The Roles of Cognitive and Language Abilities of Third Grade Students with Reading Disabilities Responsiveness to Morpho...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The Roles of Cognitive and Language Abilities of Third Grade Students with Reading Disabilities Responsiveness to Morphological Awareness Intervention
Physical Description:
1 online resource (183 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Park, Yujeong
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Special Education, Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies
Committee Chair:
Brownell, Mary T
Committee Members:
Griffin, Cynthia Carlson
Lombardino, Linda J
Algina, James J

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
intervention -- ma -- reading
Special Education, School Psychology and Early Childhood Studies -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Special Education thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Repeated studies have established that skill inmorphological awareness (MA) is a key predictor of both vocabulary knowledgeand reading comprehension. There is evidence that students with readingdisabilities, however, have underlying cognitive and language deficits that hampertheir ability to learn MA skills, even when presented with explicit, systematicinstruction. Additionally, the research examining instruction in MA forstudents with reading disabilities is small compared to the research examiningthe development of these students’ early decoding skills. The purpose of this study was to examine the predictiveability of students’ entering language and cognitive variables in theirresponsiveness to an intervention designed to improve MA skills involving theuse of prefixes. Thirty-nine 3rd grade students scoring belowthe 25th percentile on the FAIR’s word analysis scores participatedin this study. The participants were assessed on seven independent variablesprior to starting the intervention, and received the MA intervention twice aweek, for a total of 10 sessions. Students’ MA skills were measured byassessing their recognition of base words (BR) and prefix and base words (PBR)combined, and their understanding of words with prefixes in a sentence (SC).Data was collected through two pretests and two posttests. Results showed that (a) verbalcomprehension played an essential role in the improvement of third graders withword decoding deficits on recognizing and understanding multisyllabic words,(b) students’ ability to recognize prefixes and base words as a consequence ofthe MA intervention was also predicted by other cognitive and languagevariables such as RAN, orthographical knowledge, verbal working memory, and (c)initial responsiveness to MA intervention in MA was thestrongest predictor of later MA performanceas measured by both wordrecognition and tasks that involve understanding words with prefixes insentences. Findings from this study provide evidence to support that (a)cognitive and language variables play different roles in predicting studentresponsiveness to the MA intervention, (b) the influence of students’ cognitive and language skills varies depending on the demandsof the MA task, and (c) students’ initial learninggains might be useful in predicting future learning.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Yujeong Park.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Brownell, Mary T.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045848:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE ROLES OF COGNITIVE AND LANGUAGE ABILITIE S OF THIRD GRADE STUDENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES RESPONSIVENESS TO MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS INTERVENTION By YUJEONG PARK A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE U NIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Yujeong Park

PAGE 3

3 To my loving husband HyoungJeen Jeen, for being my bes t friend, my rock, and the love of my life; and To my parents who have always loved me, believed in me, and supported my many adventures in life.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who supported me in the completi on of my doctoral program, and in particular, the dissertation process. First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee chair Dr. Mary Brownell for her countless hours of reading, reflecting, encouraging, and most of all support through out the entire process. She, as my role model, enriched my experience in this Ph.D. program beyond words and taught me my work ethic. Her enthusiasm inspires her students to become life long learners. Our collaborations on various projects have broadened m y horizons in ways that would not have been possible through course work alone. I could not have wished fo r a better mentor than Dr. Brownell. I must also thank my invaluable committee members, Drs. Linda Lombardino, Cynthia Griffin, and James Algina. To Dr. Lombardino, I appreciate the sincere kindness and immeasurable generosity she showed me as I completed my doctoral program Her tremendous expertise in literacy research and clinical experiences inspired me to delve deep into the literature on reading processes and reading disabilities. To Dr. Cynthia Griffin, I am grateful for her knowledge and expertise that greatly contributed to my dissertation. She always made me feel like everything would turn out well. To Dr. Algina, I owe great gratitude for tea ching me about statistical methodology and for always bringing a little light during difficult times. Beyond his statistical brilliance, he is truly a terrific teacher and an absolutely wonderful researcher. I also thank my other professors and colleagues at University of Florida, all of whom made my graduate research experience priceless. Thanks are due to my LLC (Life Long Collaborators ) friends who continuously helped and encouraged me every step of the way. Dr. Mary T. Kiely, Dr. Meg Kamman, Amber Bene dict, Kristin Murphy,

