves. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (3rd ed., pp. 467–500). Brookes Publishing. Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for teachers. Sage. Gathercole, S. E., Willi, C. S., Baddeley, A. D., & Emslie, H. (1994). The children’s test of nonword repetition: A test of phonological ­working memory. Memory, 2, 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658219408258940 Geiger, G., & Lettvin J. Y. (1987). Peripheral vision in persons with dyslexia. New England Journal of Medicine, 316, 1238–1243. https://doi. org/10.1056/NEJM198705143162003 Genovese, C., Lazar, N., & Nichols, T. (2002). Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate. NeuroImage, 15, 870–878. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198705143162003 Gentry, J. R. (1984). Developmental aspects of learning to spell. Academic Therapy, 20, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345128402000102 Georgiou, G. K., Martinez, D., Vieira, A. P.A., & Guo, K. (2021). Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-­analysis. Annals of Dyslexia, 71, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­021-­00220-­6 Georgitsi, M., Dermitzakis, I., Soumelidou, E., & Bonti, E. (2021). The polygenic nature and complex genetic architecture of specific learning disorder. Brain Sciences, 11(5), 631. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11050631 Gernsbacher, M. A., Soicher, R. N., & Becker-­Blease, K. A. (2020). Four empirically based reasons not to administer time-­limited tests. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000232 Gerst, E. H., Cirino, P. T., Macdonald, K. T., Miciak, J., Yoshida, H., Woods, S. P., & Gibbs, M. C. (2021). The structure of processing speed in children and its impact on reading. Journal of Cognition and Development, 22(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2020.1862121 Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-­Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-­analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19345747.2019.1689591

354 REFERENCES

Geschwind, N., & Levitsky, W. (1968). Human brain: Left-­right asymmetries in temporal speech region. Science, 161, 186–187. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.161.3837.186 Geva, E., & Ramírez, G. (2015). Focus on reading. Oxford University Press. Gialluisi, A., Andlauer, T. F. M., Mirza-­Schreiber, N., Moll, K., Becker, J., Hoffmann, P., Ludwig, K. U., Czamara, D., St Pourcain, B., Brandler, W., Honbolygó, F., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Huguet, G., Morris, A. P., Hulslander, J., Willcutt, E. G., DeFries, J. C., Olson, R. K., Smith, S.D.,. . .Schulte-­Körne, G. (2019). Genome-­wide association scan identifies new variants associated with a cognitive predictor of dyslexia. Translational Psychiatry, 9(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-­019-­0402-­0 Gialluisi, A., Andlauer, T. F. M., Mirza-­Schreiber, N., Moll, K., Becker, J., Hoffmann, P., Ludwig, K. U., Czamara, D., Pourcain, B. S., Honbolygó, F., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Huguet, G., Chaix, Y., Iannuzzi, S., Demonet, J. F., Morris, A. P., Hulslander, J., Willcutt, E. G., DeFries, J. C., . . . Schulte-­Körne, G. (2021). Genome-­wide association study reveals new insights into the heritability and genetic correlates of developmental dyslexia. Molecular Psychiatry, 26(7), 3004–3017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-­020-­00898-­x Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1973). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Educators Publishing Service. Glass, G. G. (1973). Teaching decoding as separate from reading. Easier to Learn, Adelphi University. Glass, G. G. (1976). Glass-­Analysis for decoding only teacher guide. Easier to Learn, Adelphi University. Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R. (2007). Understanding and managing children’s classroom behavior: Creating sustainable, resilient schools (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Goldstein, S., & Brooks, R. D. (2021). Tenacity in children: Nurturing the seven instincts for lifetime success. Springer. Gonzalez-­Frey, S. M., & Ehri, L. C. (2021). Connected phonation is more effective than segmented phonation for teaching beginning readers to decode unfamiliar words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(3), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1776290 Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance of decision-­making utility of a continuum of fluency-­based ­indicators of foundational reading skills for third-­grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S1532799XSSR0503_4 Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-­analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­010-­0041-­x Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2013). A meta-­analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school-­age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791 Goswami, U. (2008). The development of reading across languages. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145(1), 1–12. https://doi. org/10.1196/annals.1416.018 Goswami, U. (2010). Phonology, reading and reading difficulty. In K. Hall, U. Goswami, C. Harrison, S. Ellis, & J. Soler (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on learning to read: Culture, cognition and pedagogy (pp. 103–116). Routledge. Goswami, U., Wang, H. L. S., Cruz, A., Fosker, T., Mead, N., & Huss, M. (2011). Language-­universal sensory deficits in developmental dyslexia: English, Spanish, and Chinese. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21453 Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. https://doi. org/10.1177/074193258600700104 Grace, K. (2022). Phonics and spelling through phoneme-­grapheme mapping. Really Great Reading. Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-­analytic review. Reading and Writing, 27, 1703–1743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­014-­9517-­0. Gray, S., Fox, A., Green, S., Alt, M., Hogan, T., Petscher, Y., & Cowan, N. (2019). Working memory profiles of children with dyslexia, developmental language disorder, or both. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 2019_JSLHR-­L-­18-­0148. Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Genetic bases of developmental dyslexia: A capsule review of heritability estimates. Enfance, 56, 273–288. https://doi.org/10.3917/enf.563.0273 Grigorenko, E. L. (2005). A conservative meta-­analysis of linkage and linkage-­association studies of developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 285–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0903_6 Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). At the height of fashion: What genetics can teach us about neurodevelopmental disabilities. Current Opinion in Neurology, 22, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0b013e3283292414 Groen, M. A., Veenendaal, N. J, & Verhoeven, L. (2019). The role of prosody in reading comprehension: Evidence from poor comprehenders. Journal of Research in Reading, 42, 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9817.12133 Haft, S. L., Myers, C. A., & Hoeft, F. (2016). Socio-­emotional and cognitive resilience in children with reading disabilities. Current Opinion in Behavorial Sciences, 10, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.06.005. Hall, C., Dahl-­Leonard, K., Cho, E., Solari, E. J., Capin, P., Conner, C., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., Vargas, I., Richmond, C. L., & Kehoe, K. F. (2023). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-­analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477 Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1–67). Erlbaum.

REFERENCES  355

Hallgren, B. (1950). Specific dyslexia (congenital word-­blindness): A clinical and genetic study. Acta Psychiatrica et Neurologica Supplement, 65, 1–287. Hallowell, E. M. (2003). Life and death and reading words. Perspectives, 29(3), 6–7. Hamilton, L. G., & Hayiou-­Thomas, M. E. (2022). The foundations of literacy. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 125–147). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch6 Hammill, D. (1993). A brief look at the learning disabilities movement in the United States. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302600502. Hammerschmidt-­Snidarich, S. M., Maki, K. E., & Adams, S. R. (2019). Evaluating the effects of repeated reading and continuous reading using a standardized dosage of words read. Psychology in the Schools, 56(5), 635–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/PITS.22241 Hancock, R., Pugh, K. R., & Hoeft, F. (2017). Neural noise hypothesis of developmental dyslexia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(6), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.03.008 Hanley, J. R. (2017). Is there just one dyslexic reader? Evidence for the existence of distinct dyslexic sub-­groups. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 4(4), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-­017-­0125-­y Hannula-­Jouppi, K., Kaminen-­Ahola, N., Taipale, M., Eklund, R., Nopola-­Hemmi, J., Kääriäinen, H., & Kere, J. (2005). The axon guidance receptor gene ROBO1 is a candidate gene for developmental dyslexia. PLoS Genetics, 1(4), e50. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pgen.0010050 Harper, D., Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.etymonline.com. Accessed February 2023. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Brookes Publishing. Hart, S. A., & Petrill, S. A. (2009). The genetics and environments of reading: A behavioral genetic perspective. In Y. K. Kim (Ed.), Handbook of behavior genetics (pp. 113–123). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­0-­387-­76727-­7_8 Hartwigsen, G., Baumgaertner, A., Price, C. J., Koehnke, M., Ulmer, S., & Siebner, H. R. (2010). Phonological decisions require both the left and right supramarginal gyri. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(38), 16494–16499. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008121107 Hasbrouck, J. (2006, Summer). Drop everything and read—­but how? American Educator, 30, 22–31. Hasbrouck, J. (2020a). An update to the National Reading Panel Report: What we know about fluency in 2020. Reading League Journal, 1(3), 29–31. Hasbrouck, J. (2020b). Conquering dyslexia: A guide to early detection and intervention for teachers and families. Benchmark Education. Hasbrouck, J., & Glaser, D. (2019). Reading fluency: Understand. Assess. Teach. Benchmark Education Company. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No. 1702). Behavioral Research & Teaching, University of Oregon. Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Explicit phoneme training combined with phonic reading instruction helps young children at risk of reading failure. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(2), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­7610.2004.00225.x Hawelka, S., & Wimmer, H. (2005). Impaired visual processing of multielement arrays is associated with increased number of eye movements in dyslexic reading. Vision Research, 45, 855–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.007 Hawke, J. L., Olson, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., Wadsworth, S. J., & DeFries, J. C. (2009). Gender ratios for reading difficulties. Dyslexia, 15, 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.389 Hayden, D. (2011, April 11). Quoted in Arizona State University students win top U.S. spot at Imagine Cup, the “world championships of technology,” with assistive note-­taking solution. Retrieved from https://news.microsoft.com/2011/04/11/arizona-­state-­university-­students-­ win-­top-­u-­s-­spot-­at-­imagine-­cup-­the-­world-­championships-­of-­technology-­with-­assistive-­note-­taking-­solution/ Hays, E., McCallum, S. R., & Bell, S. M. (2017). Academic outcomes in higher education for students screened as twice-­exceptional: Gifted with a learning disability in math or reading. School Psychologist, 71(3), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592500 Heckelman, R. G. (1969). A neurological-­impress method of remedial-­reading instruction. Academic Therapy, 4, 277–282. Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-­scoring individuals. Science, 269(5220), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7604277 Hegge, T. G., Kirk, S. A., & Kirk, W. D. (1936). Remedial reading drills. Wahr. Heggie, L., & Wade-­Woolley, L. (2017). Reading longer words: Insights into multisyllabic word reading. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2, 86. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp2.SIG1.86. Hegland, S. S. (2021). Beneath the surface of words: What English spelling reveals and why it matters. Learning About Spelling. Heim, S., Eickhoff, S. B., Ischebeck, A. K., Friederici, A. D., Stephan, K. E., & Amunts, K. (2009). Effective connectivity of the left BA 44, BA 45, and inferior temporal gyrus during lexical and phonological decisions identified with DCM. Human Brain Mapping, 30(2), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-­19540 Heller, R., Stanley, D., Yekutieli, D., Rubin, N., & Benjamini, Y. (2006). Cluster-­based analysis of FMRI data. NeuroImage, 33(2), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.04.233 Henderson, E. H. (1990). Teaching spelling (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

356 REFERENCES

Henderson, E. H., & Beers, J. (Eds.) (1980). Developmental and cognitive aspects of learning to spell: A reflection of word knowledge. International Reading Association. Henderson, E. H., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal spelling instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. Elementary School Journal, 86, 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/461451 Henderson, V. W. (2014). Alexia. In M. J. Aminoff & R. B. Daroff (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Neurological Sciences (2nd ed.). (pp. 110–112). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-­12-­226870-­9/00412-­3 Henry, M. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding & spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing. Henry, M. K. (2019). Morphemes matter: A framework for instruction. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(2), 23–26. Hensler, B. S., Schatschneider, C., Taylor, J., & Wagner, R. K. (2010). Behavioral genetic approach to the study of dyslexia. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 31(7), 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181ee4b70 Herbet, G., Zemmoura, I., & Duffau, H. (2018). Functional anatomy of the inferior longitudinal fasciculus: From historical reports to current hypotheses. Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, 12, 77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2018.00077 Herron, J. (2023, June 1). Letter sounds and then letter names or vice versa? Retrieved from: [email protected] Herron, J. (2022). Print-­to-­speech and speech-­to-­print: Mapping early literacy. Retrieved from: https://www.readingrockets.org/article/ print-­speech-­and-­speech-­print-­mapping-­early-­literacy Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 8(5), 393–402. https://doi. org/10.1038/nrn2113 Hill, H. C., & Papay, J. P. (2022). Building better PL: How to strengthen teacher learning. The Research Partnership for Professional Learning. Hinshelwood, J. (1902a). Congenital word-­blindness with reports of two cases. John Bale, Sons & Danielsson, Ltd. Hinshelwood, J. (1902b). Four cases of word-­blindness. The Lancet, 159(4093), 358–363. Hinshelwood, J. (1917). Congenital word-­blindness. Lewis. Hintze, J. M., & Silberglitt, B. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-­CBM and high-­ stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372–386. Ho, C. S. H., & Bryant, P. (1997). Development of phonological awareness of Chinese children in Hong Kong. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 109. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/psychology/journal/10936 Hoeft, F., Hernandez, A., McMillon, G., Taylor-­Hill, H., Martindale, J. L., Meyler, A., Keller, T. A., Siok, W. T., Deutsch, G. K., Just, M. A., Whitfield-­Gabrieli, S., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2006). Neural basis of dyslexia: a comparison between dyslexic and nondyslexic children equated for reading ability. The Journal of Neuroscience: The official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 26(42), 10700–10708. https://doi. org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4931-­05.2006 Hoeft, F., McCandliss, B. D., Black, J. M., Gantman, A., Zakerani, N., Hulme, C., Lyytinen, H., Whitfield-­Gabrieli, S., Glover, G. H., Reiss, A. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2011). Neural systems predicting long-­term outcome in dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(1), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008950108 Hoeft, F., McCardle, P., & Pugh, K. (2015, March). The myths and truths of dyslexia in different writing systems. International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/the-­myths-­and-­truths-­of-­dyslexia/ Hoeft, F., Meyler, A., Hernandez, A., Juel, C., Taylor-Hill, H., Martindale, J. L., McMillon, G., Kolchugina, G., Black, J. M., Faizi, A., Deutsch, G. K., Siok, W. T., Reiss, A. L., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., & Gabrieli, J. D­. (2007). Functional and morphometric brain dissociation between dyslexia and reading ability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(10), 4234–4239. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609399104 hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799 Hoover, W.A., & Tunmer, W.E. (2018). The simple view of reading: Three assessments of its adequacy. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518773154 Hossain, B., Bent, S., & Hendren, R. (2021). The association between anxiety and academic performance in children with reading disorder: A longitudinal cohort study. Dyslexia, 27, 342–354. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1680 Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-­based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Wadsworth. Hudson, R. F., High, L., & Al Otaiba, S. (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell us. Reading Teacher, 60, 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.6.1 Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? Reading Teacher, 58, 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.8.1 Hudson, A., Koh, P. W., Moore, K., & Binks-­Cantrell, E. (2020). Fluency interventions for elementary students with reading difficulties: A synthesis of research from 2000–2019. Education Sciences, 10, 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10030052 Hulme, C., Goetz, K., Gooch, D., Adams, J., & Snowling, M. J. (2007). Paired associate learning, phoneme awareness and learning to read. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.09.002 Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Wiley-­Blackwell.

