Language Basis of Reading Comprehension Difficulties

1. Language Basis of Reading Comprehension Difficulties Hugh W. Catts, Ph.D. University of Kansas NIU 2013

2. Outline • Model of reading comprehension • Language basis of comprehension difficulties • Evidence for language basis • Early identification

3. Reading Comprehension The construction of a mental model or meaning representation based on a printed text and one’s prior knowledge

4. Mental Model Meaning Representation Coherent Understanding Situation Model

5. Context • Purpose • Motivation • Mental Alertness • Standard of Coherence

6. Where did Mia put the gophers? • Why did Mia want the guests to bring their motorcycles? • What did the ad say? Knowledge • GETTING RID OF BAD NEIGHBORS Mia ensimmäisenjoukkueen, jokamuodostuu gophers. Kun koirasuunnitelmanepäonnenlaukaukseksipannuttoimeen. Senjälkeenhänjärjestivätjuhlatmuttavieraitaei ole niidenmoottoripyöriin. Lisäksihänenstereojärjestelmäei ole tarpeeksisuuri. Hävytöntäpuheluitapitijoitakinniinkauannumeroannettiinmuuttaa. Asennusolivilkkuvaneonvalotkaduntoisellepuolelleettäloppujenlopuksioli. Hänmuotoilikysymystään ad siitänytluokiteltujenjajokahänen. Mia first let loose a team of gophers. The plan backfired when a dog chased them away. She then threw a party but the guests failed to bring their motorcycles. Furthermore, her stereo system was not loud enough. Obscene phone calls gave her some hope until the number was changed. It was the installation of the blinking neon lights across the street that finally did the trick. She framed the ad from the classified section and now has it hanging on her wall. • Mental Model • Text • Knowledge

7. Mental Model • Text • Knowledge

8. Mental Model Language Comprehension • Text • Knowledge • Language • Speech

9. WordRecognition Language Comprehension x Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990) Reading Comprehension

10. SEMANTICS & GRAMMAR (vocabulary, syntax) TEXT PROCESSING (text structures, cohesion) BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE (facts, concepts, etc.) VERBAL REASONING (problem solving, inferencing) METACOGNITION (comprehension strategies) PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS (syllables, phonemes, etc.) DECODING (alphabetic principle, spelling-sound correspondences) SIGHT RECOGNITION (of familiar words) Adapted from Scarborough, H. S. in Neuman, S.B. & Dickinson, D. K. (2001). Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New York: Guilford Press.

11. Variance Explained in Reading Comprehension

12. Variance Explained in Reading Comprehension

13. Variance Explained in Reading Comprehension

14. Variance Explained in Reading Comprehension

15. Unique & Shared Variance in Reading Comprehension

16. Simple View (SEM) Preliminary results from the LARRC Consortium

17. Language Basis of Reading Comprehension

18. Specific Language Impairment (SLI) • Adisorder that involves delayed onset and protracted development of language (including morphosyntax, semantics, phonology, or pragmatics) relative to other areas of development • Generally identifiable during the preschool years (3 to 5 years of age) Tager-Flusber & Cooper (1999)

19. Iowa Longitudinal Study • Identified 225 children with LI (123 SLI, 102 NLI) and 379 without LI in kindergarten (age 5-6 years) • Drawn from an epidemiologic sample of over 7000 children • Followed in 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 10thgrades • Word RecognitionWord Identification Word Attack (WRMT-R) • Reading Comprehension WRMT-R Passage Comp Gray Oral Reading Test-3 Diagnostic Achievement Battery (QRI, 8th,10th)

20. Percentage of Reading Disorders(Reading Comprehension >1 SD below the mean)

21. Percentage of Reading Disorders(Reading Comprehension >1 SD below the mean)

22. Percentage of Reading Disorders(Reading Comprehension >1 SD below the mean) Relative Risk

23. SLI NLI

24. Poor Comprehenders Deficits in reading comprehension but normal decoding “specific comprehension deficit”

26. Poor Comprehenders • Used arbitrary cut-offs that were subject to error • Artificially created subgroups where none exist

27. Latent Class Analysis • “Classifies” subjects on the bases of multiple measures of reading comprehension and word recognition and provides probability of class membership • Constrained groups on the basis of 8th grade scores

28. Constraints 8th RC 8th WR Poor comprehender -1 1 Poor decoder 1 -1 Generally poor -1 -1 Generally good 1 1 Average free to vary

29. Latent Class Analysis • “Classifies” subjects on the bases of multiple measures of reading comprehension and word recognition and provides probability of class membership • Constrained groups on the basis of 8th grade scores • Classified students on basis of 8th and 10th grade scores

35. Average Class Probabilities

36. Class Size (weighted) 6.5 +19.4 = 25.9% 6.5/25.9 = 25.1%

37. Kindergarten Language Abilities

38. History of Language Impairments (K) Poor Comprehenders 27.4% (22.5 SLI, 4.9 NLI) Poor Decoder 0% Generally Poor 47.9% (20.1 SLI, 27.8 NLI) Generally Good .3% (.3% NLI) Average 7.4% (5.1 SLI, 2.3 NLI)

39. Poor Comprehenders • Often did not have a reading problem until later in school • Normal readers in 2nd grade • Problems emerged in 4th grade • Has been described “Fourth grade slump” Late-Emerging Poor Reader

41. Late-Emerging Poor Readers • 493 participants from Iowa study • Multiple measures of reading comprehension and word reading at 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 10th grades • Used Latent transition analysis

42. Classes Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 10 TD → TD → TD → TD RD → RD → RD → RD TD → RD → RD → RD TD → TD → RD → RD TD → TD → TD → RD RD → TD → TD → TD RD → RD → TD → TD RD → RD → RD → TD

43. Late-Emerging • About 70% were normal readers at all grades • 17% were poor readers with early and persistent deficits • 13% had late emerging deficits (42% of all poor readers) • Emerged by 4th grade and tended to be stable thereafter • Most of these children had comprehension problems (65%) and many had a history of language impairments (46%)

44. Can we predict who will be a late-emerging poor reader or a poor comprehenderbased on earlier language skills?

45. Early Identification Means “predicting the future” “It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

46. Yogi Berra

47. Yogi Berra “It’’s like deja-vu all over again.” “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.” “Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.”

48. Prediction of RD Catts, H., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (2001). Estimating risk for future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based model and its clinical implications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38-50. Adlof, S. A., Catts, H.W., Lee, J. (2010). Kindergarten predictors of second vs. eight grade reading comprehension impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 332-345. Catts, H., Nielsen, D., & Bridges, M. (in progress). Early identification of reading disabilities within a RTI framework.

50. Predicting reading outcomes • classified children from Iowa sample as good and poor readers (-1SD) • Based on 2nd grade or 8th grade reading comprehension • Kindergarten (spring) measures to predict outcomes