PAGE 5

5 Alexandra Lauterbach, Elizabeth Bettini, Jenna Kimerling, Rachel Thomas, and Nari Choi. I will neve r forget dragonflies in Norman. I also want to thank Dr. Jean Crockett, Dr. Paul Sindelar, Dr. Penny Cox, Shaira, Michell, and Vicki fo r all the help they p rovided me throughout the years and their kind wishes for me A special thanks also goes to my long t erm mentors, Drs. Dongil Kim, Joongok Choi, J a e kook Park, and Eunjung Yoo who provided me endless and priceless support and encouragem ent in my life. I feel greatly fortunate to have my friends in my life: Hyejung Kho, ByungKeon Kim and his wife, Tia Bruce, Christine Lee, Jieun Ha, and Hyunjung Moon. I am also indebted to the students who so eagerly participated in the study and whose sp irit reaffirmed my desire to work with special education teachers to provide the best reading instruction and assessment possible. This page would not be complete without a special thank you to my husband, HyoungJeen Jeen. His endeavors and efforts as a p hysicist inspired me to be a more passionate and rigorous investigator, and he has given me so much support and love throughout this process. He is undoubtedly my best friend and best consultant Last, but not least, I owe much gratitude to my parents. The y taught me the value of education and dedication, and it was them who motivated me to always do my best and instilled in me a passion for learning. Thanks to you both for always believing in me. I could never have made it this far without you. I also need to acknowledge my appreciation for my parents in law and loving family who all occupy a special place in my heart. I wish to thank all of them from the bottom of my heart for the pivotal roles they have played in my life, both professionally and personal ly.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 The Roles of Cognitive and Language Skills in Reading Development .................. 17 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................ ................................ ............ 25 The Components and Roles of MA ................................ ................................ ......... 26 Types of Morphemes ................................ ................................ ........................ 27 Roles of Morphemes When Learning to Read ................................ .................. 28 MA Skills and Reading and Spelling Proficiency ................................ ..................... 29 MA Intervention for Students with Reading Disabilities ................................ ........... 37 Morphological Content and Tasks ................................ ................................ .... 40 Teaching Prefix and Suffix Families ................................ ................................ 41 Language and Cognitive Variables Associated with Early Reading Achievement .. 43 Phonological Awareness ................................ ................................ .................. 44 Rapid Automated Naming ................................ ................................ ................ 45 Verbal Comprehension ................................ ................................ ..................... 46 Executive Functions ................................ ................................ ......................... 47 Orthographic Processing or Knowledge ................................ ........................... 48 Verbal or Non Verbal Intelligence ................................ ................................ ..... 49 Working Memory ................................ ................................ .............................. 50 Cognitive and Language Characteristics of Struggling Readers and Their Influences on Responsiveness to Morphological Intervention ............................. 53 Defining Students Responsiveness ................................ ................................ .. 55 Implications for Research ................................ ................................ ................. 57 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 58 Participants and Setting ................................ ................................ .......................... 58 Cognitive and Language Measures ................................ ................................ ........ 60 Phonological Awareness (PA) and Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) ............ 60 Phonological awareness (PA) ................................ ................................ .... 61

PAGE 7

7 Rapid automatized naming (RAN) ................................ ............................. 62 Working Memory ................................ ................................ .............................. 63 Executive Function ................................ ................................ ........................... 64 Verbal Comprehension ................................ ................................ ..................... 65 Non Verbal Intelligence ................................ ................................ .................... 65 Orthographic Knowledge ................................ ................................ .................. 66 Summary of Assessment Procedures ................................ .............................. 67 Interventi on and Test Design ................................ ................................ .................. 68 Pre Posttest Design ................................ ................................ ......................... 68 Intervention Design ................................ ................................ .......................... 69 MA intervention session content ................................ ................................ 69 MA Intervention Procedures ................................ ................................ ............. 71 Intervention session structure ................................ ................................ .... 72 Training of instructors ................................ ................................ ................ 73 Pretest ........................ 74 Base W ord R ecognition T ask ................................ ................................ ........... 75 Prefix and B ase W ord R ecognition T ask ................................ .......................... 75 Sentence C omprehension T ask ................................ ................................ ....... 76 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 77 Intervention Fidelity ................................ ................................ ................................ 78 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 78 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 80 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ................................ ........................... 81 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ............................... 82 Equivalence of Pretest Means by Time ................................ ................................ ... 85 Correlations among Cognitive and Language Variables and Pre and Posttests .... 86 Correlations among Cognitive and Language Variables ................................ .. 86 Correlations of Pretest and Two Posttest Sores ................................ ............... 87 Correlations of Gain Scores from Pretest to First and Second Posttests ......... 88 Correlations of Cognitive and Language Variables with Pretest Scores ........... 89 Cognitive and Language Variables with First Posttest Scores ......................... 90 Cognitive and Language Variables with Second Posttest Scores .................... 90 Responsiveness to the MA intervention ................................ ................................ .. 91 Cognitive and Language Variables that Predict Responsiveness to MA Intervention ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 95 Research Question 1: Cognitive and Language Variables and Student Performance on Word Recognition Task ................................ ...................... 95 Student performance on BR task over time ................................ ............... 96 Student performance on PBR task over time ................................ ............. 97 Research Question 2: Cognitive and Language Variables and Student Performance on Sentence Comprehension Task ................................ .......... 98 Student performance on SC task over time ................................ ............... 98 Summary of Results for Research Questions ................................ ................. 100 The Roles of Initial Performance as a Predictor ................................ .................... 100

