Development of Individual Differences in Reading: Results From Longitudinal Studies in English and Finnish.

Abstract

The authors examined individual differences in reading development in English and Finnish. Englishspeaking Canadian children were assessed once per year in Grades 1-5, and Finnish children were assessed twice per year in Grades 1-2. Results from latent growth curve and simplex analyses showed that initial status was generally negatively associated with subsequent growth and that, although stable, individual differences were more likely to significantly decrease than to increase across the measurement points. Growth mixture models identified multiple groups of children whose reading development followed distinct patterns. The results indicate that it is possible for educational systems to significantly reduce individual differences in basic reading skills during early reading development.

The Influence of Reading on Vocabulary Growth: A Case for a Matthew Effect

“…Other predictions of the model have also been tested, with similarly equivocal results (Pfost et al, 2014). Some studies report data that support a Matthew effect for reading ability (Juel, 1988), but others report a stable achievement pattern (Aarnoutse & van Leeuwe, 2000;Catts, Adlof, & Fey, 2003;Scarborough & Parker, 2003;Shaywitz et al, 1995) or a compensatory effect (Parrila, Auonola, Leskinen, Nurmi, & Kirby, 2005;Shaywitz et al, 1995). The diversity of findings in these studies is undoubtedly related to the wide variety of outcome variables and ages of readers as well as to the characteristics of the sample group and study methodologies.…”

“…The diversity of findings in these studies is undoubtedly related to the wide variety of outcome variables and ages of readers as well as to the characteristics of the sample group and study methodologies. Indeed, some studies do report different conclusions on the basis of the outcome variable studied (Bast & Reitsma, 1998;Shaywitz et al, 1995), the subgroup of children looked at (Jacobson, 1999;Morgan, Farkas, & Hibel, 2008;Phillips, Norris, Osmond, & Maynard, 2002;Stothard et al, 1998), and even the language in which children were learning to read (Parrila et al, 2005). In addition, a recent meta-analysis (Pfost et al, 2014) concluded that the psychometric properties of the measures were also important: studies using measures without floor or ceiling effects and with good reliability were more likely to report the presence of a Matthew effect.…”

Late-Emerging and Resolving Dyslexia: A Follow-Up Study from Age 3 to 14

“…Jong & van der Leij, 2002;Landerl & Wimmer, 2008;Parrila, Aunola, Leskinen, Nurmi, & Kirby, 2005). On the other hand, the correlation coefficients are still far from unity, suggesting that different developmental trajectories may also exist in transparent orthographies.…”

Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability

“…One reason would simply be that predictors are more effective when they are measured closer in time to the outcomes; Grade 3 morphological awareness was measured much closer in time to Grade 3 reading than Grade 1 and 2 morphological awareness were. Furthermore, morphological awareness is in a period of growth during the early elementary school years (see Table 1) and the relations between predictors and outcomes are unlikely to be stable when either is undergoing growth (see discussion in Parrila, Aunola, Leskinen, Nurmi, & Kirby, 2005). It is possible that Grade 1 morphological awareness was related to Grade 1 reading achievement, but that growth in morphological awareness was not consistent across children; this is supported by the lower correlations between morphological awareness in Grade 1 and the later years (see Table 3).…”