The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading disabilities in kindergarten children

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 330-338

  Bridges, Mindy Sittner ^a   Catts, Hugh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Dynamic assessment; phonological awareness; Response to Intervention; universal screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARENESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LEARNING DISORDER; MALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PHONETICS; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; READING; RISK FACTOR;

AWARENESS; CHILD LANGUAGE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEARNING DISORDERS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PHONETICS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; READING; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 80053286463     PISSN: 00222194     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0022219411407863     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Bridges, M.S. (2009). The use of a dynamic screening of phonological awareness to predict reading outcomes in kindergarten children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
2. Bridges, M.S., & Catts, H.W. (2008). Dynamic Screening of Phonological Awareness (Prepublication version). Moline, IL: Linguisystems.
3. Caffrey, E. (2006). A comparison of dynamic assessment and progress monitoring in the prediction of reading achievement for students in kindergarten and first grade (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
4. Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2004). Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91, 77-111.
5. Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (2001). Estimating the risk of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38-50.
6. Catts, H.W., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Bridges, M.S., & Mendoza, K. (2009). Floor effects associated with universal screening and their impact on the early identification of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 163-176.
7. Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Bryant, J.D. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394-409.
8. Denton, C.A., & Mathes, P.G. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 229-251). Timonium, MD: York.
9. Duncan, S.E., & DeAvila, E.A. (1998). Pre-LAS. Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
10. Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in literacy (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Foy, J.G., & Mann, V. (2003). Home literacy environment and phonological awareness in preschool children: Differential effects for rhyme and phoneme awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 59-88.
12. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.
13. Fuchs, L.S., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, D., Hollenbeck, K.N., Craddock, C.F., & Hamlett, C.L. (2008). Dynamic assessment of algebraic learning in predicting third graders' development of mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 829-850.
14. Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (2003). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
15. Good, R.H., Kaminski, R.A., Shinn, M.R., Bratten, J., Shinn, M., Laimon, D., Flindt, N. (2004). Technical adequacy of DIBELS: Results of the Early Childhood Research Institute on measuring growth and development (Tech. Rep. No. 7). Eugene: University of Oregon.
16. Grigorenko, E.L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 111-132.
17. Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
18. Jenkins, J. (2003, December). Candidate measures for screening at-risk students. Paper presented at the NRCLD Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
19. Lidz, C.S. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York, NY: Guilford.
20. O'Connor, R.E., & Jenkins, J.R. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159-197.
21. Rathvon, N. (2004). Early reading assessment: A handbook for practitioners. New York, NY: Guilford.
22. Simmons, D., Coyne, M., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B., & Kame'enui, E. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 143-158.
23. Spector, J.E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 353-363.
24. Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (1998). Dynamic assessment: The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25. Swets, J. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285-1293.
26. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D.P. (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 157-169.
27. 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.
28. Woodcock, R.W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests- Revised Normative Update. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.