PAGE 8

8 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 104 Overview of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 104 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ............................ 105 Predictors of Student Responsiveness to MA Instruction in Recognizing Base Words and Pref ixes ................................ ................................ ............ 105 Predictors for Student Responsiveness to MA Instruction in Understanding Multisyllabic Words in Sentences ................................ ................................ 106 Summary o f Findings ................................ ................................ ..................... 107 Interpretation of Findings in Light of Previous Research ................................ ...... 108 Cognitive and Language Abilities and Reading Multisy llabic Words .............. 108 Verbal comprehension ................................ ................................ ............. 109 Orthographic knowledge ................................ ................................ .......... 109 Verbal working memory ................................ ................................ ........... 110 PA and RAN ................................ ................................ ............................. 110 Overall Conclusions ................................ ................................ ....................... 111 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 112 Implications for Future Research ................................ ................................ .......... 114 APPENDIX A IRB DOCUMENTATION ................................ ................................ ....................... 118 B TARGET PREFIXES AND SELECTED WORDS USED IN MA INTERVENTION 126 C SESSION 1 INTERVENTION SCRIPT ................................ ................................ 127 D MA WORD RECOGNTNION AND DECODING TEST ................................ ......... 132 E MA TEST STUDENT SHEET ................................ ................................ ............... 149 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 165 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 182

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Instruments and measures of cognitive and language abilities .......................... 68 3 2 Target Prefixes Families ................................ ................................ ..................... 70 4 1 Demographic characteristics of the sample ................................ ........................ 81 4 2 Variables and corresponding abbreviations ................................ ........................ 82 4 3 Descriptive statistics for cognitive and language variables ................................ 83 4 4 Descriptive statistics for MA pretests and posttests ................................ ............ 83 4 5 Summary of t test for two pretests ................................ ................................ ...... 85 4 6 Means and sta ndard deviations of collapsed pretest ................................ .......... 86 4 7 Intercorrelations among cognitive and language variables ................................ 87 4 8 Intercorrelations o f pre and posttests ................................ ................................ 88 4 9 Intercorrelations of gain scores ................................ ................................ ........... 89 4 10 Correlations of cognitive and language variables with prete st scores ................ 90 4 1 1 Correlations of cognitive and language variables with first posttest scores ........ 90 4 1 2 Correlations of cognitive and language variables with second posttest scores .. 91 4 1 3 Repeated measures analysis of variance ................................ ........................... 92 4 1 4 Difference between pre test and first posttest ................................ ...................... 93 4 1 5 Difference between pretest and second posttest ................................ ................ 94 4 1 6 Difference between first posttest and sec ond posttest ................................ ....... 94 4 17 Results of multiple regression analyses for BR task ................................ ........... 96 4 18 Results of simple and multiple regression analy ses for PBR task ...................... 97 4 19 Summary of results for BR and PBR tasks ................................ ......................... 98 4 20 Results of simple and multiple regression analyses for SC task ......................... 99 4 21 Summary of results for SC task ................................ ................................ .......... 99

PAGE 10

10 4 22 Results of regression analyses for BR task with initial performance as a predictor ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 101 4 23 Results of regression analysis for PBR task with initial performance as a predictor ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 102 4 24 Results of singl e and multiple regression analysis for SC task with initial performance as a predictor ................................ ................................ ............... 102

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Procedures for cognitiv e and language assessments, pre and posttests, intervention ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 77 4 1 Means of three MA tasks over time ................................ ................................ .... 84