REFERENCES  357

Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2016). Reading disorders and dyslexia. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 28(6), 731–735. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000411 Hultquist, A. M. (1997). Orthographic processing abilities of adolescents with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 47, 89–109. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990). International Dyslexia Association. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Author. International Dyslexia Association. (2018). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Author. International Dyslexia Association. (2019). Educator training initiatives brief. Structured literacy: An introductory guide. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/ International Dyslexia Association. (2020). Gifted and dyslexic: Identifying and instructing the twice exceptional student. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/ International Dyslexia Association. (2022). Building phonemic awareness: Know what matters. Retrieved from https://dyslexialibrary.org/ wp-­content/uploads/file-­manager/public/2564/phoneme-­awareness-­final-­word-­6-­27-­22.pdf International Dyslexia Association. (2023). English learners and dyslexia. Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/english-­learners-­and-­dyslexia/ International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for Reading Professionals—­Revised 2010. International Reading Association. Ivanova, M. V., Zhong, A., Turken, A., Baldo, J. V., & Dronkers, N. F. (2021). Functional contributions of the arcuate fasciculus to language processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 672665. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.672665 Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Epsin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Accuracy and fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 237–245. https://doi. org/10.1111/1540-­5826.00078 Jiménez, G. J. E., & Ramírez, S. G. (2002). Identifying subtypes of reading disability in the Spanish language. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5, 3–19. Retrieved from http://www.ucm.es/info/psi/docs/journal/ Johnson, A. P. (2016). 10 essential instructional elements for students with reading difficulties: A brain-­friendly approach. Corwin. Johnson, D. J., & Myklebust, H. R. (1967). Learning disabilities: Educational principles and practices. Grune & Stratton. Jones, M. W., Kuipers, J. R., & Thierry, G. (2016b). ERPs reveal the time-­course of aberrant visual-­phonological binding in developmental dyslexia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00071 Jones, M. W., Snowling, M. J., & Moll, K. (2016a). What automaticity deficit? Activation of lexical information by readers with dyslexia in a rapid automatized naming Stroop-­switch task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(3), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000186 Kail, R. (1991). Development of processing speed in childhood and adolescence. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 23, 151–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-­2407(08)60025-­7 Kail, R., & Hall, L. K. (1994). Processing speed, naming speed, and reading. Developmental Psychology, 30, 949–954. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0012-­1649.30.6.949 Kail, R., Hall, L. K., & Caskey, B. J. (1999). Processing speed, exposure to print, and naming speed. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716499002076 Kame’enui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don’t fix blame; fix the leaky roof. Reading Teacher, 46, 376–383. Kaminen, N., Hannula-Jouppi, K., Kestilä, M., Lahermo, P., Muller, K., Kaaranen, M., Myllyluoma, B., Voutilainen, A., Lyytinen, H., Nopola-Hemmi, J., & Kere, J. (2003). A genome scan for developmental dyslexia confirms linkage to chromosome 2p11 and ­suggests a new locus on 7q32. Journal of Medical Genetics, 40(5), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.40.5.340 Katzir, T., & Pare-­Blagoev, J. (2006). Applying cognitive neuroscience research to education: The case of literacy. Educational Psychologist, 41, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_6 Keelor, J. L., Creaghead, N. A., Silbert, N. H., Breit, A. D., & Horowitz-­Kraus, T. (2023). Impact of text-­to-­speech features on the reading comprehension of children with reading and language difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 73, 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11881-­023-­00281-­9 Kelly, R. E., Jr., & Hoptman, M. J. (2022). Replicability in brain imaging. Brain Sciences, 12(3), 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/ brainsci12030397 Khan Academy (2023). What are the community guidelines for Khanmingo? Retrieved May 8, 2023, from https://support.khanacademy.org/ hc/en-­us/articles/13860282793869-­What-­are-­the-­Community-­Guidelines-­for-­Khanmigo-­ Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. John Wiley & Sons. Kilpatrick, D. (2016). Equipped for reading success. Casey & Kirsch Publishers. Kilpatrick, D. (2018). Incorporating recent advances in understanding word-­reading skills into specific learning disability diagnoses: The case of orthographic mapping. In D. P. Flanagan & E. M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (4th ed., pp. 947–972). Guilford. Kilpatrick, D. (2020). How the phonology of speech is foundational for instant word recognition. Perspective on Language and Literacy, 46, 11–15. Kim, Y.-­S.G., & Petscher, Y. (2023). Do spelling and vocabulary improve classification accuracy of children’s reading difficulties over and above word reading? Reading Research Quarterly, 58, 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.496

358 REFERENCES

Kirby, P., Nation, K., Snowling, M., & Whyte, W. (2020). The problem of dyslexia: Historical perspectives. Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), 409–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1770020 Kirk, S. A. (1933). The influence of manual tracing on the learning of simple words in the case of subnormal boys. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24(7), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072354 Kirk, S. A. (1963). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities. In Anonymous, Proceedings of the conference on exploration into problems of the perceptually handicapped child. Perceptually Handicapped Children. Kirk, S. A. (1974, May 19). Correlates of reading disability. Speech delivered at II Congreso Hispano Americano de dificultades en el aprendizaje de la lectura y escritura. Mexico City, Mexico. Kirk, S. A. (1976). Personal perspective. In J. M Kaufman & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Teaching children with learning disabilities (pp. 238–269). Charles E. Merrill. Kirk, S. A., Blatt, B. B., & Morris, R. J. (1984). Introspection and prophecy. In Perspectives in special education: Personal orientations. Scott Foresman. Kirk, S. A., & Johnson, G. O. (1951). Educating the retarded child. Houghton Mifflin. Kirk, S. A., Kirk, W. D., Minskoff, E., Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (2007). Phonic reading lessons: Skills. Academic Therapy. Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (rev. ed.). University of Illinois Press. Kishchak, V., Ewert, A., Halczak, P., Kleka, P., & Szczerbiński, M. (2023). RAN and two languages: A meta-­analysis of the RAN-­reading relationship in bilingual children. Reading and Writing, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­023-­10441-­3 Klingberg, T., Hedehus, M., Temple, E., Salz, T., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Moseley, M. E., & Poldrack, R. A. (2000). Microstructure of temporo-­ parietal white matter as a basis for reading ability: Evidence from diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuron, 25, 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-­6273(00)80911-­3 Knoop-­van Campen, C. A. N., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). How phonological awareness mediates the relation between working memory and word reading efficiency in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia, 24(2), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1583 Koeda, T., Seki, A., Uchiyama, H., & Sadato, N. (2011). Dyslexia: Advances in clinical and imaging studies. Brain and Development, 33, 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2010.11.006 Korhonen, T. (1995). The persistence of rapid naming problems in children with reading disabilities: A nine year follow-­up. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949502800405 Kovas, Y., Haworth, C. M., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2007). The genetic and environmental origins of learning abilities and disabilities in the early school years. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72(3), vii–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­5834.2007.00439.x Koyama, M. S., Kelly, C., Shehzad, Z., Penesetti, D., Castellanos, F. X., & Milham, M. P. (2010). Reading networks at rest. Cerebral Cortex, 20(11), 2549–2559. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq005 Krafnick, A. J., Flowers, D. L., Napoliello, E. M., & Eden, G. F. (2011). Gray matter volume changes following reading intervention in dyslexic children. Neuroimage, 57(3), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.10.062 Krapohl, E., Rimfeld, K., Shakeshaft, N. G., Trzaskowski, M., McMillan, A., Pingault, J. B., Asbury, K., Harlaar, N., Kovas, Y., Dale, P. S., & Plomin, R. (2014). The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(42), 15273–15278. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408777111 Kroese, J. M., Hynd, G. W., Knight, D. F., Hiemenz, J. R., & Hall, J. (2000). Clinical appraisal of spelling ability and its relationship to phonemic awareness (blending, segmenting, elision and reversal), phonological memory and reading in reading disabled, ADHD and normal children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 13(1–2), 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008042109851 Kudo, M. F., Lussier, C. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2015). Reading disabilities in children: A selective meta-­analysis of the cognitive literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.01.002 Kuo, L. J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-­language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3 Kussmaul, A. (1877a). Disturbances of speech. In H. von Ziemssen (Ed.) & J. A. McCreery (Trans.), Cyclopedia of the practice of medicine (p. 595). William Wood. Kussmaul, A. (1877b). Die Störungen der Sprache. Ziemssen’s Handbuch d. Speciellen. Pathologie u. therapie, 12, 1–300. Kussmaul, A. (1877c). Word deafness and word blindness. In H. von Ziemssen (Ed.) & J. A. T. McCreery (Trans.), Cyclopedia of the practice of medicine (pp. 770–778). William Wood. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-­0285(74)90015-­2 Lam, S. S. T., Au, R. K. C., Leung, H. W. H., & Li-­Tsang, C. W. P. (2011). Chinese handwriting performance of primary school children with dyslexia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1745–1756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.03.001 Landerl, K., & Wimmer, H. (2008). Development of word reading fluency and orthographic spelling in a consistent orthography: An 8-­year follow-­up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.100.1.150 Lauterbach, A. A., Park, Y., & Lombardino, L. J. (2017). The roles of cognitive and language abilities in predicting decoding and reading comprehension: Comparisons of dyslexia and specific language impairment. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11881-­016-­0139-­x

REFERENCES  359

Lebel, C., Shaywitz, B., Holahan, J., Shaywitz, S., Marchione, K., & Beaulieu, C. (2010). Diffusion tensor imaging of reading ability in dysfluent and non-­impaired readers. Organization for Human Brain Mapping, 16th Annual Meeting, Barcelona, Spain. Lee, J., & Yoon, S. Y. (2017). The effects of repeated reading on reading fluency for students with reading disabilities: A meta-­analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194 Lee, L. W., & Wheldall, K. (2011). Acquisition of Malay word recognition skills: Lessons from low-­progress early readers. Dyslexia, 17, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.421 Leonard, C., & Eckert, M. (2008). Asymmetry and dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 663–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 87565640802418597 Leong, C. K., Cheng, P. W., & Lam, C. C. (2000). Exploring reading-­spelling connection as locus of dyslexia in Chinese. Annals of Dyslexia, 50(1), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­000-­0024-­4 Leppänen, U., Nieme, P., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2006). Development of reading and spelling Finnish from preschool to grade 1 and grade 2. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1001_2 Lerväg, A., & Hulme, C. (2010). Predicting the growth of early spelling skills: Are there heterogeneous developmental trajectories? Scientific Studies of Reading, 14, 485–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888431003623488 Levi, D. M., Song, S., & Pelli, D. G. (2007). Amblyopic reading is crowded. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.21 Levy, B. A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to reading in context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 20, 173–188. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511307 Li, Y., & Bi, H. Y. (2022). Comparative research on neural dysfunction in children with dyslexia under different writing systems: A meta-­ analysis study. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 137, 104650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104650 Liberman, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1991). Phonology and beginning reading: A tutorial. In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 3–17). Erlbaum. Lieberman, M. D., & Cunningham, W. A. (2009). Type I and type II error concerns in fMRI research: Re-­balancing the scale. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(4), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsp052 Lietz, P. (2006). A meta-­analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.10.002 Lindamood, C. H., & Lindamood, P. C. (1998). Lindamood phoneme sequencing program (LiPS) for reading, spelling, and speech. PRO-­ED. Lindamood, P. C., & Lindamood, P. D. (2011). Lindamood phoneme sequencing program for reading spelling and speech (4th ed.). PRO-­ED. Lindgren, S. A., & Laine, M. (2011). Cognitive-­linguistic performances of multilingual university students suspected of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17, 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.422 Livingston, E. M., Siegel, L. S., & Ribary, U. (2018). Developmental dyslexia: Emotional impact and consequences. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 23(2), 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2018.1479975 Lorusso, M. L., Facoetti, A., Pesenti, S., Cattaneo, C., Molteni, M., & Geiger, G. (2004). Wider recognition in peripheral vision common to different subtypes of dyslexia. Vision Research, 44, 2413–2424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2004.05.001 Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11881-­003-­0001-­9 Lyster, S-­A., Snowling, M., Hulme, C., & Lervåg, A. (2021). Preschool phonological, morphological and semantic skills explain it all: Following reading development through a 9-­year period: Predictors of reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9817.12312. Machin, S., & Pekkarinen, T. (2008). Global sex differences in test score variability. Science, 322(5906), 1331–1332. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1162573 Maehler, C., & Schuchardt, K. (2016). Working memory in children with specific learning disorders and/or attention deficits. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.007 Maisog, J. M., Einbinder, E. R., Flowers, D. L., Turkeltaub, P. E., & Eden, G. F. (2008). A meta-­analysis of functional neuroimaging studies of dyslexia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145, 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1416.024 Malchow, H. (2014, April). IDA responds to the “Dyslexia debate.” Retrieved from https://dyslexiaida.org/dyslexia-­debate/ Manis, F., Doi, L. M., & Badha, B. (2000). Naming speed, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300405 Mariën, P., & Borgatti, R. (2018). Language and the cerebellum. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 154, 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-­0-­444-­63956-­1.00011-­4 Martelli, M., Di Filippo, G., Spinelli, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2009). Crowding, reading, and developmental dyslexia. Journal of Vision, 9(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.4.14 Martin, A., Kronbichler, M., & Richlan, F. (2016). Dyslexic brain activation abnormalities in deep and shallow orthographies: A meta-­ analysis of 28 functional neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 37(7), 2676–2699. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23202 Martin, J., Cole, P., Leuwers, C., Casalis, S., Zorman, M., & Sprenger-­Charolles, L. (2010). Reading in French-­speaking adults with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­010-­0043-­8

360 REFERENCES

Mascheretti, S., Bureau, A., Battaglia, M., Simone, D., Quadrelli, E., Croteau, J., Cellino, M. R., Giorda, R., Beri, S., Maziade, M., & Marino, C. (2013). An assessment of gene-­by-­environment interactions in developmental dyslexia-­related phenotypes. Genes, Brain, and Behavior, 12(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbb.12000 Mascheretti, S., De Luca, A., Trezzi, V., Peruzzo, D., Nordio, A., Marino, C., & Arrigoni, F. (2017). Neurogenetics of developmental dyslexia: From genes to behavior through brain neuroimaging and cognitive and sensorial mechanisms. Translational Psychiatry, 7(1), e987. https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2016.240 Mather, N., Bos, C., Podhajski, B., Babur, N., & Rhein, D. (2000). Screening of early reading processes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona–Tucson. Mather, N., & Goldstein, S. (2001). Learning disabilities and challenging behaviors: A guide to intervention and classroom management. Brookes Publishing. Mather, N., Goldstein, S., & Eklund, K. (2015). Learning disabilities and challenging behaviors: A guide to intervention and classroom management (3rd ed.). Brookes Publishing. Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. (2021). Orthographic knowledge is essential for reading and spelling. Reading League Journal, 2(3), 15–25. Mather, N., & Schneider, D. (2023). The use of cognitive tests in the assessment of dyslexia. Journal of Intelligence, 11, 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jintelligence11050079 Mather, N., & Urso, A. M. (2008). Younger readers with reading difficulties. In R. Morris & N. Mather (Eds.), Evidence-­based practices for students with learning and behavioral challenges (pp. 163–192). Erlbaum. Mather, N., Youman, M., & White, J. M. (2020). Dyslexia around the world. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-­2020-­V25-­I1-­9552 McArthur, G., Kohnen, S., Larsen, L., Jones, K., Anandakumar, T., Banales, E., & Castles, A. (2013). Getting to grips with the heterogeneity of developmental dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 30(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2013.784192 McBride, C., Meng, X., Lee, J-­R., & Pan, D. J. (2022). Reading and reading disorders in Chinese. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 354–371). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch16 McBride-­Chang, C., & Manis, F. (1996). Structural invariance in the associations of naming speed, phonological awareness, and verbal reasoning in good and poor readers: A test of the double deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 8, 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00395112 McBride-­Chang, C., Wong, T. T. Y., Lam, F., Lam, C., Chan, B., Fong, C. Y. C., & Wong, S. W. L. (2011). Early predictors of dyslexia in Chinese children: Familial history of dyslexia, language delay, and cognitive profiles. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 52, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­7610.2010.02299.x McCardle, P., Mele-­McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., & D’Emilio, T. (2005). Learning disabilities in English language learners: Identifying the issues. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 20, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­5826.2005.00114.x McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 230–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-­8982.00023 McClurg, V. M., Wu, J., & McCallum, R. S. (2021). Academic success of general education college students compared to those screened as twice-­exceptional and gifted. Innovative Higher Educcation, 46, 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-­021-­09543-­z McCoy, K. M., & Prehm, H. J. (1987). Teaching mainstreamed students: Methods and techniques. Love Publishing. McDougall, S., Brunswick, N., & de Mornay Davis, P. (2010). Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies: An introduction and overview. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 3–21). Psychology Press. McGrath, L. M., Pennington, B. F., Shanahan, M. A., Santerre-­Lemmon, L. E., Barnard, H. D., Willcutt, E. G., Defries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2011). A multiple deficit model of reading disability and attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Searching for shared cognitive deficits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 547–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­7610.2010.02346.x McGrew, K. S., Schneider, W. J., Decker, S. L., & Okan Bulut, O. (2023). A psychometric network analysis of CHC intelligence measures: Implications for research, theory, and interpretation of broad CHC scores “beyond g”. Journal of Intelligence, 11(19). https://doi. org/10.3390/jintelligence11010019 McMurray, S. (2020). Learning to spell for children 5-­8 years of age: The importance of an integrated approach to ensure the development of phonic, orthographic and morphemic knowledge at compatible levels. Dyslexia, 26(4), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1663 McWeeny, S., Choi, S., Choe, J., LaTourrette, A., Roberts, M. Y., & Norton, E. S. (2022). Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) as a kindergarten predictor of future reading in English: A systematic review and meta-­analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(4), 1187–1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.467 Meaburn, E., Harlaar, N., Craig, I. W., Schalkwyk, L. C., & Plomin, R. (2008). Quantitative trait locus association scan of early reading disability and ability using pooled DNA and 100K SNP microarrays in a sample of 5760 children. Molecular Psychiatry, 13, 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4002063 Meisinger, E. B., Bloom, J. S., & Hynd, G. W. (2010). Reading fluency: Implications for the assessment of children with reading disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­009-­0031-­z Meisinger, E. B., Breazeale, A. M., & Davis, L. H. (2022). Word-­and text-­level reading difficulties in students with dyslexia. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(4), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487211037256

