Best Predictors of Early Literacy Hugh Catts University of Kansas

RTI Early Childhood Summit October 2010

A Significant Challenge „ Best

predictor of future reading/literacy ability is current reading/literacy ability „ Children who get off to a good start generally continue to do well and those who show initial problems generally continue to struggle „ There are exceptions – e.g., late-emerging poor readers

A Significant Challenge „ Can’t

really measure initial reading ability until children have had sufficient instruction „ Preschool children’s ability to read is not predictive of later reading achievement „ Numerous false positives „ Must rely on early precursors of reading

Early Predictors „ Letter/print

knowledge „ Phonological awareness „ Oral language abilities Al Otaiba et al. (2010); Catts et al. (2001); Dickinson & Tabors (2001); Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony (2000); NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2005); Piasta, Petscher, & Justice (2010); Scarborough (2001); Storch & Whitehurst (2002); Torppa et al. (2010); Vellutino et al. (2006); Lonigan, Schatschneider, & Westberg (NELP, 2009)

Early Predictors „ Most

early predictors tend to be better at identifying who will be successful than who is at risk „ Again, too many false positives

6

Florida Progress Monitoring Database „ About

17,000 children „ ISF given in Sept, Dec, Feb of Kindergarten

ISF Sept K

ISF Dec K

ISF Feb K

Catts, Petscher, Schatschneider, Bridges, & Mendoza (2009) 8

Quantile Regression Plot for LNF

Early Predictors „ Can

reduce floor effects and improve prediction for preschoolers - select the right items - choose multiple indicators

Get Ready to Read „ 20-item

on-line screening tool „ Letter/print knowledge and PA „ Careful selection of items „ Good predictive validity

Phillips, Lonigan, & Wyatt (2009) GRTR 52 months WRMT-R WI WRMT-R WA TOWRE GORT-4

1-2 years later .53 .57 .66 .68

Complex Relationship „ „

„ „ „

Need experience to best show individual differences in predictors Some interpret this to mean that a variable like phonological awareness is the result of instruction not a precursor of learning to read Complex relationship – e.g., golf instruction Instruction reveals underlying talent Genetic differences emerge after instruction

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Individual Differences in Reading (Samuelsson et al., 2008)

Kindergarten

First Grade

90

90

80 70

80 70

60

60 Australia US Scandinavia

50 40 30 20 10 0

Australia US Scandinavia

50 40 30 20 10

Genetic

Envirnoment

0

Genetic

Envirnoment

Best Predictor „ „ „ „ „ „ „

Response to instruction Some cases it will be response to Tier 1 instruction Need to have good Tier 1 instruction to get good prediction Choose the right screening measurers Tier 2 instruction should reveal further individual differences Tier 2 is for identification as well as prevention Shorter-term RTI - dynamic assessment

Best Predictor „ „ „ „ „ „ „

Response to instruction Some cases it will be response to Tier 1 instruction Need to have good Tier 1 instruction to get good prediction Choose the right screening measurers Tier 2 instruction should reveal further individual differences Tier 2 is for identification as well as prevention Shorter-term RTI - dynamic assessment

Dynamic Assessment „ Measurement

of learner’s potential over the short term „ Assessor actively intervenes during the course of the assessment with the goal of intentionally inducing changes in the learner's current level of performance. „ “Mini-assessment” of response to intervention

Dynamic Assessment „ Dynamic

Screening of Phonological Awareness (Bridges & Catts, 2010) „ Kate Saunders and colleagues (KU) „ Doug Fuchs (Vanderbilt) „ Carsten Elbro (Denmark) „ Doug Peterson/Ron Gillam (Utah State)

Bridges (2009) „ „ „

161 kindergarten children Over-sampled at-risk children Administered ISF and PADS in Sept K

Bridges (2009)

Bridges (2009)

Dynamic Assessment „ Dynamic

Screening of Phonological Awareness (Bridges & Catts, 2010) „ Kate Saunders and colleagues (KU) „ Doug Fuchs (Vanderbilt) „ Carsten Elbro (Denmark) „ Doug Peterson/Ron Gillam (Utah State)

Late-Emerging Poor Readers „ Problems

in reading comprehension (and less frequently) that emerge after the 3rd grade „ Many have an early history of language problems „ Most problems are subclinical „ Not easily distinguished from other children with low language abilities

Predicting Comprehension „ RTI

kindergarten project - static measures - response to language instruction

Tier 2 Vocabulary Instruction „ Taught

42 words to at-risk kindergarten children across 26 weeks „ Each word taught in the context of a storybook (3 per book) and out of context with picture cards „ Measured pre- and post-test knowledge of words

Vocabulary Probe Pre test

Post test

Gain

Mean

25.1

62.6

37.5

Standard Deviation

9.3

20.0

15.4

Max points = 142

mean chance score = 14

Vocabulary Probe Gain Scores

Vocabulary Instruction „ Gain

score is only mildly related to pretest score (R=.27, p