PAGE 12

12 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate S chool of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE ROLES OF COGNITIVE AND LANGUAGE ABILITIE S OF THIRD GRADE STUDENTS WITH READING DISABILITIES RESPONSIVENESS TO MORPHOLO GICAL AWARENESS INTERVENTION By Yujeong Park August 2013 Chair: Mary T. Brownell Major: Special Education Repeated studies have established tha t skill in morphological awareness (MA) is a key predictor of both vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehe nsion. There is evidence that s tudents with reading disabilities, however, have underlying cognitive and language deficits that hamper their ability to learn MA skills, even when presented with explicit, systematic instruction. Additionally, the rese arch e xamining instruction in MA for students with reading disabilities is small compared to the research examining the entering l anguage and cognitive variables in their responsiveness to an intervention designed to improve MA skills involving the use of prefixes. Thirty nine 3 rd grade students scoring below the 25 th participated in this study. The participants were assessed on seven independent variables pri or to starting the intervention, and received the MA intervention twice a week, for a total of 10 sessions. recognition of base wo rds (BR) and prefix and base words (PBR) combined, and their

PAGE 13

13 understanding of words with prefixes in a sentence (SC). Data was collected through two pretests and two posttests Results showed that (a) verbal comprehension played an essential role in the i mprovement of third graders with word decoding deficits on recognizing and und erstanding multisyllabic words, (b) s words as a consequence of the MA intervention was also predicted by other cognitiv e and langu age variables such as RAN, orthographical k nowledge, verbal working memory, and (c) i nitial respons iveness to MA intervention in MA was the strongest predictor of later MA performance as measured by both word recognition and tasks that involve understandin g words with prefixes in sentences. Findings from this study provide evidence to support that (a) cognitive and language variables play different roles in predicting student responsive ness to the MA intervention, (b) the influence of students cognitive an d language skills varies depending on the demands of the MA task and (c)

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The English language is morphophonemic; its spelling system consists of both phonemes (i.e., linking sounds to letters) and morphemes (i.e., linking sounds to meaning) (Carlisle & Stone, 2005; Lombardino, 2012), and phonemes and morphemes maintain the alphabetic orthography of the language (Ehri, 2010) Recognizing, reading, and wr Perfetti, 2003, p. 211). Therefore, in order to learn familiar and novel words and read complex words in English, children need to recog nize the underlying morphology of words the influence of morphology on the meaning of words and the grammatical role of morphemes embedded in the words. That is, they must be morphologically aware and able to understand how the smallest meaning units of words or morphemes (e.g., bind and er in the word binder) influence the pronunciation and meaning of words as well as the grammatical role words play ( Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2003) This is an important aspect of linguistics related to literacy and language development for children. M orphological awareness ( MA) refers to children s conscious awareness of the morphemic structure of words and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure (Carlisle, 1995, p. 194) Learning to read depends on chil morphemes and their understanding of how to manipulate these morphemes, which is referred as morphological knowledge (Carlisle, 2003; Lombardi no, 2012). Accordingly, t must influence their abi lity to decode words and comprehend text ( Carlisle, 2004; Carlisle, 2007 ). More importantly, studies

PAGE 15

15 and orthography, and it is a key predictor of vocabulary knowledge (Ca rlisle, 2007; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006 ), spelling (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Nagy et al., 2006; Siegel, 2008), and reading comprehension skills (Carlisle, 2000; Nagy et al., 2006 ) Moreover, previous research has demonstrated an association between depressed performance on MA tasks and dyslexia as well as below average reading abilities (e.g., Arnbak & Elbro 2000; Casalis Cole, & Sopo, 2004; Reed, 2008). The contribution of MA to reading abilities is critical for both beginni ng readers and upper elementary students As students are progressing to upper elementary e and more words in print. Mo reover, these curriculum changes are accompanied by frequent exposure to unfamiliar multisyllabic words as well as more content specific instructional texts. Therefore, in order to become efficient and fluent readers, students are required to combine knowl edge of root words they have learned with their knowledge of the morphemic structure of words to acquire many new and unfamiliar words meanings without be ing taught specific words directly. That is, it is essential for learners to be able to attend to segm ents of words that are larger than the phoneme such as affixes (i.e., prefixes and suffixes) and to acquire the meaning and grammatical roles of unfamiliar words by using their knowledge of morphological structures related to such affixes. Understanding t he role of morphological knowledge along with its developmental contributions to lexical knowledge provides researchers with the foundation for creating curriculum and other educational materials that can help students with reading disabilities make import ant dec oding and meaning connections. Research examining