REFERENCES  361

Meng, H., Smith, S. D., Hager, K., Held, M., Liu, J., Olson, R. K., Pennington, B. F., DeFries, J. C., Gelernter, J., O’Reilly-­Pol, T., Somlo, S., Skudlarski, P., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Marchione, K., Wang, Y., Paramasivam, M., LoTurco, J. J., Page, G. P., & Gruen, J. R. (2005). DCDC2 is associated with reading disability and modulates neuronal development in the brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(47), 17053–17058. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508591102 Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­999-­0027-­8 Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420906801. Miller, C. J., Sanchez, J., & Hynd, G. W. (2003). Neurological correlates of reading disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 242–255). Guilford. Moats, L. C. (1991). Spelling disability in adolescents and adults. In A. M. Bain, L. L. Bailet, & L. C. Moats (Eds.), Written language disorders: Theory into practice (pp. 23–42). PRO-­ED. Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648156 Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science. American Federation of Teachers. Moats, L. (2005/2006, Winter). How spelling supports reading: And why it is more regular and predictable than you may think. American Educator, 12–43. Moats, L. C. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­009-­9162-­1 Moats, L. C. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing. Moats, L. (2019). Structured Literacy™: Effective instruction for students with dyslexia and related reading difficulties. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(2), 9–11. Moats, L. (2020). Evidence challenges teaching words “by sight.” Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(1), 28–30. Moats, L. C., Carreker, S., Davis, R., Meisel, P., Spear-­Swerling, L., & Wilson, B. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. International Dyslexia Association, Professional Standards and Practices Committee. Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­003-­0003-­7 Moll, K. (2022). Comorbidity of reading disorders. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 439–459). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch20 Moll, K., Landerl, K., Snowling, M. J., & Schulte-­Körne, G. (2019). Understanding comorbidity of learning disorders: Task-­dependent estimates of prevalence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 60(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcpp.12965 Moll, K., Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2020). Introduction to the special issue “Comorbidities between reading disorders and other developmental disorders.” Scientific Studies of Reading, 24(1), 1–6 https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1702045 Møller, H. L., Mortensen, J. O., & Elbro, C. (2022). Effects of integrated spelling in phonics instruction for at-­risk children in kindergarten. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 38(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2021.1907638 Monroe, M. (1932). Children who cannot read. University of Chicago Press. Monroe, M. (1935). Diagnosis of reading disabilities. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The thirty-­fourth yearbook of the national society for the study of education: Educational diagnosis (pp. 201–228). Public School Publishing. Monroe, M., & Backus, B. (1937). Remedial reading: A monograph in character education. Houghton Mifflin. Moreau, D., Wilson, A. J., McKay, N. S., Nihill, K., & Waldie, K. E. (2018). No evidence for systematic white matter correlates of dyslexia and dyscalculia. NeuroImage: Clinical, 18, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.02.004 Morgan, E., & Klein, C. (2000). The dyslexic adult in a non-­dyslexic world. Whurr. Morgan, W. P. (1896). Word blindness. British Medical Journal, 1378, 98. Morris, D., & Slavin, R. E. (2002). Every child reading. Allyn & Bacon. Mundy, I. R., & Hannant, P. (2020). Exploring the phonological profiles of children with reading difficulties: A multiple case study. Dyslexia, 26(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1667 Muter, V., & Snowling, M. J. (2009). Children at familial risk of dyslexia: Practical implications from an at-­risk study. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 14, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-­3588.2007.00480.x Myers, C. A., Vandermosten, M., Farris, E. A., Hancock, R., Gimenez, P., Black, J. M., Casto, B., Drahos, M., Tumber, M., Hendren, R. L., Hulme, C., & Hoeft, F. (2014). White matter morphometric hanges uniquely predict children’s reading acquisition. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1870–1883. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24543927 Myklebust, H. (1954). Auditory disorders in children: A manual for differential diagnosis. Grune & Stratton. Myklebust, H., & Johnson, D. (1962). Dyslexia in school children. Exceptional Children, 29, 14–25. Nandy, R., & Cordes, D. (2007). A semi-­parametric approach to estimate the family-­wise error rate in fMRI using resting-­state data. NeuroImage, 34(4), 1562–1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.10.025

362 REFERENCES

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1995). Listening to children read out loud: Oral fluency, 1(1). NCES 95–762. Available from: http://www.EDPubs.gov/ National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2022). NAEP Report Card: 2022 NAEP Reading Assessment. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Students with disabilities. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved [01/03/23], from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg. National Library Service. (n.d.) NLS: Governing Legislation. Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/nls/ sec701.html National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-­based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health Pub. No. 00-­4769). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neitzel, A. J., Lake, C., Pellegrini, M., & Slavin, R. E. (2022). A synthesis of quantitative research on programs for struggling readers in elementary schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(1), 149–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.379 Nelson J. M. (2015). Examination of the double-­deficit hypothesis with adolescents and young adults with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 65(3), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­015-­0105-­z Nelson, J. M., Lindstrom, W., Foels, P. A., Lamkin, J., & Dwyer, L. (2019). Validation of curriculum-­based reading passages and comparison of college students with and without dyslexia or ADHD. Annals of Dyslexia, 69(3), 297–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­019-­ 00183-­9 Nelson, J. S., Alber, S. R., & Gordy, A. (2004). The effects of error correction and repeated readings on the reading achievement of students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 186–198. Nergård-­Nilssen, T., & Hulme, C. (2014). Developmental dyslexia in adults: Behavioural manifestations and cognitive correlates. Dyslexia, 20(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1477 Nettelbeck, T. (1994). Speediness. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 1014–1019). Macmillan. Neuhaus, G. F., & Swank, P. R. (2002). Understanding the relations between RAN letter subtest components and word reading in first-­grade students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500206 Nichols, T., & Hayasaka, S. (2003). Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: A comparative review. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 12, 419–446. https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280203sm341ra No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-­110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002). Norton, E. S., Beach, S. D., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2015). Neurobiology of dyslexia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 30, 73–78. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.conb.2014.09.007 Oakhill, J. V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000008 Odegard, T. N. (2019). Dyslexia defined: Historical trends and the current reality. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(1), 11–14. Odegard, T. N. (2020). Structured literacy is exemplified by an explicit approach to teaching. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46, 21–23. Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 883–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20195 Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Pennington, J., & Ulloa, P. R. (2022). Speech recognition technology for writing: Usage patterns and perceptions of students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(2), 191–202. O’Leary, R., & Ehri, L. (2020). Orthography facilitates memory for proper names in emergent readers. Research Reading Quarterly, 55(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.255 Olofsson, A., & Niedersøe, J. (1999). Early language development and kindergarten phonological awareness as predictors of reading problems: from 3 to 11 years of age. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200512 Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on the development of reading and related cognitive skills. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 679–707). Erlbaum. Olson, R. (2011). Genetic and environmental influence on phonological abilities and reading achievement. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 197–216). Psychology Press. Olson, R. K., Keenan, J. M., Byrne, B., Samuelsson, S., Coventry, W. L., Corley, R., Wadsworth, S. J., Willcutt, E. G., Defries, J. C., Pennington, B. F., & Hulslander, J. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on vocabulary and reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­006-­9018-­x O’Malley, K. J., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Swank, P. R. (2002). Growth in precursor and reading-­related skills: Do low-­achieving and IQ-­discrepant readers develop differently? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1540-­5826.00029 Onochie-­Quintanilla, E., Defior, S. A., & C. Simpson, I. C. (2019). RAN and orthographic processing: What can syllable frequency tell us about this relationship? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 182, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.01.002

REFERENCES  363

Ortiz, S. O. (2011). Separating cultural and linguistic differences (CLD) from specific learning disability (SLD) in the evaluation of diverse students: Difference or disorder? In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 299–324). John Wiley & Sons. Orton, J. (1966). The Orton-­Gillingham approach. In J. Money (Ed.), The disabled reader: Education of the dyslexic child (pp. 119–145). Johns Hopkins University Press. Orton, S. T. (1925). Word-­blindness in school children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 14, 581–615. Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech problems in children. W. W. Norton. Otaiba, A., Allor, S. Baker, J. H., Conner, C., Stewart, J., & de la Cruz (2019). Teaching phonemic awareness and word reading skills focusing on explicit and systematic approaches. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(3), 11–16. Ouellette, G., Martin-­Chang, S., & Rossi, M. (2017). Learning from our mistakes: Improvements in spelling lead to gains in reading speed. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1306064 Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved from https://www.oed.com. Ozernov-­Palchik, O., & Gaab, N. (2016). Tackling the ‘dyslexia paradox’: Reading brain and behavior for early markers of developmental dyslexia. WIREs Cognitive Science, 7, 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1383 Ozernov-­Palchik, O., Norton, E., Sideridis, G., Beach, S., Wolf, M., Gabrieli, J., & Gaab, N. (2017). Longitudinal stability of pre-­reading skill profiles of kindergarten children: Implications for early screening and theories of reading. Developmental Science, 20, e12471. https://doi. org/10.1111/desc.12471. Paizi, D., Burani, C., & Zoccolotti, P. (2011). Lexical stress assignment in Italian developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 24, 443–461. doi: 10.1007/s11145010-­9236-­0 Paizi, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2010). Lexical reading in Italian developmental dyslexic readers. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 181–198). Psychology Press. Paniagua, S., Cakir, B., Hu, Y., Kiral, F.R., Tanaka, Y., Xiang, Y., Patterson, B., Gruen, J.R., & Park, I.H. (2022). Dyslexia associated gene, KIAA0319, regulates cell cycle during human neuroepithelium development. BioRxiv, 2022-­04. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.07.487504 Paracchini, S. (2022). The genetics of dyslexia: Learning from the past to shape the future. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 491–514). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch22 Paracchini, S., Scerri, T., & Monaco, A. P. (2007). The genetic lexicon of dyslexia. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 8, 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.8.080706.092312 Paracchini, S., Steer, C. D., Buckingham, L. L., Morris, A. P., Ring, S., Scerri, T., Stein, J., Pembrey, M. E., Ragoussis, J., Golding, J., & Monaco, A. P. (2008). Association of the KIAA0319 dyslexia susceptibility gene with reading skills in the general population. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(12), 1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07121872 Paracchini, S., Thomas, A., Castro, S., Lai, C., Paramasivam, M., Wang, Y., Keating, B. J., Taylor, J. M., Hacking, D. F., Scerri, T., Francks, C., Richardson, A. J., Wade-­Martins, R., Stein, J. F., Knight, J. C., Copp, A. J., Loturco, J., & Monaco, A. P. (2006). The chromosome 6p22  haplotype associated with dyslexia reduces the expression of KIAA0319, a novel gene involved in neuronal migration. Human Molecular Genetics, 15(10), 1659–1666. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddl089 Park, H., & Lombardino, L. J. (2013). Relationships among cognitive deficits and component skills of reading in younger and older students with developmental dyslexia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(9), 2946–2958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.002 Parrila, R., Georgiou, G. K., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2020). Dyslexia in a consistent orthography: Evidence from reading-­level match design. Dyslexia, 26(4), 343–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1650 Parrila, R. K., & McQuarrie, L. M. (2015). Cognitive processes and academic achievement: Multiple systems model of reading. In T. C. Papadopoulos, R. K. Parrila, & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), Cognition, intelligence, and achievement: A tribute to J. P. Das (pp. 79–100). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-­0-­12-­410388-­7.00005-­1 Paulesu, E., Démonet, J. F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S. F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2001). Dyslexia-­cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291, 2165–2167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-­8119(01)91927-­5 Paz-­Alonso, P. M., Oliver, M., Lerma-­Usabiaga, G., Caballero-­Gaudes, C., Quiñones, I., Suárez-­Coalla, P., Duñabeitia, J. A., Cuetos, F., & Carreiras, M. (2018). Neural correlates of phonological, orthographic and semantic reading processing in dyslexia. NeuroImage. Clinical, 20, 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2018.08.018 Peltier, T. K., Washburn, E. K., Heddy, B. C., & Binks-­Cantrell, E. (2022). What do teachers know about dyslexia? It’s complicated! Reading and Writing, 35, 2077–2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-­022-­10264-­8 Pennington, B. F. (1989). Using genetics to understand dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02656902 Pennington, B. F. (1990). The genetics of dyslexia. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 31(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1469-­7610.1990.tb01561.x Pennington, B. F. (2009). Diagnosing learning disorders: A neuropsychological framework (2nd ed.). Guilford. Pennington, B. F., & Lefly, D. I. (2001). Early reading development in children at family risk for dyslexia. Child Development, 72, 816–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8624.00317 Pennington, B. F., McGrath, L. M., & Peterson, R. L. (2019). Diagnosing learning disorders: From science to practice (3rd ed.). Guilford.

