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.
A growing number of studies examine instructional training and brain activity. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature regarding neuroimaging of reading intervention, with a particular focus on reading difficulties (RD). To locate relevant studies, searches of peer-reviewed literature were conducted using electronic databases to search for studies from the imaging modalities of fMRI and MEG (including MSI) that explored reading intervention. Of the 96 identified studies, 22 met the inclusion criteria for descriptive analysis. A subset of these (8 fMRI experiments with post-intervention data) was subjected to activation likelihood estimate (ALE) meta-analysis to investigate differences in functional activation following reading intervention. Findings from the literature review suggest differences in functional activation of numerous brain regions associated with reading intervention, including bilateral inferior frontal, superior temporal, middle temporal, middle frontal, superior frontal, and postcentral gyri, as well as bilateral occipital cortex, inferior parietal lobules, thalami, and insulae. Findings from the meta-analysis indicate change in functional activation following reading intervention in the left thalamus, right insula/inferior frontal, left inferior frontal, right posterior cingulate, and left middle occipital gyri. Though these findings should be interpreted with caution due to the small number of studies and the disparate methodologies used, this paper is an effort to synthesize across studies and to guide future exploration of neuroimaging and reading intervention.
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.
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.
A primary challenge facing the development of interventions for dyslexia is identifying effective predictors of intervention response. While behavioral literature has identified core cognitive characteristics of response, the distinction of reading versus executive cognitive contributions to response profiles remains unclear, due in part to the difficulty of segregating these constructs using behavioral outputs. In the current study we used functional neuroimaging to piece apart the mechanisms of how/whether executive and reading network relationships are predictive of intervention response. We found that readers who are responsive to intervention have more typical pre-intervention functional interactions between executive and reading systems compared to nonresponsive readers. These findings suggest that intervention response in dyslexia is influenced not only by domain-specific reading regions, but also by contributions from intervening domain-general networks. Our results make a significant gain in identifying predictive bio-markers of outcomes in dyslexia, and have important implications for the development of personalized clinical interventions.
The constitutive activation of K-cyclin/cdk complexes in KSHV-infected cells appears to result from the extended half-life of K-cyclin and may explain its role in Kaposi sarcoma.
Functional imaging research has yielded evidence of changes in poor readers after instructional intervention. Although it is well established that within the group of children with poor reading there are differences in behavioral response to intervention, little is know about the functional correlates of responsiveness. Therefore, we acquired functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from children identified as “at risk for reading disability” who responded differently to a reading intervention (5 responders; 5 nonresponders; 4 controls). Groups differed in activation level of the left hemisphere posterior superior temporal and the middle temporal gyri, suggesting that future imaging studies should consider responders and nonresponders separately.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.