Literacy as a unidimensional multilevel construct: Validation, sources of influence, and implications in a longitudinal study in grades 1 to 4

Scientific Studies of Reading

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 85-116

  Mehta, Paras D ^a,b   Foorman, Barbara R ^c,d,e   Branum Martin, Lee ^b   Taylor, W Patrick ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b Texas Institute for Measurement Evaluation and Statistics   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^d Center for Academic and Reading Skills   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 19944389586     PISSN: 10888438     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_1     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, 79, 193-223.
3. Chall, J. S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
4. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305-336.
5. Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 465-481.
6. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
7. Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59(2), 77-92.
8. Fisher, C., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7-32). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
9. Foorman, B. R. (1995). Research on "The Great Debate": Code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology Review, 24, 376-392.
10. Foorman, B. R. (2004, January). Measuring instructional effects on primary-grade literacy outcomes. Presentation at a conference hosted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education entitled "The Measurement of Instruction: Technical Challenges and Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice," Washington, DC.
11. Foorman, B. R., Chen, D. T., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. (2003). The necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing, 16, 289-324.
12. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., & Lynn, A. (1996). Relation of phonological and orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two approaches to regression-based, reading-level-match designs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 639-652.
13. Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C, & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
14. Foorman, B. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2003). Measurement of teaching practices during reading/language arts instruction and its relationship to student achievement. In S. Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observation of teaching and learning (pp. 1-30). Baltimore: Brookes.
15. Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M, Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (in press). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology.
16. Foorman, B., Seals, L., Anthony, J., & Pollard-Durodola, S. (2003). Vocabulary enrichment program for third and fourth grade African American students: Description, implementation, and impact. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties; Bringing science to scale (pp. 419-441). Timonium, MD: York Press.
17. Guthrie, J. T., & Greaney, V. (1991). Literacy acts. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. II (pp. 68-96). New York: Longman.
18. Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
19. Heck, R. H., & Crislip, M. (2001). Direct and indirect writing assessments: Examining issues of equity and utility. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 275-292.
20. Jenkins, J. R., Johnson, E., & Hileman, J. (2004). When is reading also writing: Sources of individual differences on the new reading performance assessments. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8,125-152.
21. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
22. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
23. Langer, J. A., Campbell, J. R., Neuman, S. B., Mullis, I. V. S., Persky, H. R., & Donahue, P. L. (1995). Reading assessment redesigned. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
24. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2001). MPlus (Version 2.13) [Computer software]. Los Angeles: Authors.
25. National Assessment Governing Board. (1992). Framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
26. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
27. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110,115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq.
28. Perfetti, C. A. (1997). The psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell (pp. 21-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
29. Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L, & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283-319.
30. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C.bC., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., et al. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 35-58.
31. Purves, A., Li, H., & Shirk, M. (1990). Comparison of measures of the domain of learning in literature. Albany, NY: Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
32. Rasbash, J., Browne, W., Goldstein, H., Yang, M., Plewis, I., Healy, M., et al. (2000). A user's guide to MLwiN (2nd ed.). London: Institute of Education.
33. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A.S., & Congdon, R. T. (2003). HLM (Version 5.05) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
35. 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, 31-74.
36. Rayner, K., Foorman, B.R., Perfetti, C.A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2002, March). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, pp. 84-91.
37. SAS Institute Inc. (2001) SAS Release 8.02 [Computer program]. Cary, NC: Author.
38. Saunders, W. (1998). Value-added assessment. The School Administrator, 15 (11), 24-32.
39. Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265-282.
40. Schatschneider, C., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Mehta, P. (1999). The dimensionality of phonological awareness: An application of item response theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 439-449.
41. Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1986). An analysis and comparison of theoretical models of the reading-writing relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 116-123.
42. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
43. Stallings, J. A. (1980). Allocated academic reading time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(11), 11-16.
44. Stallings, J., Robbins, P., & Presbrey, L. (1986). Effects of instruction based on the Madeline Hunter model on students' achievement: Findings from a follow-through project. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 571-587.
45. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. (1994). The phenotypic performance profile of reading-disabled children: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24-53.
46. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). What matters most in promoting reading growth? Toward a model of reading instruction maximizing cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3-28.
47. Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 246-280). New York: Longman.
48. Van den Bergh, H. (1990). On the construct validity of multiple-choice items for reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 1-2.
49. Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J., Chen, R., & Scanion, D. M. (2004). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Manuscript submitted for publication.
50. 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.
51. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.
52. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processes. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
53. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
54. Wilkinson, L. C., & Silliman, E. R. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 337-360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
55. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
56. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Christenson, S. L. (1993). The Instructional Environment System-II(TIES-II), Colorado Springs, CO: Sopris West.
57. Zeno, S. M, Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. New York: Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.