364 REFERENCES

Pennington, B. F., McGrath, L. M., Rosenberg, J., Barnard, H., Smith, S. D., Willcutt, E. G., Friend, A., Defries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2009). Gene X environment interactions in reading disability and attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014549 Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2007). Genetics of dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 453–472). Blackwell. Pennington, B. F., Peterson, R. L., & McGrath, L. M. (2009). Dyslexia. In B. F. Pennington (Ed.), Diagnosing learning disorders (2nd ed., pp. 45–82). Guilford. Pennington, B. F., Santerre-­Lemmon, L., Rosenberg, J., MacDonald, B., Boada, R., Friend, A., Leopold, D. R., Samuelsson, S., Byrne, B., Willcutt, E. G., & Olson, R. K. (2012). Individual prediction of dyslexia by single versus multiple deficit models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(1), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025823 Pennington, B. F., & Smith, S. D. (1997). Genetic analysis of dyslexia and other complex behavioral phenotypes. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 9(6), 636–641. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008480-­199712000-­00014 Perdue, M. V., Mahaffy, K., Vlahcevic, K., Wolfman, E., Erbeli, F., Richlan, F., & Landi, N. (2022). Reading intervention and neuroplasticity: A systematic review and meta-­analysis of brain changes associated with reading intervention. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 132, 465–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.11.011 Perea, M., & Perez, E. (2009). Beyond alphabetic orthographies: The role of form and phonology in transposition effects in Katakana. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802053924 Perfetti, C. (2011). Phonology is critical in reading: But a phonological deficit is not the only source of low reading skill. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 153–171). Psychology Press. Pernet, C., Valdois, S., Celsis, P., & Démonet, J. F. (2006). Lateral masking, levels of processing and stimulus category: A comparative study between normal and dyslexic readers. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2374–2385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.003 Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st-­Century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55 (Suppl 1), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352 Peterson, R. L., Boada, R., McGrath, L. M., Willcutt, E. G., Olson, R. K., & Pennington, B. F. (2017). Cognitive prediction of reading, math, and attention: Shared and unique influences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(4), 408–421. doi:10.1177/0022219415618500 Peterson, R. L., & Pennington, B. F. (2015). Developmental dyslexia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 283–307. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-­clinpsy-­032814-­112842 Peterson, R. L., Pennington, B. F., Olson, R. K., & Wadsworth, S. J. (2014). Longitudinal stability of phonological and surface subtypes of developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(5), 347–362, https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.904870 Phayer, J. (2010). Using Microsoft Word with students with dyslexia. Closing the Gap, 29(3), 26–31. Phillips, B. A. B., & Odegard, T. N. (2017). Evaluating the impact of dyslexia laws on the identification of specific learning disability and dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 67(3), 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­017-­0148-­4 Piasta, S., & Hudson, A. (2022). Key knowledge to support phonological awareness and phonics instruction. Reading Teacher, 76(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2093. Pickle, J. M. (1998). Historical trends in biological and medical investigations of reading disabilities: 1850–1915. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949803100614 Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.2 Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Plomin, R., & Kovas, Y. (2005). Generalist genes and learning disabilities. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 592–617. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-­2909.131.4.592 Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nrg.2017.104 Porpodas, C. D. (1999). Patterns of phonological and memory processing in beginning readers and spellers of Greek. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200506 Powell, D., Stainthorp, R., Stuart, M., Garwood, H., & Quinlan, P. (2007). An experimental comparison between rival theories of rapid automatized naming performance and its relationship to reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98, 46–68. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jecp.2007.04.003 Price, C. J. (2012). A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. NeuroImage, 62(2), 816–847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.062 Price, C. J., & Devlin, J. T. (2011). The interactive account of ventral occipitotemporal contributions to reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(6), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.001 Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Gender differences in reading impairment and in the identification of impaired readers: Results from a large-­scale study of at-­risk readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413508323

REFERENCES  365

Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J., & Olson, R. K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 28–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/747832 Rao, K., Torres, C., & Smith, S. J. (2023). Digital tools and UDL-­based instructional strategies to support students with disabilities online. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(2) 105–112. Rasinski, T. V. (2001). Speed does matter in reading. Reading Teacher, 54, 146–156. Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. Reading Teacher, 59, 704–706. https://doi. org/10.1598/RT.59.7.10 Rasinski, T. (2017). Readers who struggle: Why many struggle and a modest proposal for improving their reading. Reading Teacher, 70(5), 519–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1533 Rasinski, T., & Nageldinger, J. K. (2016). The fluency factor: Authentic instruction and assessment for reading success in the common core classroom. Teachers College Press. Rasinski, T.V., Padak, N., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of fluency development on urban second-­grade readers. Journal of Educational Research, 87(3), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1994.9941237 Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.49.1.3 Rasinski, T., Paige, D., & Nageldinger, J. (2015). Reading fluency: Neglected, misunderstood, but still critical for proficient reading. In P.D. Pearson & E. H. Hiebert (Eds), Research-­based practices for teaching common core literacy (pp. 143–160). Teachers College Press. Rasinski, T. V., & Smith, M. C. (2018). The megabook of fluency. Scholastic. Raskind, W. H. (2001). Current understanding of the genetic basis of reading and spelling disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 141–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511240 Rastle, K., Tyler, L. K., & Marslen-­Wilson, W. (2006). New evidence for morphological errors in deep dyslexia. Brain and Language, 97, 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2005.10.003 Rauschecker, A. M., Deutsch, G. K., Ben-­Shachar, M., Schwartzman, A., Perry, L. M., & Dougherty, R. F. (2009). Reading impairment in a patient with missing arcuate fasciculus. Neuropsychologia, 47(1), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.08.011 Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000356 Reis, A., Araújo, S., Morais, I.S., & Faísca, L. (2020). Reading and reading-­related skills in adults with dyslexia from different orthographic systems: A review and meta-­analysis. Annals of Dyslexia, 70, 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­020-­00205-­x Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36(2), 321–339. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0022-­0965(83)90036-­X Reutzel, D. R. (2015). Early literacy research: Findings primary-­grade teachers will want to know. Reading Teacher, 69(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/trtr.1387 Rice, M., Erbeli, F., Thompson, C. G., Sallese, M., & Fogarty, M. (2022). Phonemic awareness: A meta-­analysis for planning effective instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(4), 1259–1289. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.473 Rice, M., & Gilson, C. B. (2023). Dyslexia identification: Tackling current issues in schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 58(3), 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512221081278 Rice, M. L., Smith, S. D., & Gayan, J. (2009). Convergent genetic linkage and associations to language, speech and reading measures in families of probands with specific language impairment. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 1, 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11689-­009-­9031-­x Richards, T. L., Grabowski, T. J., Boord, P., Yagle, K., Askren, M., Mestre, Z., Robinson, P., Welker, O., Gulliford, D., Nagy, W., & Berninger, V. (2015). Contrasting brain patterns of writing-­related DTI parameters, fMRI connectivity, and DTI-­fMRI connectivity correlations in children with and without dysgraphia or dyslexia. NeuroImage: Clinical, 8, 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2015.03.018 Richardson,S.O.(1992).Historicalperspectivesondyslexia.JournalofLearningDisabilities, 25,40–47.https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949202500107 Richlan, F. (2012). Developmental dyslexia: Dysfunction of a left hemisphere reading network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 120. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00120 Richlan, F. (2020). The functional neuroanatomy of developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00155 Richlan, F., Kronbichler, M., & Wimmer, H. (2009). Functional abnormalities in the dyslexic brain: A quantitative meta-­analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 30, 3299–3308. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20752 Richlan, F., Kronbichler, M., & Wimmer, H. (2013). Structural abnormalities in the dyslexic brain: A meta-­analysis of voxel-­based morphometry studies. Human Brain Mapping, 34(11), 3055–3065. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22127 Richlan, F., Sturm, D., Schurz, M., Kronbichler, M., Ladurner, G., & Wimmer, H. (2010). A common left occipito-­temporal dysfunction in developmental dyslexia and acquired letter-­by-­letter reading? PloS One, 5(8), e12073. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012073 Roberts, R., & Mather, N. (2007). Phonic reading lessons: Practice. Academic Therapy. Roberts, T. A., Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2018). Preschoolers’ alphabet learning: Letter name and sound instruction, cognitive processes, and English proficiency. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.04.011

366 REFERENCES

Rodrigo, M., & Jiménez, J. E. (1999). An analysis of the word naming errors of normal readers and reading disabled children in Spanish. Journal of Research in Reading, 22, 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­9817.00081 Roivainen, E. (2011). Gender differences in processing speed: A review of recent research. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.021 Rollans, C., Cheema, K., Georgiou, G. K., & Cummine, J. (2017). Pathways of the inferior frontal occipital fasciculus in overt speech and reading. Neuroscience, 364, 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.09.011 Romani, C., Olson, A., & Di Betta, A. M. (2007). Spelling disorders. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 431–447). Blackwell. Rooney, K. J. (1995). Dyslexia revisited: History, educational philosophy, and clinical assessment applications. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129503100102 Rose, D., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. An independent report from Sir Jim Rose to the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. DCFS Publications. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/ publications/ Rosenbloom, M. H., Schmahmann, J. D., & Price, B. H. (2012). The functional neuroanatomy of decision-­making. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 24(3), 266–277. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11060139 Rosenthal, J., & Ehri, L. C. (2008). The mnemonic value of orthography for vocabulary learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.100.1.175 Rothe, J., Cornell, S., Ise, E., & Schulte-­Körne, G. (2015). A comparison of orthographic processing in children with and without reading and spelling disorder in a regular orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28(9), 1307–1332. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11145-­015-­9572-­1 Rumsey, J. M., Nace, K., Donohue, B., Wise, D., Maisog, J. M., & Andreason, P. (1997). A positron emission tomographic study of impaired word recognition and phonological processing in dyslexic men. Archives of Neurology, 54, 562–573. Rutter, M., Caspi, A., Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. J., Goodman, R., Maughan, B., Moffitt, T. E., Meltzer, H., & Carroll, J. (2004). Sex differences in developmental reading disability: New findings from 4 epidemiological studies. JAMA, 291(16), 2007–2012. https://doi.org/ 10.1001/jama.291.16.2007 Sabatini, J., Wang, Z., & O’Reilly, T. (2019). Relating reading comprehension to oral reading performance in the NAEP fourth-­grade special study of oral reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.226 Samuelsson, S., Byrne, B., Olson, R. K., Hulslander, J., Wadsworth, S., Corley, R., Willcutt, E., & DeFries, J. C. (2008). Response to early literacy instruction in the United States, Australia, and Scandinavia: A behavioral-­genetic analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.03.004 Sanfilippo, J., Ness, M., Petscher, Y., Rappaport, L., Zuckerman, B., & Gaab, N. (2020). Reintroducing dyslexia: Early identification and implications for pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 146(1), e20193046. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-­3046 Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-­analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 225–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-­015-­9335-­1 Savage, R. (2022). Teaching children to read. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–233). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch10 Savage, R., Lavers, N., & Pillay, V. (2007a). Working memory and reading difficulties: What we know and what we don’t know about the relationship. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 185–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-­006-­9024-­1 Savage, R., Pillay, V., & Melidona, S. (2007b). Deconstructing rapid automatized naming: Component processes and the prediction of reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.001 Sawyer, D. J. (1987). Test of awareness of language segments. PRO-­ED. Sayeski, K., Earle, G., Davis, R., & Calamari, J. (2019). Orton Gillingham: Who, what, and how. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918816996. Saygin, Z. M., Norton, E. S., Osher, D. E., Beach, S. D., Cyr, A. B., Ozernov-­Palchik, O., Yendiki, A., Fischl, B., Gaab, N., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2013). Tracking the roots of reading ability: White matter volume and integrity correlate with phonological awareness in prereading and early-­reading kindergarten children. Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 33(33), 13251– 13258. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4383-­12.2013 Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). A meta-­analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12:1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 369–390. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219413504995 Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14(3), 245–302. https://doi. org/10.1006/drev.1994.1010 Scerri, T. S., Morris, A. P., Buckingham, L. L., Newbury, D. F., Miller, L. L., Monaco, A. P., Bishop, D. V., & Paracchini, S. (2011). DCDC2, KIAA0319 and CMIP are associated with reading-­related traits. Biological Psychiatry, 70(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych. 2011.02.005

REFERENCES  367

Scerri, T. S., & Schulte-­Körne, G. (2010). Genetics of developmental dyslexia. European Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 19, 179–197. http://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00787-­009-­0081-­0 Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 95, 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­4781.2011.01146.x Schulte-­Körne, G., Deimel, W., Bartling, J., & Remschmidt, H. (2004). Neurophysiological correlates of word recognition in dyslexia. Journal of Neural Transmission, 111, 971–984. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-­004-­0141-­z Schumacher, J., Anthoni, H., Dahdouh, F., König, I. R., Hillmer, A. M., Kluck, N., Manthey, M., Plume, E., Warnke, A., Remschmidt, H., Hülsmann, J., Cichon, S., Lindgren, C. M., Propping, P., Zucchelli, M., Ziegler, A., Peyrard-­Janvid, M., Schulte-­Körne, G., Nöthen, M. M., & Kere, J. (2006). Strong genetic evidence of DCDC2 as a susceptibility gene for dyslexia. American Journal of Human Genetics, 78(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1086/498992 Schurz, M., Wimmer, H., Richlan, F., Ludersdorfer, P., Klackl, J., & Kronbichler, M. (2015). Resting-­state and task-­based functional brain connectivity in developmental dyslexia. Cerebral Cortex, 25(10), 3502–3514. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu184 Schwartz, S. (2022, April 22). What the “science of reading” should look like for English-­learners. It’s not settled. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/teaching-­learning/what-­the-­science-­of-­reading-­should-­look-­like-­for-­english-­learners-­its-­not-­settled/2022/04 Seghier, M. L. (2013). The angular gyrus: Multiple functions and multiple subdivisions. The Neuroscientist: A Review Journal Bringing Neurobiology, Neurology and Psychiatry, 19(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858412440596 Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can’t, and what can be done about it. Basic Books. Seki, A., Kassai, K., Uchiyama, H., & Koeda, T. (2008). Reading ability and phonological awareness in Japanese children with dyslexia. Brain and Development International Edition, 30, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2007.07.006 Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-­year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8624.00417 Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859 Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859 Shanahan, M. A., Pennington, B. F., Yerys, B. E., Scott, A., Boada, R., Willcutt, E. G., Olson, R. K., & DeFries, J. C. (2006). Processing speed deficits in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and reading disability. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-­006-­9037-­8 Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0010-­0277(94)00645-­2 Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self-­teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 95–129. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2481 Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-­teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267–298. Share, D. L. (2011). On the role of phonology on reading acquisition: The self-­teaching hypothesis. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 45–68). Psychology Press. Share, D. L. (2021). Common misconceptions about the phonological deficit theory of dyslexia. Brain Sciences, 11(11), 1510. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/brainsci11111510 Shastry, B. S. (2007). Developmental dyslexia: An update. Journal of Human Genetics, 52, 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10038-­006-­0088-­z Shaywitz, B. A., Lyon, G. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2006). The role of functional magnetic resonance imaging in understanding reading and dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30(1), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn3001_5 Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2020). The American experience: Towards a 21st century definition of dyslexia. Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1793545 Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., Mencl, W. E., Constable, R. T., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K. E., Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., & Gore, J. C. (2004). Development of left occipitotemporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-­based intervention. Biological Psychiatry, 55(9), 926–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.12.019 Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Blachman, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Skudlarski, P., Mencl, W. E., Constable, R. T., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K. E., Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., & Gore, J. C. (2004). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10038-­006-­0088-­z Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-­based program for reading problems at any level. Alfred A. Knopf. Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, J. (2020). Overcoming dyslexia (2nd ed.). Alfred A. Knopf. Shhub, A., Jimenez, Z., & Solis, M. (2023). A synthesis of reading prosody: Evaluating phrasing and syntax interventions. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2022.2147464 Shin, J., Rowley, J., Chowdhury, R., Jolicoeur, P., Klein, D., Grova, C., Rosa-­Neto, P., & Kobayashi, E. (2019). Inferior longitudinal fasciculus’ role in visual processing and language comprehension: A combined MEG-­DTI Study. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 875. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnins.2019.00875

368 REFERENCES

Shu, H., Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Wu, N., & Xuan, Y. (2003). Properties of school Chinese: Implications for learning to read. Child Development, 74, 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-­8624.00519 Siegel, L. S., & Hurford, D. P. (2019). The case against discrepancy models in the evaluation of dyslexia. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 45(1), 23–28. Silver, M. A. (2018). Cognitive neuroscience: Functional specialization in human cerebellum. Current Biology, 28(21), R1256–R1258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.017 Silvestri, R., Holmes, A., & Rahemtulla, R. (2022). The interaction of cognitive profiles and text-­to-­speech software on reading comprehension of adolescents with reading challenges. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(4), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211033577 Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (Eds.). (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Erlbaum. Sireteanu, R., Goertz, R., Bachert, I., & Wandert, T. (2005). Children with developmental dyslexia show a left visual “minineglect.” Vision Research, 45, 3075–3082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.07.030 Sleeman, M., Everatt, J., Arrow, A., & Denston, A. (2022). The identification and classification of struggling readers based on the simple view of reading. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 28(3), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1719 Slingerland, B. H. (1981). A multisensory approach to language arts for specific language disability children: A guide for primary teachers (Book 3). Educators Publishing Service. Smartt, S. M., & Glaser, D. R. (2010). Next STEPS in literacy instruction: Connecting assessments to effective interventions. Brookes Publishing. Smith, K. A., & Kim, S. M. (2018), This language, a river: A history of english. Broadview Press. Smith, R., Snow, P., Serry, T., & Hammond, L. (2023). Elementary teachers’ perspectives on teaching reading comprehension. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_LSHSS-­22-­00118. Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (2013). Unfulfilled expectations. Harvard University Press. Snow, P. (2020). Balanced literacy or systematic reading instruction? Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 46(1), 35–39. Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Blackwell. Snowling, M. J. (2005). Literacy outcomes for children with oral language impairments: Developmental interactions between language skills and learning to read. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 55–76). Erlbaum. Snowling, M. J. (2011). Beyond phonological deficits: Sources of individual differences in reading ability. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 121–136). Psychology Press. Snowling, M. J. (2019). Dyslexia: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198818304.001.0001 Snowling, M., Hayiou-­Thomas, M., Nash, H. M., & Hulme, C. (2020a). Dyslexia and developmental language disorder: Comorbid ­disorders with distinct effects on reading comprehension. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(6), 672–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcpp.13140 Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-­based interventions for reading and language difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-­8279.2010.02014.x Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2021). Annual research review: Reading disorders revisited -­the critical importance of oral language. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(5), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13324. Snowling, M., Hulme, C., & Nation, K. (2020b). Defining and understanding dyslexia: Past, present and future. Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1765756 Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Nation, K. (Eds.). (2022). The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/9781119705116 Snowling, M. J., Nash, H. M., Gooch, D. C., Hayiou-­Thomas, M. E., Hulme, C., & Wellcome Language and Reading Project Team (2019). Developmental outcomes for children at high risk of dyslexia and children with developmental language disorder. Child Development, 90(5), e548–e564. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13216 Sofie, C. A., & Riccio, C. A. (2002). A comparison of multiple methods for the identification of children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500305 Soifer, L. H. (2005). Development of oral language and its relationship to literacy. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed., pp. 43–81). Brookes Publishing. Solari, E. J., Kehoe, K. F., Cho, E., Hall, C., Vargas, I., Dahl-­Leonard, K., Richmond, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., & Conner, C. (2022). Effectiveness of interventions for English learners with word reading difficulties: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 37(3), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12286 Solari, E. J., Petscher, Y., & Folsom, J. S. (2014). Differentiating literacy growth of ELL students with LD from other high-­risk subgroups and general education peers: Evidence from grades 3-­ 10. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022219412463435 Sousa, D. A. (2005). How the brain learns to read. Corwin Press. Spencer, E. J., Schuele, C. M., Guillot, K. M., & Lee, M. W. (2008). Phonemic awareness skill of speech-­language pathologists and other educators. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-­1461(2008/07-­0080) Sprenger-­Charolles, L., & Siegel, L. S. (2013). Reading acquisition and dyslexia in languages varying in orthographic depth: From behavior to brain. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 39(1), 23–31.

