The purposes of this study were (a) to identify measures that when added to a base 1st-grade screening battery help eliminate false positives and (b) to investigate gains in efficiency associated with a 2-stage gated screening procedure. We tested 355 children in the fall of 1st grade, and assessed for reading difficulty at the end of 2nd grade. The base screening model, included measures of phonemic awareness, rapid naming skill, oral vocabulary, and initial word identification fluency (WIF). Short-term WIF progress monitoring (intercept and slope), dynamic assessment, running records, and oral reading fluency were each considered as an additional screening measure in contrasting models. Results indicated that the addition of WIF progress monitoring and dynamic assessment, but not running records or oral reading fluency, significantly decreased false positives. The 2-stage gated screening process using phonemic decoding efficiency in the first stage significantly reduced the number of children requiring the full screening battery.

This randomized control trial examined the efficacy of a multitiered supplemental tutoring program within a first‐grade responsiveness‐to‐intervention prevention model. Struggling first‐grade readers (n = 649) were screened and progress monitored at the start of the school year. Those identified as unresponsive to general education Tier 1 (n = 212) were randomly assigned to receive Tier 2 small‐group supplemental tutoring (n = 134) or to continue in Tier 1 (n = 78). Progress‐monitoring data were used to identify nonresponders to Tier 2 (n = 45), who were then randomly assigned to more Tier 2 tutoring (n = 21) or one‐on‐one Tier 3 tutoring (n = 24). Tutoring in Tier 3 was the same as in Tier 2 except for the delivery format and frequency of instruction. Results from a latent change analysis indicated nonresponders to Tier 1 who received supplemental tutoring made significantly higher word reading gains compared with controls who received reading instruction only in Tier 1 (effect size = 0.19). However, no differences were detected between nonresponders to Tier 2 who were assigned to Tier 3 versus more Tier 2. This suggests more frequent 1:1 delivery of a Tier 2 standard tutoring program may be insufficient for intensifying intervention at Tier 3. Although supplemental tutoring was effective in bolstering reading performance of Tier 1 nonresponders, only 40% of all Tier 2 students and 53% of Tier 2 responders were reading in the normal range by grade 3. Results challenge the preventive intent of short‐term, standard protocol, multitiered supplemental tutoring models.

The purpose of this study was to examine the construct and predictive validity of a dynamic assessment (DA) of decoding learning. Students (N = 318) were assessed in the fall of first grade on an array of instruments that were given in hopes of forecasting responsiveness to reading instruction. These instruments included DA as well as one-point-in-time (static) measures of early alphabetic knowledge, rapid automatized naming (RAN), phonemic awareness, oral vocabulary, listening comprehension, attentive behavior, and hyperactive or impulsive behavior. An IQ test was administered in spring of second grade. Measures of reading outcomes administered in spring of first grade were accuracy and fluency of word identification skills and reading comprehension. Factor analysis using principal axis factor extraction indicated that DA loaded on a first factor that also included language abilities and IQ, which the authors refer to as the “language, IQ, and DA” factor. It was relatively distinct from two additional factors: (a) “speeded alphabetic knowledge and RAN” and (b) “task-oriented behavior.” A three-level (children nested within classroom; classrooms nested within school) random intercept model with fixed effects predictors suggested that DA differed from word attack in predicting future reading skill and that DA was a significant predictor of responsiveness to instruction, contributing unique variance to end-of-first-grade word identification and reading comprehension beyond that explained by other well-established predictors of reading development.

Response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches to disability identification are meant to put an end to the so-called wait-to-fail requirement associated with IQ discrepancy. However, in an unfortunate irony, there is a group of children who wait to fail in RTI frameworks. That is, they must fail both general classroom instruction (Tier 1) and small-group intervention (Tier 2) before becoming eligible for the most intensive intervention (Tier 3). The purpose of this article was to determine how to predict accurately which at-risk children will be unresponsive to Tiers 1 and 2, thereby allowing unresponsive children to move directly from Tier 1 to Tier 3. As part of an efficacy study of a multitier RTI approach to prevention and identification of reading disabilities (RD), 129 first-grade children who were unresponsive to classroom reading instruction were randomly assigned to 14 weeks of small-group, Tier 2 intervention. Nonresponders to this instruction ( n = 33) were identified using local norms on first-grade word identification fluency growth linked to a distal outcome of RD at the end of second grade. Logistic regression models were used to predict membership in responder and nonresponder groups. Predictors were entered as blocks of data from least to most difficult to obtain: universal screening data, Tier 1 response data, norm referenced tests, and Tier 2 response data. Tier 2 response data were not necessary to classify students as responders and nonresponders to Tier 2 instruction, suggesting that some children can be accurately identified as eligible for Tier 3 intervention using only Tier 1 data, thereby avoiding prolonged periods of failure to instruction.

In this study, the authors explore a newly constructed dynamic assessment (DA) intended to tap inference-making skills that they hypothesize will be predictive of future comprehension performance. The authors administered the test to 100 second-grade children using a dynamic format to consider the concurrent validity of the measure. The dynamic portion of the assessment comprised teaching children to be “reading detectives” by using textual clues to solve what was happening in the story. During the DA children listened to short passages and answered three inferential questions (i.e., one setting, two causal). If children were unable to answer a question, they were reminded what a reading detective would do and given a set of increasingly concrete prompts and clues to orient them to the relevant portion of text until they could answer the question correctly. Results showed that the DA correlated significantly with a standardized measure of reading comprehension and explained a small but significant amount of unique variance in reading comprehension above and beyond vocabulary and word identification skills. In addition, results suggest that DA may be better than the standardized measure of reading comprehension at identifying intraindividual differences in young children’s reading abilities.