Federal mandates such as No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 are prompting elementary schools to carefully monitor early literacy outcomes. The shift toward monitoring early literacy outcomes requires the identification of valid sublexical fluency measures. In the current study, sublexical fluency measures that focus on phonological awareness, phoneme decoding, letter naming, and automatic word recognition are used to predict reading fluency. Results of two path models are discussed within the context of reading acquisition and a prevention-oriented approach.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
2.
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, 24, 49-66.
3.
Becker, W., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow-up of follow through: The later effects of the direct instruction model on children in fifth and sixth grades. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 75-92.
4.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
5.
Burgess, S.R., & Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Bidirectional relations of phonological sensitivity and prereading abilities: Evidence from a preschool sample. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70, 117-141.
6.
Burke, M.D., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Concurrent criterion-related validity of early literacy indicators for middle of first grade, Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 66-77.
7.
Burns, M.K. (2003). Reexamining data from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis: Implications for school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 605-612.
8.
Carnine, D.W., & Granzin, A. (2001). Setting learning expectations for students with disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 466-472.
Compton, D.L. (2003). The influence of item composition on RAN letter performance in first-grade children. Journal of Special Education , 37, 81-94.
11.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.
12.
Cutting, L.E., & Denckla, M.B. (2001). The relationship of rapid serial naming and word reading in normally developing readers: An exploratory model. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 673-705.
13.
Denckla, M., & Rudel, R.G. (1976). Rapid "automatized" naming (RAN): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471-479.
14.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
15.
Ehri, L.C. (1983). A critique of five studies related to letter-name knowledge and learning to read. In L. Gentile , M. Kamil, & J. Blanchard (Eds.), Reading research revisited (pp. 143-153). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
16.
Ehri, L.C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update . In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 323-358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
17.
Ehri, L.C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116-125.
18.
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. 3-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
Ehri, L.C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly , 14, 135-164.
20.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Stahl, S., & Willows, D. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447.
21.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.
22.
Elliot, J., Lee, S.W., & Tollefson, N. (2001). A reliability and validity study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills- Modified. School Psychology Review, 30, 33-49.
23.
Engelmann, S., Becker, W.C., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1988). The direct instruction follow-through model: Design and outcomes. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 303-317.
24.
Foulin, J.N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read? Reading and Writing, 18, 129-155.
25.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D.L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in the first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7-21.
26.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239-256.
27.
Good, R., III, Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2001). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
28.
Good, R., III, & Jefferson, G. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61-88). New York: Guilford.
29.
Good, R., III, & Kaminski, R.A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model for decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326-336.
30.
Good, R., III, & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.
31.
Good, R., III, Kaminski, R., Laimon, D., & Johnson, D. (2000). Advances in assessment for the prevention of early academic problems. The Oregon Monograph, University of Oregon, Eugene.
32.
Good, R., III, Kaminski, R.A., Smith, S., & Bratten, J. (2001). Technical adequacy of second grade DIBELS oral reading fluency passages (Technical Report No. 8). Eugene : University of Oregon.
33.
Good, R., III, Simmons, D.C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2001). The importance and 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.
34.
Good, R., III, Simmons, D.C., & Smith, S. (1998). Effective academic interventions in the United States: Evaluating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills. School Psychology Review, 27, 45-56.
35.
Gough, P.B., & Turmer, W.E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
36.
Grossen, B. (1997). Thirty years of research: What we know about how children learn to read: A synthesis of research on reading from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
37.
Hagan-Burke, S., Burke, M.D., & Crowder, C. (2006). The convergent validity of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills and the test of word reading efficiency for the beginning of first grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention , 31, 1-15.
38.
Hammill, D.D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Journal of Special Education, 70, 453-468.
39.
Hoyle, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
42.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
43.
Hurford, D.P., Darrow, L.J., Edwards, T.L., Howerton, C.J., Mote, C.R., Schauf, J.D., et al. (1993). An examination of phonemic processing abilities in children during their first-grade year. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 167-177.
44.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 (2004).
45.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
46.
Kame'enui, E.J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don't fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46, 376-383.
47.
Kame'enui, E.J. (2007). A new paradigm: Responsiveness to intervention . Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 6-7.
48.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H., III, (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.
49.
Kame'enui, E.J., & Simmons, D.C. (2001). Introduction to this Issue: The DNA of reading fluency. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 203-210.
50.
Keith, T.Z. (1993). Latent variable structural equation models: LISREL in special education research. Remedial and Special Education , 14, 36-46.
51.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it? In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford .
52.
Metsala, J., & Ehri, L.C. (1998). Word recognition in beginning reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2007). MPLUS user's guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author .
54.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Health.
55.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
56.
No Child Left Behind Act. (2002). 20 U.S.C. 6301 et. Seq. (Statute).
57.
Nurss, J.R. (1995). Metropolitan Readiness Test (6th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
58.
O'Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice , 15, 43-54.
59.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31-73.
60.
Scarborough, H.S., & Parker, J.L. (2003). Matthew effects in children with learning disabilities: Development of reading, IQ, and psychosocial problems from grade 2 to grade 8. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 47-71.
61.
Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2004). Using our current understanding of dyslexia to support early identification and intervention. Journal of Child Neurology, 16, 759-765.
62.
Shaw, R., & Shaw, D. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency-based indicators of third grade reading skills for Colorado State Assessment Program (Technical report). Eugene: University of Oregon .
63.
Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J.M., Schneider, A.E., Marchione, K.E., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut Longitudinal Study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351-1359.
64.
Speece, D.L., Mills, C., Ritchey, K.D., & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. Journal of Special Education, 36, 223-233.
65.
Stanovich, K.E. (1985). Explaining the variance in reading ability in terms of psychological processes: What have we learned? Annals of Dyslexia, 35, 67-96.
66.
Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Cramer, B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175-190.
67.
Swanson, H.L. (1989). Phonological processes and other outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 493-497.
68.
Torgesen, J., Alexander, A., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., 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.
69.
Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., & Alexander, A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333-355). Parkton, MD: York.
70.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1997). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
71.
Treiman, R. (1994). Use of consonant letter names in beginning spelling . Developmental Psychology, 30, 567-580.
72.
Treiman, R., & Rodriguez, K. (1999). Young children use letter names in learning to read words. Psychological Science, 10, 334-338.
73.
Vellutino, F., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J., & Scanlon, D.M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 2-40.
74.
Wagner, R.K. (1988). Causal relations between the development of phonological processing abilities and the acquisition of reading skills: A meta-analysis . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 261-279.
75.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192-212.
76.
Walker, H.M., & Shinn, M. (2002). Structuring school-based interventions to achieve integrated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention goals for safe and effective schools. In H. M. Walker, M. Shinn, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 1-25). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
77.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P.G. (1999). The "Double-Deficit Hypothesis" for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 91, 1-24.
78.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P.G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387-407.