REFERENCES  369

Stage, S. A., & Jacobsen, M. D. (2001). Predicting student success on state-­mandated performance-­based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419. Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (2002). Making it sound like language: Developing fluency. Reading Teacher, 55, 582–584. Stanger, M. A., & Donohue, E. K. (1937). Prediction and prevention of reading difficulties. Oxford University Press. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-­compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/747348 Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disabilities: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/747729 Steacy, L. M., Edwards, A. A., Rigobon, V. M., Gutiérrez, N., Marencin, N. C., Siegelman, N., Himelhoch, A. C., Himelhoch, C., Rueckl, J., & Compton, D. L. (2022). Set for variability as a critical predictor of word reading: Potential implications for early identification and treatment of dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.475 Steere, A., Peck, C., & Kahn, L. (1996). Solving language difficulties. Educators Publishing Service. Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028 Strauss, A., & Lehtinen, L. (1947). Psychopathology and education of the brain injured child. Grune & Stratton. Su, I., Klingebiel, K., & Weekes, B. (2010). Dyslexia in Chinese: Implications for connectionist models of reading. In N. Brunswick, S. McDougall, & P. de Mornay Davies (Ed.), Reading and dyslexia in different orthographies (pp. 199–219). Psychology Press. Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-­Frankenberger, M. (2004). The relationship between working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­ 0663.96.3.471 Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-­Lee, C. (2001). A subgroup analysis of working memory in children with reading disabilities: Domain-­general or domain-­specific deficiency? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400305 Taha, J., Carioti, D., Stucchi, N., Chailleux, M., Granocchio, E., Sarti, D., De Salvatore, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2022). Identifying the risk of dyslexia in bilingual children: The potential of language-­dependent and language-­independent tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 935935. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.935935 Taipale, M., Kaminen, N., Nopola-­Hemmi, J., Haltia, T., Myllyluoma, B., Lyytinen, H., Muller, K., Kaaranen, M., Lindsberg, P. J., Hannula-­ Jouppi, K., & Kere, J. (2003). A candidate gene for developmental dyslexia encodes a nuclear tetratricopeptide repeat domain protein dynamically regulated in brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(20), 11553–11558. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1833911100 Templeton, S. (2020). Stages, phases, repertoires, and waves: Learning to spell and read words. Reading Teacher, 74(3), 315–323. https://doi. org/10.1002/trtr.1951 Templeton, S., & Bear, D. R. (2018). Word study, research to practice: Spelling, phonics, meaning. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (4th ed., pp. 207–232). Routledge. Theodoridou, D., Christodoulides, P., Zakopoulou, V., & Syrrou, M. (2021). Developmental dyslexia: Environment matters. Brain Sciences, 11(6), 782. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060782 Therrien, W. J., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512060410030501 Thomas, T., Perdue, M. V., Khalaf, S., Landi, N., Hoeft, F., Pugh, K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2021). Neuroimaging genetic associations between SEMA6D, brain structure, and reading skills. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 43(3), 276–289. https://doi. org/10.1080/13803395.2021.1912300 Thompson, P. A., Hulme, C., Nash, H. M., Gooch, D., Hayiou-­Thomas, E., & Snowling, M. J. (2015). Developmental dyslexia: Predicting individual risk. Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 56(9), 976–987. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jcpp.12412 Tomaz Da Silva, L., Esper, N. B., Ruiz, D. D., Meneguzzi, F., & Buchweitz, A. (2021). Visual explanation for identification of the brain bases for developmental dyslexia on fMRI data. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 15, 594659. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2021.594659 Tønnessen, F. E. (1997). How can we best define “dyslexia”? Dyslexia, 3, 78–92. Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Recent discoveries from research on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Blackwell. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., Conway, T., & Rose, E. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-­term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400104 Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.), Reading fluency: The forgotten dimension of reading success. International Reading Association. Torgesen, J. K., & Mathes, P. M. (2000). A basic guide to understanding, assessing, and teaching phonological awareness. PRO-­ED. Toste, J. R., Williams, K. J., & Capin, P. (2017). Reading big words: Instructional practices to promote multisyllabic word reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(5), 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216676797

370 REFERENCES

Treiman, R. (1998). Why spelling? The benefits of incorporating spelling into beginning reading instruction. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 289–313). Erlbaum. Treiman, R. (2017). Learning to spell words: Findings, theories, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10888438.2017.1296449 Treiman, R. (2018). Teaching and learning spelling. Child Development Perspectives, 12(4), 235–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12292 Treiman, R., & Bourassa, D. C. (2000). The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disorders, 20(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/00011363-­200020030-­00004 Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2014). How children learn to write words. Oxford University Press. Tressoldi, P. E., Stella, G., & Faggella, M. (2001). The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: A longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400503 Tribushinina, E., Berg, Z. O. T., & Karman, S. (2021). Facilitating positive L1 transfer through explicit spelling instruction for EFL learners with dyslexia: An intervention study. Language Awareness, 31(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1949332 Troia, G. A., Brehmer, J. S., Glause, K., Reichmuth, H. L., & Lawrence, F. (2020). Direct and indirect effects of literacy skills and writing fluency on writing quality across three genres. Education Sciences, 10(11), 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110297 Truong, D. T., Adams, A. K., Paniagua, S., Frijters, J. C., Boada, R., Hill, D. E., Lovett, M. W., Mahone, E. M., Willcutt, E. G., Wolf, M., Defries, J. C., Gialluisi, A., Francks, C., Fisher, S. E., Olson, R. K., Pennington, B. F., Smith, S. D., Bosson-­Heenan, J., Gruen, J. R., & Pediatric, Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics Consortium (2019). Multivariate genome-­wide association study of rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus in Hispanic American and African-­American youth. Journal of Medical Genetics, 56(8), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-­2018-­105874 Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409345009 Turken, A. U., & Dronkers, N. F. (2011). The neural architecture of the language comprehension network: Converging evidence from lesion and connectivity analyses. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2011.00001 Uhry, J. K. (2005). Phonemic awareness and reading: Research, activities, and instructional materials. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (pp. 83–111). Brookes Publishing. Uhry, J. K. (2013). The role of phonemic awareness in learning to read and spell successfully. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 39(1), 11–16. Uhry, J. K., & Clark, D. B. (2005). Dyslexia: Theory & practice of instruction (3rd ed.). PRO-­ED. U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (2015). OSEP dear colleague letter on IDEA/IEP terms. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-­files/osep-­dear-­colleague-­letter-­on-­ideaiep-­terms/ Valencia, S., Smith, A., Reece, A., Li, M., Wixson, K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.3.1 van Bergen, E., de Jong, P. F., Regtvoort, A., Oort, F., van Otterloo, S., & van der Leij, A. (2011). Dutch children at family risk of dyslexia: Precursors, reading development, and parental effects. Dyslexia, 17, 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-­7610.2011.02418.x van Bergen, E., van der Leij, A., & de Jong, P. F. (2014). The intergenerational multiple deficit model and the case of dyslexia. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 346. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00346 van den Boer, M., Bazen, L., & de Bree, E. (2022). The same yet different: Oral and silent reading in children and adolescents with dyslexia. Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 51, 803–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-­022-­09856-­w Van den Broeck, W., & Geudens, A. (2012). Old and new ways to study characteristics of reading disability: The case of the nonword-­reading deficit. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 414–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.06.003 Vandermosten, M., Boets, B., Wouters, J., & Ghesquière, P. (2012). A qualitative and quantitative review of diffusion tensor imaging studies in reading and dyslexia. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(6), 1532–1552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.04.002 Vandermosten, M., Hoeft, F., & Norton, E. S. (2016). Integrating MRI brain imaging studies of pre-­reading children with current theories of developmental dyslexia: A review and quantitative meta-­analysis. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 10, 155–161. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.06.007 van Setten, E. R. H., Hakvoort, B. E., van der Leij, A., Maurits, N. M., & Maassen, B. A. M. (2018). Predictors for grade 6 reading in children at familial risk of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 68(3), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­018-­0162-­1 Vellutino, F. R., & Fletcher, J. M. (2007). Developmental dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 362–378). Blackwell. Vender, M., & Melloni, C. (2021). Phonological awareness across child populations: How bilingualism and dyslexia interact. Languages, 6(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6010039 Venezky, R. P. (1999), The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. Guilford. Vernon, P. A. (1983). Speed of information processing and general intelligence. Intelligence, 7(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0160-­2896(83)90006-­5 Vigneau, M., Beaucousin, V., Hervé, P. Y., Duffau, H., Crivello, F., Houdé, O., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-­Mazoyer, N. (2006). Meta-­analyzing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1414–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.neuroimage.2005.11.002

REFERENCES  371

Vinckier, F., Dehaene, S., Jobert, A., Dubus, J., Sigman, M., & Cohen, L. (2007). Hierarchical coding of letter strings in the ventral stream: Dissecting the inner organization of the visual word-­form system. Neuron, 55(1), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.05.031 Voeller, K. K. S. (2004). Dyslexia. Journal of Child Neurology, 19, 740–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/08830738040190100301 Vogel, A. C., Miezin, F. M., Petersen, S. E., & Schlaggar, B. L. (2012). The putative visual word form area is functionally connected to the dorsal attention network. Cerebral Cortex, 22(3), 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr100 Wade-­Woolley, L., Wood, C. P., Chan, J., & Weidman, S. (2021). Prosodic competence as a missing component in reading processes across languages: Theory, evidence and future research. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(3). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1995390 Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., Olson, R. K., & Willcutt, E. G. (2007). Colorado longitudinal twin study of reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 57, 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­007-­0009-­7 Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2015). The Colorado Longitudinal Twin Study of reading difficulties and ADHD: Etiologies of comorbidity and stability. Twin Research and Human Genetics: The Official Journal of the International Society for Twin Studies, 18(6), 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1017/thg.2015.66 Wagner, R. F. (1973). Rudolf Berlin: Originator of the term dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 1, 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02653841 Wagner, R. K., & Barker, T. A. (1994). The development of orthographic processing ability. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge I: Theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 243–276). Kluwer. Wagner, R. K., Zirps, F. A., Edwards, A. A., Wood, S. G., Joyner, R. E., Becker, B. J., Liu, G., & Beal, B. (2020). The prevalence of dyslexia: A new approach to its estimation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420920377 Wagner, R. K., Zirps, F. A., & Wood, S. G. (2022). Developmental dyslexia. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 416–438). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch19 Wang, P. P. (2011). Nature, nurture and their interactions in child development and behavior. In R. G. Voight (Ed.), Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics (pp. 5–22). American Academy of Pediatrics. Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2019). Decoding and reading comprehension: A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000302 Washburn, E. K., Binks-­Cantrell, E. S., & Joshi, R. M. (2014). What do preservice teachers from the USA and the UK know about dyslexia? Dyslexia, 20(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1459 Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M., & Binks-­Cantrell, E. S. (2011). Teacher knowledge of basic language concepts and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 17, 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.426 Washburn, E. K., & Mulcahy, C. A. (2019). Morphology matters, but what do teacher candidates know about it? Teacher Education and Special Education, 42(3), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406418806649 Wasowicz, J. (2021). A speech-­to-­print approach to teaching reading. LDA Bulletin, 53(2), 10–18. Wernicke, C. (1874). Der aphasische symptomencomplex: Eine psychologische studie auf anatomischer basis. Cohn & Weigert. White, J. M., Mather, N., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2020). Preservice educators’ and noneducators’ knowledge and perceptions of responsibility about dyslexia. Dyslexia, 26(2), 220–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1653. White, S., Sabatini, J., Park, B. J., Chen, J., Bernstein, J., & Li, M. (2021). Highlights of the 2018 NAEP Oral Reading Fluency Study (NCES 2021-­026). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [February 21, 2023] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021026. Wiederholt, J. L. (1974). Historical perspectives on the education of the learning disabled. In L. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The second review of special education (pp. 103–152). JSE Press. Wiener, J. (2003). Resilience and multiple risks: A response to Bernice Wong. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-­5826.00061 Wilcke, A., Ligges, C., Burkhardt, J., Alexander, M., Wolf, C., Quente, E., Ahnert, P., Hoffmann, P., Becker, A., Müller-­Myhsok, B., Cichon, S., Boltze, J., & Kirsten, H. (2012). Imaging genetics of FOXP2 in dyslexia. European Journal of Human Genetics, 20(2), 224–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2011.160 Wilkinson, C., Ortiz, A., Robertson, P., & Kushner, M. (2006). English language learners with reading-­related LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390020201 Willcutt, E. G., Betjemann, R. S., Pennington, B. F., Olson, R. K., Defries, J. C., & Wadsworth, S. J. (2007). Longitudinal study of reading disability and Attention-­Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Implication for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-­228X.2007.00019.x Willcutt, E. G., & Pennington, B. F. (2000). Comorbidity of reading disability and attention-­deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Differences by gender and subtype. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300206 Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Chhabildas, N. S., Olson, R. K., & Hulslander, J. L. (2005). Neuropsychological analyses of comorbidity between RD and ADHD: In search of the common deficit. Developmental Neuropsychology, 27, 35–78. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2701_3 Williams, J., & O’Donovan, M. C. (2006). The genetics of developmental dyslexia. European Journal of Human Genetics, 14, 681–689. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201575 Willows, D. M., & Terepocki, M. (1993). The relation of reversal errors to reading disabilities. In D. M. Willows, R. S. Kruk, & E. Corcos (Eds.), Visual processes in reading and reading disabilities (pp. 31–56). Lawrence Erlbaum.

