No abstract

The purpose of this article is to present a model for screening for twice-exceptional status (i.e., gifted students who have a learning disability). Curriculum-based measures (Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Reading and Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Math) were administered to 1,242 third-grade students within a Response to Intervention paradigm. When gifted status is tentatively defined as high performance (i.e., 84th percentile and higher) on a Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness reading probe, 5.48% of students exhibited deficits in (math) performance consistent with a significant discrepancy between reading and math (i.e., reading score – math score); 4.83% exhibited a discrepancy in reading (i.e., math score – reading). These values are based on observed scores using the following formula to define a discrepancy: 1.5(SD) × SEe. Only 2.1% exhibited a math discrepancy and 1.13% a reading discrepancy based on predicted scores, which takes regression to the mean into account. Using various cut score criteria, practitioners can select from less than 1% to about 10% for screening purposes. When using predicted (rather than observed) scores and more stringent cut score criteria, percentages decline, as expected. Recommendations for using this process for screening are provided, as are implications for best practice, particularly the impact of using more or less conservative criteria for screening twice exceptional students.

Seventy-four students read passages from an individually administered test of reading comprehension (a subtest from the Test of Dyslexia, a test of reading and related abilities currently in development; McCallum & Bell, 2001), and then answered literal and inferential questions. Students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions; 39 students read the passages silently and 35 read orally, with time recorded for each passage read. Comprehension and time were dependent measures for a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) and two follow-up Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA). After controlling for reading ability, results from the MAN-COVA showed a significant combined effect ( p Ͻ .05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers ( p Ͼ .05). On the other hand, with reading ability controlled, silent readers took significantly less time to complete passages compared to those who read orally ( p Ͻ .02). In fact, students took 30% longer to read orally than silently, on average. When test directions do not specify either oral or silent reading and error analysis is not a goal, testing will be more efficient via silent responding with no loss of comprehension. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Efficacy of silent versus oral reading has been the focus of a number of investigations with inconclusive results, due perhaps to different sample characteristics, test conditions, and dependent measures across studies. This study was designed to determine whether differences occur in performance and efficiency for a sample of elementary students as a function of reading individually administered test passages silently versus orally.Several researchers in the 1970s found oral reading to produce superior comprehension under some conditions. For example, Swalm (1972) and Elgart (1978) found that young readers (second and third graders, respectively) comprehended better after reading orally. More recently, Fletcher and Pumfrey (1988) found that oral reading led to greater comprehension than silent reading for 7-and 8-year-olds. Passages and comprehension questions were taken from an individually administered standardized reading instrument, typically requiring oral reading of text and oral responding to comprehension questions; two passages were completed for each of the three reading modes. The passages were not presented as a part of a complete test administration. Test format was not specified, i.e., the authors did not indicate whether passages were presented in a one-to-one versus group administration.In contrast, Rowell (1976) and Miller and Smith (1985) found mixed results. Specifically, Rowell found comprehension to be higher under an oral reading condition for urban/suburban fifth graders and for males but not for rural fifth graders and females. In a study of 94 second through fifth graders, Miller and Smith (1985) asked students to read one passage silently and one passage orally. After each passage, the students answered both...

Zero-order correlation coefficients show significant relationships between orthography, phonology, rapid naming, visual and auditory memory, and reading and spelling for 143 second through sixth graders. Although coefficients ranged from .05 to .71, most were statistically significant (65 out of 78). In addition, multiple regression analyses show the power of shortterm memory to contribute to the prediction of reading decoding and reading fluency (p < .05) beyond the power of the "big three" cognitive processing variables (phonology, rapid naming, and orthography).

The researchers investigated attributions for success, attitudes, and aptitudes for native language learning and foreign language learning success for 648 students enrolled in 100‐level university foreign language courses (Spanish, French, and German). We examined relationships via correlational analyses and used structural equation modeling to determine the best predictive model. Relationships among variables were generally positive but low to moderate in magnitude (r=−.12 to r=.45).The best predictive model was attitudes leading to aptitude leading to exam grades. Attributions did not contribute to the prediction. Gender differences were indicated in effort attributions and in exam grades. Results underscore the importance of attitude in foreign language success.

From a sample of 1,242 third graders, prospective twice-exceptional students were selected using reading and math curriculum-based measures (CBMs), routinely used in Response to Intervention (RtI). These prospective twice-exceptional students were compared with non-twice-exceptional peers with similar strengths in either math or reading on CBMs and an end-of-year high-stakes achievement test. Students (both potentially twice-exceptional and not) who are potentially gifted in reading based on CBM performance did not differ significantly on the end-of-year outcomes in reading (p < .05); rather, students in both groups performed equally high. However, twice-exceptional students who are potentially gifted in math performed significantly lower on both end-of-year math and reading outcomes than non-twice-exceptional peers. Most of the end-of-year math subtest scores were negatively affected by the prospective twice-exceptional students' deficits in reading, even though their math CBM scores placed them into a category representing giftedness in math. Implications for screening for twice-exceptionality are discussed.

Using a counterbalanced, randomized treatment design, 12 elementary school-aged children read under two conditions: (a) independent, silent reading; and (b) computer-assisted reading, via Kurzweil 3000. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed no significant difference in the composite mean for comprehension and reading rate scores based on presentation strategy. Computerized text presentation (via auditory and visual means) proved no more effective than traditional reading instruction for teacher-nominated weak readers in improving reading rate and comprehension. However, a trend was noted for slower readers to show increased reading rate as a function of computer-assisted reading, with the opposite result for faster readers. Overall, results indicate that for students reading material at their instructional level, computer-assisted reading did not improve comprehension. Future research should continue to focus on the role of technology as an aid to reading instruction.

No abstract