372 REFERENCES

Wilmot, A., Pizzey, H., Leitão, S., Hasking, P., & Boyes M. (2023). Growing up with dyslexia: Child and parent perspectives on school struggles, self-­esteem, and mental health. Dyslexia. 29(1), 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1729. Wimmer, H., & Mayringer, H. (2002). Dysfluent reading in the absence of spelling difficulties: A specific disability in regular orthographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 272−277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­0663.94.2.272 Wiznitzer, M., & Scheffel, D. L. (2009). Learning disabilities. In R. B. David, J. B. Bodensteiner, D. E. Mandelbaum, & B. Olson (Eds.), Clinical pediatric neurology (pp. 479–492). Demos Medical Publishing. Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. Harper Collins. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The “Double-­Deficit Hypothesis” for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-­0663.91.3.415 Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (2000). The question of naming-­speed deficits in developmental reading disability: An introduction to the Double-­ Deficit Hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 322–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300404 Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-­speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300409 Wood, S. G., Moxley, J. H., Tighe, E. L., & Wagner, R. K. (2017). Does use of text-­to-­speech and related read-­aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-­analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51, 73–84. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022219416688170 Wright, R. E., McMahon, D. D., Cihak, D. F., & Hirschfelder, K. (2022). Smartwatch executive function supports for students with ID and ASD. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(1), 63–73. Wybrow, D. P., & J. Hanley, R. (2015). Surface developmental dyslexia is as prevalent as phonological dyslexia when appropriate control groups are employed, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 32(1), 1–13 https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2014.998185 Yale University. (2020, March 19). Researchers find key to keep working memory working. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 25, 2023 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200319125228.htm Yan, X., Jiang, K., Li, H., Wang, Z., Perkins, K., & Cao, F. (2021). Convergent and divergent brain structural and functional abnormalities associated with developmental dyslexia. eLife, 10, e69523. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.69523 Yeatman, J. D., Dougherty, R. F., Ben-­Shachar, M., & Wandell, B. A. (2012). Development of white matter and reading skills. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(44), E3045–E3053. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206792109 Yeatman, J. D., Dougherty, R. F., Rykhlevskaia, E., Sherbondy, A. J., Deutsch, G. K., Wandell, B. A., & Ben-­Shachar, M. (2011). Anatomical properties of the arcuate fasciculus predict phonological and reading skills in children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3304–3317. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00061 Yin, L., Joshi, R. M., & Yan, H. (2020). Knowledge about dyslexia among early literacy teachers in China. Dyslexia, 26(3), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1635. Yoncheva, Y. N., Blau, V. C., Maurer, U., & McCandliss, B. D. (2010). Attentional focus during learning impacts N170 ERP responses to an artificial script. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(4), 423–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2010.480918 Yoshimasu, K., Barbaresi, W. J., Colligan, R. C., Killian, J. M., Voigt, R. G., Weaver, A. L., & Katusic, S. K. (2010). Gender, ADHD, and reading disability in a population-­based birth cohort. Pediatrics, 126, e788–e795. https://doi.org/10.1542 Young, C., Mohr, K. A. J., & Rasinski, T. (2015). Reading Together: A successful reading fluency intervention. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.976678 Zabala, J. S. (1995). The SETT framework: Critical areas to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED381962. Houston, TX: Region IV Education Service Center. Zabala, J. S., & Carl, D. (2010). The aiming for achievement series: What educators and families need to know about accessible instructional materials. Closing the Gap, 29(4), 11–14. Zarić, J., Hasselhorn, M., & Nagler, T. (2021). Orthographic knowledge predicts reading and spelling skills over and above general intelligence and phonological awareness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36, 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-­020-­00464-­7 Zaugg, T. (2023). Three free & easy tools to support tiered reading in your classroom. Center for Innovation, Design, and Digital Learning (CIDDL). Retrieved from https://ciddl.org/three-­free-­easy-­tools-­to-­support-­tiered-­reading-­in-­your-­classroom-­2/ Zhang, Z., & Peng, P. (2022). Reading real words versus pseudowords: A meta-­analysis of research in developmental dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 58(6), 1035–1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001340 Zhang, J., & Wang, Q. (2023). Reading and writing difficulties in bilingual learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 73(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-­ 023-­00282-­8 Zoccolotti, P., DeLuca, M., DiPace, E., Judica, A., & Orlandi, M. (1999). Markers of developmental surface dyslexia in a language (Italian) with high grapheme phoneme correspondence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716499002027

SUGGESTED READINGS

Alfonso, V. C., & Flanagan, D. P. (Eds.). (2018). Essentials of specific learning disability identification (2nd ed.). Wiley.

The second edition brings back leaders in SLD research and practice to update their works and add information about special issues, topics, and considerations in the field. Opening chapters focus on describing the manifestations of SLD in reading, writing, math, oral expression, and listening comprehension and provide information on identification and intervention. The second part of this work focuses on different models and methods of SLD identification that are based on research from the fields of education, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, and cognitive neuroscience. Case studies are included in this volume as well as an emphasis on differentiating cultural and linguistic differences from disabilities and differentiating SLD from other difficulties that impact learning. Contributing authors, including those new to the second edition, reflect on the state of the field of SLD. A perusal of the chapters in this volume solidifies that SLD is a heterogeneous group of disorders and that the underlying mechanisms are not the same for everyone. The overall theme of the book is that identification of SLD requires an evaluation of multiple data sources gathered via multiple methods and procedures, as well as the interpretation of findings within the context of what is known about the development and etiology of SLD. Berninger, V. (2020). Revised PAL guides for intervention. Reading and writing. Pearson.

This book can be used as a textbook for preservice and inservice course work as well as a resource for practitioners in schools. Part I covers the Conceptual Foundations for the history of assessment-­intervention links, understanding functional reading and writing systems, assessing functional reading and writing systems, and reading and writing intervention research. Part II provides guidance in identifying necessary curriculum components, linking assessment and instruction, writing intervention plans, including parents, teachers, and students in interventions, monitoring progress, and case studies that illustrate applying knowledge to practice. Part III describes examples of evidence-­based instruction for phonological awareness, orthographic awareness, the alphabetic principle, handwriting, and reading and writing lessons. Research references and resources are also included. Berninger, V. W., & Wolf, B. (2016, 2nd printing 2019). Dyslexia, dysgraphia, OWL LD, and dyscalculia. Lessons from science and teaching (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

Part I explains translation science for transforming research into practice for specific learning disabilities. Part II provides Research Lessons and Teaching Tips based on the Research Lessons for handwriting and related processes, for word reading and spelling and related processes, for listening and reading comprehension and oral and written expression and related skills, and for math concepts, computations, and problem-­solving and related skills. In addition, evidence-­based assessment resources, instructional resources, and teacher resources for reaching out to parents are summarized. Part III covers systems approaches to classroom organization, curriculum, executive functions for self-­regulation of learning, twice exceptional learners who are both gifted and have learning disabilities, and the use of technology. Part IV discusses preservice and inservice professional development, cross-­disciplinary collaboration on teams of professionals, and the necessary education of those who write the standards, laws, and policies for specific learning disabilities. Birsh, J. R., & Carreker, S. (2018). (Eds.). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (4th ed.). Brookes Publishing.

The chapters in this edited book provide in-­depth descriptions of how teachers can provide students with dyslexia and other learning disabilities with multisensory instruction. The contributing authors cover topics including Structured Literacy, early and more advanced literacy skills, alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness, decoding, spelling, fluency, executive function, handwriting, and mathematics. The presented methods are supported by research, as well as the in-­depth knowledge and experience of the contributors.

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 373

374  SUGGESTED READINGS

Blevins, W. (2023). Phonics from A to Z (4th ed.). Scholastic.

This book covers the latest research on instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. It explains how to integrate decodable text instruction, teach the most common syllable types, and provide instruction in irregular words. It includes word lists, word building exercises, sample lessons and activities, and descriptions of ways to differentiate phonics instruction among learners. It also includes a chart that highlights the similarities and differences in sounds and spellings in English, Spanish, and Asian languages. As noted by the author, the book is designed to help teachers fine-­tune their phonics instruction to increase student achievement. Hasbrouck, J. (2020). Conquering dyslexia. Benchmark Education/PD Essentials.

In Conquering Dyslexia, Dr. Jan Hasbrouck shares evidence-­based instructional approaches that work best for children who have this disorder, and current information for parents so they can advocate for their children and communicate with educators effectively. This book addresses: what dyslexia is, how to identify it, early diagnosis and intervention, teaching students with dyslexia, and supporting multi-­lingual learners. Dr. Jack Fletcher describes Conquering Dyslexia as “a thoroughly practical book that translates the science of reading and what we know about dyslexia into practice. A must-­read for teachers, practitioners, administrators, and others on the frontline of teaching all children to read.” Hegland, S. S. (2021). Beneath the surface of words: What English spelling reveals and why it matters. Learning About Spelling.

This book provides an explanation of the English spelling system, including topics that are not addressed in many other books on spelling. It starts with the essential role of morphology in English orthography, discusses the phonology of spoken words and the representation of phonology in spelling, and reveals other signals that are embedded in written words. The information in this book demystifies spelling and is a valuable resource for teachers in the classroom, tutors working with struggling students, teacher educators, researchers, parents, or anyone who wants to understand—­and be able to explain—­how English spelling really works. Henry, M. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding & spelling instruction (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

The focus of this book is on helping teachers increase their abilities to provide effective decoding and spelling instruction so that all students can become skilled readers and writers. From reading this textbook, teachers will learn how to (a) promote phonological and print awareness, (b) improve students’ spelling skills, and (c) deepen students’ understanding of language structure. Moats, L. C. (2020). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (3rd ed.). Brookes Publishing.

Developed by a renowned reading expert, this book is designed to help teachers develop a thorough and deep understanding of English language structure and how this knowledge relates to helping children learn to read and spell. The author clearly explains how this essential foundational knowledge is related to the delivery of high-­quality reading and writing instruction. Educators will learn to identify, understand, and solve the problems students may encounter when learning to read and write. Shaywitz, S. & Shaywitz, J. (2020). Overcoming dyslexia (2nd ed.). Alfred A. Knopf.

The second edition of this book provides a clear explanation for parents, teachers, and individuals with dyslexia, who wish to further their understanding of the cause and treatment of phonologically based dyslexia. The book is filled with research findings, practical advice, interviews of people with dyslexia, and specific resources that are designed to help students with dyslexia improve their reading ability. Guidance is provided for establishing a home program so that parents know how to help their children with reading. The book is divided into seven main sections: The Nature of Reading and Dyslexia, Diagnosing Dyslexia, Helping Your Child Become a Reader, Turning Struggling Readers into Proficient Readers, Choosing a School, Success after High School and Beyond, and Making it Work for the Dyslexic Child and Adult. This is a valuable resource for anyone wishing to understand and help individuals with dyslexia. Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Nation, K. (Eds.). (2022). The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.

This book provides an overview of the current understanding of the development of reading and reading-­related skills. It provides extensive coverage of language, reading, and writing disorders. Updated chapters written by leading researchers in the field explain current methods for identifying dyslexia, comorbidity of dyslexia and other disorders, the role of biology and the environment on reading development, the process of learning to read and spell words, and evidence about how best to teach children how to read. This is a valuable resource for advanced students, educators, and researchers wishing to explore recent advances in the study and science of reading. Snowling, M. J. (2019). Dyslexia: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

This short book describes the nature and characteristics of dyslexia, the most common learning disability. It describes contributions from medicine, psychology, and neuroscience, and provides an overview of history, describes genetic and environmental factors, and reviews cross-­linguistic studies. It includes testimony from individuals who have dyslexia as well as writing samples to illustrate difficulties with spelling. The book reviews brain scanning techniques that clarify how the brains of individuals with dyslexia differ from typically developing readers. It is written in a clear, concise format and provides an excellent introduction to dyslexia.

SUGGESTED READINGS  375

Spear-­Swerling, L. (2022). Structured literacy interventions: Teaching students with reading difficulties, grades K-­6. Guilford Press.

This book is a comprehensive guide and resource for K-­6 teachers seeking to enrich their teaching methods with Structured Literacy (SL) approaches. It equips educators with the tools and knowledge they need to provide explicit, systematic, and sequential instruction for phonological awareness, basic and multisyllabic word decoding, spelling, reading fluency, vocabulary, oral and reading comprehension, and written expression. While focusing on these key components of literacy, the chapters provide interventions for both at-­risk students and students with dyslexia. With case studies, sample activities, and downloadable reproducible tools, this book provides guidance to teachers regarding how to tailor their reading interventions to address any literacy challenges in all of their students. Winter, N. (2022). Brilliant strengths Ingram Sparks. Trudeau, L. (2021). Brilliantly dyslexic, Brilliantly LLC.

The two books, Brilliant Strengths and Brilliantly Dyslexic, can be used together as a strengths-­based program that is designed to increase self-­esteem and lower anxiety in students with dyslexia. While Brilliantly Dyslexic inspires children with 22 diverse biographies about the lives of incredible people with dyslexia, Brilliant Strengths incorporates children’s literature, emphasizes the strengths of resilience, innovation and connecting, and refers to those inspirational people with dyslexia. This program is intended to help students change their perspective from one of seeing themselves through the lens of their weaknesses to one of seeing themselves through the lens of their strengths. (https://www.brilliantstrengths.com and https://www.brilliantlydyslexic.com). Young, N., & Hasbrouck, J (Eds.) (2024). Climbing the ladder of reading & writing: Meeting the needs of all learners. Benchmark Education/ PD Essentials.

This book was written to expand upon and explain the details of Nancy Young’s widely-­used infographic: The Ladder of Reading & Writing. The infographic was created to help educators, parents/caregivers, and community members better understand the wide “range of ease” in learning to read and write the English Language, a journey of skill development likened to climbing the rungs of a ladder. The colored continuum in the infographic represents the variations of ease in skill mastery and details instructional implications. The book is divided into three sections: Understanding the Big Picture; Addressing Exceptional Needs; and Exploring Additional Considerations. 27 authors, many of whom are leaders in their fields, collaborated to write 20 short, useful chapters about how to ­differentiate instruction to help students with dyslexia, ADHD, intellectual disabilities, etc., or who are advanced in reading, along with chapters addressing school/home connections and teacher development. Dr. Reid Lyon wrote: “Nancy Young and Jan Hasbrouck, both premier educators and scholars, have provided the field with a masterpiece linking the science undergirding reading and writing development with the science of instruction.”

ABOUT THE AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

AUTHORS

Nancy Mather, Ph.D., is a professor emerita in the Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson, AZ. She conducts numerous presentations and workshops each year for conferences both nationally and internationally. She is a widely published author of tests, a reading program, several books, and numerous articles. She is a co-­author of the Woodcock-­Johnson IV and has co-­authored two books on the use and interpretation of this test. She is also a co-­author of the Tests of Dyslexia (WPS, 2024). She is a co-­author on several books, including: Essentials of Assessment Report Writing and Learning Disabilities and Challenging Behaviors. She recently received the Samuel Torrey Orton Award (2023) from the International Dyslexia Association for her contributions to the field of dyslexia. Barbara J. Wendling, M. A., is an educator, author, and consultant specializing in assessment and instruction. She has taught in both general and special education settings. With Dr. Mather, she has co-­authored Essentials of Evidence-­Based Academic Interventions, Writing Assessment and Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities, and Essentials of Dyslexia: Assessment and Intervention. In addition, she has co-­authored a number of publications related to the Woodcock-­Johnson IV, including the Woodcock Interpretation and Instructional Interventions Program (WIIIP) and the Essentials of WJ IV™ Tests of Achievement. Wendling is a co-­author of the Tests of Dyslexia, (WPS, 2024). CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Fumiko Hoeft, M.D., Ph.D., is the Campus Director of UConn Waterbury, Director of the Brain Imaging Research Center, and Professor of Psychological Sciences at the University of Connecticut. She conducts research in the area of the neuroscience of dyslexia and other learning disabilities, their socio-­emotional consequences, and mechanisms underlying compensatory and resilience. Honors include awards from the International Dyslexia Association (IDA; Geschwind Lecture: 2014, Samuel Torrey Orton Award: 2022), Learning & the Brain Foundation (2015), International Mind, Brain & Education Society (IMBES; 2018), and Society for Neuroscience (SfN; 2018) for her contributions to science, science education, and translation of neuroscience to the public. She has published over 190 articles, reviews, and book chapters. Deborah Schneider, Ph.D., is a research scientist at the Hoeft BrainLENS Laboratory at the University of Connecticut. Her work in the fields of special education and educational psychology have appeared in the Cambridge Handbook of Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis, the Sage Encyclopedia of Abnormal Clinical Psychology, the Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, Springer’s Handbook of Intelligence, Brookes’ Learning Disabilities and Challenging Behaviors, and Wiley’s Woodcock-­Johnson IV: Reports, Recommendations, and Strategies. Nancy Redding, M.Ed., is an accredited training fellow in the Orton-­Gillingham Academy who trains teachers and prepares them for certification. She has served as a learning specialist at the elementary school, high school, and community college levels. Nancy is the co-­author with Marcia Henry, Ph.D., of Patterns for Success In Reading and Spelling, a literacy program using OG-­based lessons. She conducts workshops on topics related to dyslexia and Structured Literacy, and is actively involved in the International Dyslexia Association at the local and national levels.

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 377

378  About the Authors and Contributing Authors

Sue Scibetta Hegland, B. S., is an author, consultant, and frequent speaker on topics related to spelling. She has professional experience in research and instructional design and is trained in the Orton–Gillingham approach to literacy instruction. Sue has served on the Board of Education for the Brandon Valley School District and the Board of Directors for the Upper Midwest Branch of the International Dyslexia Association (IDA), currently sitting on their Advisory Council. She is the Editor-­in-­Chief for IDA’s Fact Sheet publications, founder of the website LearningAboutSpelling.com, and author of the book Beneath the Surface of Words: What English Spelling Reveals and Why It Matters. Kathleen Puckett, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. Her areas of interest include inclusive practices for students with disabilities, instructional and assistive technology, and international special education services. She is the current president of the Division of Leaders and Legacy and a past president of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC, 2009), and continues an active role with several CEC divisions. She has published a number of books and articles related to the education of children with special needs and has received several state and federal grants that recruit and support teachers and leaders in special education. Dr. Puckett also serves on state and national professional boards and committees related to special education services. Martha Youman, Ph.D., is an educational psychologist in the state of California. She focuses on the assessment of dyslexia and other learning disabilities in multicultural, multilingual, and diverse students. Her research has focused on the exploration of cognitive ­correlates of reading in Spanish-­speaking English learners (ELs) and the best practices for assessment of reading and dyslexia in ELs. Emily Mather, B.A., is a certified English as a second language (ESL) teacher and studied international studies with a concentration on comparative literature. She served as an editorial assistant and contributor throughout the development of all aspects of this book. She is currently studying to become a speech–language pathologist. Elaine Cheesman, Ph.D., is an associate professor emerita from the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs. Her main interests are teacher education in scientific reading instruction and technology for individuals with dyslexia.

INDEX

Note: page numbers in italics refer to figures; those in bold to tables ability‐achievement discrepancy, 23, 201–202 academic stress, 10 Accelerated Reader, 154 accommodations/modifications definition of, 203–204, 204 examples of, 204 legal requirement for, 203 accuracy, 85, 87, 160, 162, 163 acquired alexia, 29 adapted or modified test, 192–193 affix, 120 alexia, 29, 41 alphabetic orthographies. see orthography alphabetic principle, 56, 73 alphabet prosody, 168 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 197 analytic phonics approach, 133 anterior, 32–33 aphasia, 15 Broca’s, 29–30, 30 Wernicke’s, 29–30, 30 apps, 154, 171, 175, 176 Arizona Articulation and Phonology Scale, Fourth Revision, 214–215 assessment of decoding, 73–90 goal of, 55 levels of analysis, 58, 59 of memory, 69–70 of morphology, 78–80 of orthography, 78 of phonological awareness, 58–62 of rapid automatized naming (RAN), 62–63 of reading fluency, 84–90 of spelling, 80–82

Assistive technology (AT). see technology attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 4–5, 43, 46–49, 48, 65–66 children with, 66–67 comorbidity, 49 etiology of, 49 auditory dyslexia, 24 auditory memory, 42 auditory model of reading, 25 Australian Dyslexia Association, 8 automaticity, 9, 63, 73–75, 157 axon, 30, 31, 43–44 Barton Reading & Spelling System, 154, 280–281 base element, 120 Berkhan, Oswald, 15 Berlin, Rudolph, 15 Betts, Emmett, 5, 13 bilingual learners. see English learner blending phonological awareness, 94–95 sound, 16 stretched, 95 teaching, 95 Bonferroni correction, 36 bound base elements, 126–127, 126 brain activation in individuals with dyslexia, 33 anatomy of, 29 arcuate fasciculus (AF), 35 functional systems underlying reading and dyslexia, 31–34 functions of major areas, 29–30 historical studies of, 29–30 imaging of, 31–32, 35–36 language processing area, 32

Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention, Second Edition. Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling. © 2024 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 379

380 Index

brain (continued ) left hemisphere of, 30, 31 neural signature of dyslexia, 34 neural systems for reading, 31–32, 32 neurological characteristics of dyslexia, 34 stem, 31, 38 structural networks underlying reading and dyslexia, 34–35 British Dyslexia Association (BDA), 7 Broadbent, William, 13 Broca, Paul, 29–30 Brodmann’s area, 29 CBM. see curriculum‐based measurement central executive, 68. See also memory cerebellum, 30, 30 cerebral white matter (CWM), 31 cerebrum, 30, 30, 31 chatbot, 178–181 Chinese (logographic) writing, 185, 185 choral reading, 166–167 chromosomes, 42, 42 classroom teachers, 51 Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF‐4), 80 clinical teaching, principles of, 25 coarticulation, 56, 95 cognates, 101 cognitive correlates of dyslexia, 55–71. see also memory; phonological awareness; rapid automatized naming cognitive deficits, 55 cognitive resources, 159 cognitive speediness, 65 color naming, 65 common rimes, 112 comorbidity, 47–49 comorbid language disorders, 55 complex syllable, 184 complex word, 120 compound word, 120 Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL-2), 80, 216–218 Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP-2), 60, 64, 218–220 concept map, 176, 177 congenital, 15, 16 word blindness, 29–30 word deafness, 15, 19, 25 connecting vowel letter, 120 consolidated alphabetic writing, 107, 109 consonant–vowel–consonant (CVC) words, 96 content (lexical) word, 120 context, practice reading words in, 115

continuum of severity, 26 conventional spelling, 76, 77 conventions (or spelling conventions), 120 corrective reading, 162 correlate, 55–71 curriculum‐based measurement (CBM), 85–86, 88–89 curriculum‐based measurements of reading (R‐CBM), 85 decodable texts examples of, 136–137 purpose, 135 decoding, 159. see also phonics assessment of, 78, 81–82 automaticity of, 74 backward, 112–114, 114 commercial programs for, 154–155 definition of, 132 development of, 73–74 instruction for, 131–156 irregular words, 82–83 phases of, 74–75 principles of effective early reading instruction, 101–102 real words, 82–83 relationship to spelling, 73 deep dyslexia, 25–26. See also dyslexia, subtypes deep model of reading, 25 Dejerine, Jules, 29, 31 derivational morphemes, 80 developmental dyslexia, 13, 29–30. see also dyslexia developmental language disorder (DLD), 4, 48, 58, 69 Diagnostic Achievement Battery (DAB‐3), 81 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, DSM-5-TR; classification of dyslexia in, 2 Diagnostic Assessments of Reading, 79 Differential Ability Scales (DAS‐II), 60, 66, 69 differentiated instruction (DI), 208, 295–296 diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI), 34 correlations between measures of, 35 digital texts. see technology digraph, 77, 110, 111, 166 diphthong, 137 discrepancy formula, 21 double‐deficit theory of dyslexia, 63 doubling convention, 123 DSM‐5-TR. see Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, DSM-5-TR dual‐route theory, 82–83 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), 79 dyscalculia, 3, 48, 65–66 dyseidetic model of reading, 25 dysfluent, 90, 160

Index  381

dysgraphia, 3, 83, 224–225 dyslexia accommodations or modifications, 37, 203–204 assessment insights from history, 26 behavioral genetic research into, 43 candidate genes related to, 44 causes of, 5, 44 characteristics of, 4–5, 26, 34 cognitive correlates of, 55–71 comorbidity, 46–49, 49 definition of, 2, 6–9, 29 determining presence of, 201–202 diagnosis, 37 in schools, 199–200 and treatment of, 2 early warning signs of, 50 emotional impact of, 204–206 English learners with, 189–190, 203 environmental influences, 46, 48 evaluations, 81, 213–214 familial transmission of, 41 feature of, 48 gender differences, 46–47 genetic blueprint of, 44 genetic component of, 44–45 gifted students with, 202–203 heritability, 45 history of, 13–27, 26 insights from, 26 timeline, 14 individuals with, 63–64, 84 instruction for, 50 legislation regarding, 197–198 states with laws for, 2 misconceptions about, 9–10 neural signature of, 33, 34, 34 neural systems for reading and, 32, 32 neurobiological basis of, 37 neurobiological reality of, 37 neurobiological underpinnings of, 30 neurological characteristics of, 34 in other languages, 183 other terms for, 13 prevalence of, 5–6 research on, 49 risk for, 44 role of intelligence, 5, 16, 21 role of school, 197, 199–200 spelling performance of individuals with, 81 stability of, 46 subtypes of poor readers, 25–26

auditory, 25 deep, 25 dyseidetic, 25 dysphonetic, 25 surface, 25, 82–83 visual, 25 subtypes, phonological, 6 symptoms and characteristics, 4 timeline of contributions, 13, 14 warning signs of, 50 what it isn’t, 4 Dyslexia Association of Hong Kong, 8 Dyslexia Association of Ireland, 8 Dyslexia Association of Singapore, 8 Dyslexia Early Screening Test, 60, 64 Dyslexia Reading Well, 94 dysphonetic, 25 model of reading, 25 spelling error, 149–150 EarlyBird Dyslexia and Early Literacy Screener, 221–222 Early Reading Assessment, 220–221 E convention, 123 effective commercial programs, 154–155 effective phonemic awareness instruction, 98 effective spelling instruction, 145–147 efficient orthographic learning, 105–106 Ehri’s phases of sight‐word learning, 74–75 element, 120 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). see No Child Left Behind Elkonin method, 99–100 Elkonin procedure, 99, 100 EL. see English Learner embedded phonics, 133–134 emotional impact of dyslexia, 204–206 encoding, 133–134, 144, 147, 197. see also spelling assessment of, 78 English language testing, 193 morphological framework of, 122 regularity of, 127 English Learner (EL) assessment for dyslexia in, 192–194 adapted or modified, 192–193 best practice, 193–194 native language, 193 nonverbal, 193 characteristics of dyslexia in, 189–190, 203 common reading and spelling mistakes, 191 early reading instruction for, 101

382 Index

environmental influences home, 50–51 school, 50–51 epigenetic effect, 45 Equipped for Reading Success: A Comprehensive, Step‐By‐Step Program for Developing Phoneme Awareness and Fluent Word Recognition, 281–283 etymological marker, 120 etymology, 120 in spelling, 127–128 etymon, 120 European Dyslexia Association, 8 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 197 Federal Provisions Governing Education, 198 evidence‐based programs, descriptions of, 279–280 expectancy formula, 21 explicit instruction, 127, 133, 151, 192, 208 expressive aphasia, 29 family history, 44–45 Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR), 222–224 Feifer Assessment of Writing (FAW), 224–226 Fernald approach, 22–23, 144, 204 fissures, 31 Florida Center for Reading Research, 169, 222 fluency. see also reading fluency methods of assessing, 85–90 prosody, 87–89 rate, 85–87 Fluency Formula, 86 fMRI. see functional magnetic resonance imaging fractional anisotropy, 35 free base elements, 126 frontal lobe, 30, 30, 31 full alphabetic, 76, 109, 112 functional brain imaging studies, 36 functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 31–34, 36 Blood‐oxygen level dependent response (BOLD), 31 statistical issues related to, 35–36 functional neural systems, 32, 32 function words, 120, 121, 128 fundations. see Wilson Fundations® Galaburda, Albert, 18–19 genes, 42, 42, 52 genetics chromosomes, 42, 42 comorbidity, 47–49 DNA, 42, 42 family history, 44–45 genes, 42, 42, 52

genome, 42 genotype, 49 heritability, 42, 45–46 phenotype, 49 research on, 49 rudimentary nature of, 43 sex differences, 46–47 twin studies, 45–46 genome, 42 genotype, 49 Geschwind, Norman, 18–19 Gillingham, Anna, 17–18 glass analysis for decoding only, 142 Glass‐Analysis for Decoding Only, 142 glial cells, 30 grade, 125 grapheme, 56, 57, 58, 59, 67, 120. see also alphabetic principle; phonics grapheme–phoneme conversion knowledge, 84 graphophonic, 148 Gray Diagnostic Reading Tests (GDRT‐2), 82, 227–228 Gray Oral Reading Tests (GORT‐5), 82, 228–229 Gray Silent Reading Tests (GSRT), 82, 229–230 Great Leaps Reading, 283–284 gyrus, 31–35 Health Council of the Netherlands, 9 Hegge, Kirk, and Kirk Remedial Drills, 23–24 Heggerty Phonemic Awareness, 284–285 heritability, 42, 43, 45–46 high frequency words, 135, 143–144 Hinshelwood, James, 15–16, 47 regarding word blindness, 16 history. see dyslexia, history of history regarding assessment, 26 home environment, 50–51 hooked on phonics, 102 IDA. see International Dyslexia Association IDEA. see Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act IEP. see Individualized Education Program Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, Third Edition (ITPA‐3), 23, 79 Individualized Education Program (IEP), 171, 197 individually administered achievement tests, 81 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), 3, 13, 21, 85, 157, 171, 197–198 inferior fronto‐occipital fasciculus (IFOF), 35 inferior longitudinal fasciculus (ILF), 35 inflectional morphemes, 78, 80 informal reading inventory (IRI), 84

Index  383

instruction basic reading and spelling skills, 131–156 fluency, 160 morphology, 145–146 orthographic awareness, 146 phonics, 132–135 phonological awareness, 93–104, 146–147 instructional levels, 84 Instructional technology (IT), 172. see also technology intelligence. see also dyslexia, role of intelligence level of, 21 International Dyslexia Association (IDA), 6, 17, 56, 198 definition of dyslexia, 7 Professional Standards and Practices Committee, 6 intraindividual differences, 23 irregular words, 82–84, 115–116, 142–144, 148 IT. see technology Japanese Kana (syllabic) writing, 186, 186 Johnson, Doris, 24–25 Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA‐III), 60, 64, 81, 230–233 Kerr, James, 15 Kirk, Samuel, 22–24 Kurzweil, 175–176. See also technology Kussmaul, 13–15 Kuwait Dyslexia Association, 9 Ladders to Literacy, 102 LANGUAGE! Live 2.0., 286–288 Language Research Project of the Neurological Institute of New York, 16 LANGUAGE! The Comprehensive Literacy Curriculum, 285–286 Learning Ally, 175 learning disabilities (LD), 13, 21, 24–25, 47. See also specific learning disability letters name‐alphabetic spellers, 77 naming, 65 teaching, 98 letter‐sound decoding, 56 Lexia Reading, 154 lexical access, 66, 273, 274 Lindamood Phoneme Segmentation (LiPS) for Reading, Spelling, and Speech, 58, 102, 288–289 linguistics, 3, 6, 48, 50, 55, 65, 70, 71, 76, 78, 81, 131, 145, 191, 192 correlates of dyslexia, 55–71 LiPS. see Lindamood Phoneme Segmentation (LiPS) for Reading, Spelling, and Speech literacy, 10, 17, 18, 64, 73–74, 89

local education agency (LEA), 197 logical spelling error, 121 logographic orthography, 185, 185. see also orthography longitudinal study, 204, 245 Longitudinal Twin Study of Reading Disability (LTSRD), 45–46 Maharashtra Dyslexia Association (Mumbai), 8 Mayo Clinic, 7 memory assessment of, 69–70 informal measures of, 70 memory span, 68–69 span, informal measures of, 70 Warren’s sentence about, 68 working memory, 69–70 MindPlay Virtual Reading Coach, 289–290 mobile devices. see technology modern neuroimaging techniques, 30 molecular genetics, 42 Monroe, Marion, 19–22 Morgan, Pringle, 15 Morpheme Magic: Lessons to Build Morphological Awareness for Grades 4–12, 290–291 morphemes, 114–115, 120 Morphemes for Little Ones: Bring the Magic of Language to K–3 Classrooms, 290 morphemic elements, 121 morphological knowledge, 80 informal measures of, 80 standardized measures of, 80 morphology, 119, 120 affixes, 80, 133 assessment of, 80 from beginning, 119–124, 122 definition of, 67, 78, 80, 133 instruction in, 146–147 understanding of system, 124–125 morphophonemic, 120 multiple patterns, integration of, 78 multisensory instruction, 17. See also Fernald method Multisensory Teaching Approach for Reading and Spelling (MTA), 291–293 multi‐tiered system of support (MTSS), 199 Myklebust, Helmer, 24–25 NAEP. see National Assessment of Educational Progress National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 47, 210 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 7 National Reading Panel (NRP), 93, 168 phonological awareness, 93–94 reading fluency, 157, 160, 168 synthetic phonics, 134

384 Index

native language testing, 193 NCLB. see No Child Left Behind Nelson‐Denny Reading Test, 82, 234–235 neural signature of dyslexia, 33–34 neural systems disruption of, 37 for reading, 31–33, 32 neuroanatomy, 30 neurobiological, 29, 30, 34, 37, 183, 194 neurodevelopmental, 41–44, 47, 48, 51 neurological impress method. see choral reading neuron, 30, 31, 43, 44 neuronal migration, 43, 44 new words, 111–112 95 Phonics Core Program®, 293 No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 197 nonsense words, 114, 230. see also pseudowords nonverbal testing, 193 nonword repetition, 48 NRP. see National Reading Panel object naming, 65 occipital lobe, 30, 30 OCR. see optical character recognition Office for Civil Rights (OCR), 197 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), 200 One Minute Reader (OMR), 293–294 onset‐rime, 96, 137. see also phonics; phonological awareness segmenting and blending, 112 Opaque orthography, 67, 184 optical character recognition (OCR), 173, 174 Oral and Written Language Scales Second Edition (OWLS-II), 237–238 oral language, role in dyslexia, 55, 100–101 Oral Passage Understanding Scale (OPUS), 235–236 oral reading errors, 19–20 provide practice in, 115 oral spelling, 115 orthographic awareness, assessment of, 78–80 coding, 66–68 definition of, 66, 67 instruction in, 146–147 spelling strategies to increase, 151 symptoms of difficulty with, 67 orthographic coding, 66–68 orthographic denotation, 120, 125–126 orthographic lexicon, 106, 108, 109, 262 orthographic mapping, 56 acquisition of, 107 consolidated‐alphabetic phase, 107 phonetic decoding vs., 107, 108, 110

process of, 106, 106 skills, development of, 111 and students with dyslexia, 108–111, 108 vocabulary of, 111 orthographic memory, 105–107 orthographic morphological matrices, 122 orthographic morphological matrix, 120 orthographic processing, 30 assessment of, 78 include measures of, 79 informal measures, 78 standardized measures, 78 orthographic units, 67, 107 symptoms of, 67 visual recognition of, 67 orthography, 67, 120 description of, 105–107 in different languages, 183 dyslexia across, 186–187 in deep, 187 in nonalphabetic, 189 in shallow, 187–189 shallow and deep alphabetic, 184 types of, alphabetic, 183–184, 184 deep, 67, 187 logographic, 184–185 nonalphabetic, 189 shallow, 67, 187–189 syllabic, 186 weaknesses in, 150–151, 151 Orton Dyslexia Society, 18 Orton–Gillingham approach, 22 Orton–Gillingham technique, 17–18, 134 Orton, Samuel, 16–18, 25, 94 pain, 10 paired‐associate learning, 68 PAL II RW Revised User Guide and Instructional Materials, 294–296 parents of children with dyslexia (PDys), 50 parietal lobe, 30, 30, 31 partial alphabetic, 74, 76, 107 partner reading, 165 Patterns for Success in Reading and Spelling, 154, 296–297 Peer‐Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), 165 perceptual processing, 65–66 phenotype, 49 phonation techniques, 94 phoneme, 121 awareness, incorporate proficiency in, 111 production of, 58 phoneme‐grapheme correspondences, 73, 75, 101, 103, 107, 109–111, 115, 117, 133, 135, 137, 187, 189, 299

Index  385

phoneme‐grapheme knowledge, 110 phoneme‐grapheme mapping, 59, 67, 111, 146 phoneme‐grapheme proficiency, development of, 110 phoneme‐grapheme relationships, 74–75, 98–100, 99, 100, 119, 133. see also alphabetic principle; phonics phonemic awareness, 56–57 deficit in, 48 development of, 56, 59 symptoms of, 57 Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum, 102 phonemic manipulation tasks, 96–97 phonemic proficiency, 263–264 phonetic decoding, 107, 108, 110 phonetic information, 33 phonetic spelling, 75–76, 76 error, 149–150 Phonic Reading Lessons: Skills and Practice (PRL), 102, 297–298 phonics approaches to instruction, 132–135 analogy, 133–134 analytic, 133–134 embedded, 133–134 phonics through spelling, 133–134 synthetic, 133–134 association, 16 consonant pairs, 59 definition of, 132 grapheme, 56 onset, 57, 58, 137–138 phoneme, 56–58 rime, 57–58, 137–138 schwa, 58 sequence of instruction, 134 six syllable types, 137–142 structural analysis, 132, 135–142 terminology, 132, 133 Phonics and Spelling Through Phoneme‐Grapheme Mapping, 102, 298–299 Phono‐Graphix, Reading Reflex, 102, 299–300, 299–301 Phonological and Print Awareness Scale, 238–240 phonological awareness, 55, 56–57 assessment of, 58–62 blending, 94–95 commercial programs for teaching, 101–103, 103 commonly used standardized measures of, 60, 61 deficit in, 58 definition of, 55–58 development of, 56, 59, 60 early reading programs, 102 importance of, 68 informal assessment of, 61–62

informal measures of, 61–62 instruction for, 93–104, 145–147 level of analysis, 57, 58 National Reading Panel findings, 94, 103 phoneme‐grapheme relations, 98–100 phonemic awareness, 55–58 relationship to reading and spelling, 93 segmentation, 95–96 symptoms of, 57 voiced and unvoiced consonants, 58–59 Phonological Awareness Screening Test (PAST), 240–242 phonological dyslexia, 82 individuals with, 26 phonological processing, 30 phonology, 121 instruction in, 145–147 weaknesses in, 150 phrase‐cued reading technique, 168 plana temporale, differences in, 19 poor readers, characteristics of, 19–20 positron emission tomography (PET), 27 pre‐alphabetic readers, 74 prefix, 121 Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL II), 64, 79, 81 processing speed assessment of, 66 deficits, 65 definition of, 65–66 gender differences, 65 informal measures of, 66 standardized measures of, 66 progress monitoring, 167 prosody, 87–90. see also reading fluency detailed assessment of, 90 rating, 90 pseudowords, 82–84 reading and spelling of, 5 QuickReads, 169 RAN. see rapid automatized naming rapid automatized naming (RAN), 55, 62–63 assessment of, 62–63, 63–64 deficit in, 63 definition of, 63–64 informal measures of, 65 standardized measures of, 64 Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Tests, 64, 242–243 rapid word chart, 113 Rapid word recognition chart, 162–164 RAVE‐O, 169, 279–280, 301–303

386 Index

Read 180, 154 read aloud, 101 read and spell nonsense words, 114 readers’ theater, 165 reading, 5, 6 commonly used standardized measures of, 82 development, 74 disorders, 47 impairment, 63 and spelling, 94 and writing, 18, 333–336 reading fluency accuracy, 85, 87, 160, 162, 163 Amira, 165 assessment of, 84–85, 84–90 benchmarks for, 86 choral reading, 166–167 commercial programs, 169 components of, 157–159, 158, 159 continuous reading, 164 curriculum‐based norms, 88–89 deciding where to begin, 160 definition of, 84–85, 157–161 effective interventions, 162–167, 163 explicit modeling, 162 fluency development lesson, 165 instruction in, 157, 160 monitor progress, 167 partner reading, 165 practice, importance of, 168–169 prosody, 87–90, 157–159 rapid word recognition chart, 162–163 rate, 85–87, 157–159, 161 adjusting, 168–169 readers’ theater, 165 recorded reading, 165–166 relationship to comprehension, 157–159 repeated readings, 163–164 sight‐word phrases for assessment or practice, 160 speed drills, 166 Reading Mastery, 102 Reading Readiness, 102 Reading Reflex, 299–300 reading skills and spelling, 80 Read Live, 303–304 Read Naturally, 194 Read, Write, & Type!, 102, 304–305 receptive aphasia, 29 Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic (RFB&D). see Learning Ally remedial methods, 20–21 repeated reading, 163–164 response‐to‐intervention (RTI) model, 85–86, 199–202, 200 REWARDS, 154, 305–306

Reynolds Dyslexia Risk Assessment (RDRA), 243–244 rimes. see also onset‐rime; phonics by syllable type, 137, 141 word and nonsense recognition chart with, 113 Road to Reading: A Program for the Prevention and Remediation of Reading Difficulties, 154, 308–309 Road to the Code: A Phonological Awareness Program for Young Children, 102, 306–308 school diagnosing dyslexia and providing services, 199–200, 200 dyslexia role of, 197, 199–200 environment, 51–52 legislation impacting, 197–198 schwa, 98 Scottish Rite Bridges: A Dyslexia Intervention Connecting Teacher, Avatar, And Student, 309–310 Scottish Rite Build: A K–1 Early Reading Intervention, 310–311 Scottish Rite Jet: A Fast‐Paced Reading Intervention, 312–313 Scottish Rite Take Flight: A Comprehensive Intervention for Students with Dyslexia, 311–312 second language learning. see English Learner segmentation, 95–96. see also phonics; phonological awareness selection bias, 47 semantics, 132 set for variability (SfV), 62 sex differences, 46–47 shallow orthography, 184, 187 Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™, 244–245 sight words, 144 learning, 74–75 look‐say approach, 17, 22 phrases for practice, 161 simple view of reading (SVR), 3 simple word, 121 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 45 single‐photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), 27 Six Minute Solution, 169 six syllable types, 135–142 skilled reading, 74–75 SLD. see specific learning disability Slingerland® Approach, 134, 313–314 socio‐economic status (SES), 45 software tools. see technology Sonday System, 154, 314–315 sounds, 97–98 blending, 16 Spanish Federation of Dyslexia, 8 Spanish‐speaking child with dyslexia, 188, 188 specific learning disabilities (SLD), 2, 4, 21, 295 eligibility determination, 199 specific learning disorder in mathematics, 48

Index  387

speech recognition (SR), 173–174 speech sound disorder (SSD), 48 speed drills, 166 spelling, 144–145, 145 assessment of, 78, 80–81 commercial programs for, 154–155 common errors in, 149–151 conventional, 76, 77 developmental stages of, 75–77 error analysis, 82 etymology and role in, 127–128 flow list, 148–149, 149 general principles of instruction, 152–153, 152, 153 graphemic parsing, 82 identity of words, 128 instruction, 119, 145–147, 149 modifications in, 149 phonetic/full alphabetic, 75–76, 76 prephonetic/prephonemic/prephonological, 75, 75 pseudoword reading and, 83–84 semiphonetic/partial alphabetic, 75–76, 76 stages and phases of, 75–77, 76, 77 strategies to increase orthographic awareness, 151 strategy theory of, 77–78 tests of, 147–148, 147 transitional/consolidated alphabetic, 76 Spelling by Pattern, 315–317 Spelling Performance Evaluation for Language and Literacy (SPELL-3), 246–247 SPELL‐Links to Reading & Writing™, 315–317 Spellography: A Fun Guide to Better Spelling, 154, 317–320 SpellRead, 154 S.P.I.R.E., 102, 320–323 SR. see speech recognition SSD. see speech sound disorder standardized measures, 59, 64 Star Early Literacy Computer‐Adaptive Diagnostic Assessment, 79 Star Phonics, 247–248 statistical learning, 121 stealth dyslexia, 202 strategy theory, 77–78 strephosymbolia, 16 structural analysis, 132, 135–142 Structured Literacy™, 17 principles of, 102 Success for All, 154 suffix, 121 sulcus, 31 Superkids Reading Program, 322–323 supramarginal gyri, 16, 31 surface dyslexia, 25, 82, 83. see also dyslexia surface model of reading, 25, 82–83 syllabic orthographies, 186

syllables, 114–115 synthetic phonics, 19, 133–134. see also phonics System 44, 154 systematic instruction, 121 systematic intervention, 97 tactile‐kinesthetic learning, 144 tape‐assisted reading, 165–166 teacher/teaching letters, 97–98 training, importance of, 206–210 technology applications for students with dyslexia, 177 assistive (AT), 172–173 basic operating system features, 174 Bookshare, 175 concept mapping, 177 differentiated instruction (DI), 172 digital text, 174–175 instructional (IT), 172–173 Learning Ally, 175 legislation related to, 171–172, 174–175 personal, 172–173 reading support, 178 scanners, 174 speech recognition, 173–174 text to speech (TTS), 173–174, 176, 178 universal design for learning (UDL), 172 vocabulary support, 176 web tools, Google documents, 175–176 word processing, 177–178 writing support, 177–178 temporal lobe, 30, 30, 31 Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language Fourth Edition (TACL-4), 80 Test of Early Reading Ability, Fourth Edition (TERA‐4), 253–254 Test of Irregular Word Reading Efficiency (TIWRE), 79, 82 Test of Memory and Learning Second Edition (TOMAL-2), 70 Test of Orthographic Competence Second Edition (TOC-2), 79, 254–255 Test of Reading Comprehension Fourth Edition (TORC-4), 255–257 Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency Second Edition (TOSCRF-2), 257–258 Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension, 258–259 Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency Second Edition (TOSWRF-2), 82, 259–260 Test of Word Reading Efficiency Second Edition (TOWRE-2), 82, 260–261 Tests of Dyslexia (TOD), 248–252 text to speech (TTS), 173–174, 178 transparent orthography, 67, 187

388 Index

traumatic brain injury (TBI), 13, 41 TTS. see text to speech T1‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 34 Twins Early Development Study (TEDS), 46 UDL. see Universal Design for Learning UFLI Foundations, 323–324 unexpected underachievement, 5, 21. see also ability‐achievement discrepancy Universal Design for Learning (UDL), 172, 174 uppercase letters, teaching, 98 U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), 175, 197–198 visual‐auditory‐kinesthetic‐tactile (VAKT) approach, 17 visual crowding, 67 visual dyslexia, 24 visual information, 33 interpretation of, 42 visual memory, 42 visual model of reading, 25 visual word form area (VWFA), 33, 37, 38 visuospatial sketchpad, 68 vocabulary orally, 111–112 vowel marking system, 137, 141 vulnerability by sex, 47 VWFA. see visual word form area web tools. see technology Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT‐IV), 81, 261–265 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC‐IV), 64, 66, 70 Wernicke, Carl, 29 What Works Clearinghouse, 169 Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT‐5), 81, 265–266 Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning (WRAML-3), 70 Wilson Fluency®/Basic, 169, 324–325 Wilson Fundations®, 325–327 Wilson Just Words®, 154, 327–328 Wilson Reading System®, 17, 137, 141, 154, 328–330 Woodcock‐Johnson III

Tests of Achievement, 81 Tests of Cognitive Abilities, 70 Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH), 266–269 Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG), 269–271 Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Early Cognitive and Academic Development (WJ IV ECAD), 271–272 Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL), 273–274 Woodcock Reading Mastery Test Third Edition (WRMT-3), 275–277 Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests‐Revised (WRMT‐R), 82 word blindness, 5, 13, 15 word deafness, 15 Word Identification and Spelling Test (WIST), 277–278 wordmatrix, 126 word reading, 25 games to practice, 116 WORDS, 154, 330 words definitions of, 127 high‐ frequency and irregular words, 142–144, 143 memorization of, 16 morphological structures of, 127 practice spelling and reading irregular, 115–116 similar in appearance, 112 structural elements, 122 visual images of, 16 words read correctly (WRC), 85–86 word sum, 121 Wordy Qwerty: Foundations for Reading & Writing Fluency, 154, 331 working memory (WM), 55, 68. see also memory assessment of, 69–70 informal measures of, 70 Working Memory Test Battery for Children, 69–70 WRC. see words read correctly Young Children’s Achievement Test (YCAT-2), 81 Y to I convention, 123

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.