PAGE 16

16 interventions in MA shows that students benefit from instruction in MA ( Arnb ak & Elbro, 2003; Berninger et al., 2008; Bowers & Kirby, 2009; Dixon & Englemann, 2001; Katz & Carlisle, 2009; Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughn, & Vermeulen, 2003 ) Additionally, instruction in MA has words involving the roots and affixes le arned and sometimes their comprehension of text (Baumann et al., 2003). Not all students, however, benefit similarly from effective MA instruction (Fuchs et al. 2002; Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002). A majority of students who are unresponsive to generally effe ctive reading or literacy intervention tend to have deficits in phonological processing skills (Adams, 1990; Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1994) rapid automatized naming ( Badian, 1998; Kirby, Parrila, & Pfeiffer, 2003; Wolf & Bowers, 1999), or working memory (Alloway, Gathercole, Willis, & Adams, 2004 ; Meyer, Samlimpoor, Wu, Geary, & Menon, 2010) In addition, students with higher verbal comprehension scores on intelligence tests are more likely to pro fit from such instruction and transfer their knowledge more easily (Katz & Carlisle, 2009). A study also showed that there was a positive correlation between MA and decoding only among dyslexics with above average non verbal IQ (Elbro, 1990). Therefore, i language characteristics may influence their responsiveness to reading instruction. Little is known regarding whether or not students who have reading disabilities can also be responsive to morphological instruction, and the cognitive and language abilities that might help them respond to morphological instruction Currently, the

PAGE 17

17 ins truction is poorly understood. Researche rs do not have sufficient knowledge about the efficacy of providing students with reading disabilities instruction in MA, or how respond to instruction. Only a small n umber of studies have demonstrated that students with reading disabilities could be instructed effectively in MA ( Nagy et al., 2003; Mahony, 1994 ), and other variables likely to predict response to MA instruction, such as decoding efficiency, phonological processing, or working memory, were not included. The Roles of Cognitive and Language Skills in Reading Development The effectiveness of morphological instruction for students with disabilities likely differs according to studen t related factors (Bowers, K irby, & Deacon 2010). It is well known that students with reading disabilities often show phonological and orthographical deficits such as difficulties differentiating between sounds, letters, letter sound corresponding patterns, and different orthographi c representations of the same sound (Ehri, 2005; Du ke, Pressley, & Hilden, 2004). The difficulties students exhibit in these linguistic abilities are closely intertwined with morphology because all aspects of linguistics (i.e., phonology, orthography, and morphology) are interrelated in support ing the process of reading. Thus, students who experience such difficulties logically have trouble acquiring MA skills. Weak morphological skills disadvantage students with reading disabilities when they confront comp lex words that involve the use of affixes (i.e., prefixes, suffixes), complex spellings, and root words that change in spelling and sound depending on the surrounding syllables (Nagy & Anderson, 1984) Furthermore, some studies have found that MA skills ma comprehension and pseudoword reading abilities, and their contribution may be

PAGE 18

18 comparable to or greater than phonological awareness abilities (Carlisle, 2004; Carlisle & Stone, 2005; Deacon & Kirby, 2004). The grapheme pho neme conversion process necessary for word decoding involves both the processing and storage of phonological information associated with cognitive a nd language processing skills (Adams, 1990) A longstanding line of research has attempted to identify which linguistic and cognitive skills best predict or contribute to later reading outcomes (e.g., Badian, 1994; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 2001; Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006; Elbro, Borstrom, & Peter sen, 1998; Scarborough, 1998). The most widely inv estigated language and cognitive predictors of reading success are phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Catts et al., 2001; Catts & Foorman, 2004; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987) rapid letter naming (Schatschneider et al., 2004; Savage &Fredrickson, 2005), orthographic awareness (Carlisle, 2000; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003) verbal ability (Katz & Carlisle, 2009), working memory ( Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood, & Elliott 2008; Meyer et al., 2010) and executive function ( Meyer et al., 2010; Swanson, Saez, Gerber, & Leafsted t, 2004; Swanson & Beebe Frankenb erger, 2006) Many of these cognitive and language predictors also likely predict the development of MA skill (Katz & Carlisle, 200 9) Students with reading disabilities have underlying cognitive and language deficits that may hamper their ability to learn MA skills, even when presented with explicit, systematic instruction. Additionally, the research examining instruction in MA for s tudents with reading disabilities is small compared to the research examining the development of these st As with other types of reading

PAGE 19

19 instruction, students with reading disabilities are likely to respond to MA instruction d ifferently depending on their entering lan guage and cognitive abilities. Studies examining the role of language and cognitive variables in response to reading intervention show that struggling students are those with demonstrated deficits in rapid naming ( of letters, colors, and numbers), phonological awareness, verbal ability, orthographic awareness, executive function, working memory, or a combination of these variables (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Fletcher et al., 2011; Nelson, Benner, & Gonzalez 2003). De respond to interventions designed to im prove different aspects of MA. Therefore, there is a need to better identify those MA skills that students with reading disabilities can lea rn and the degree to which learning those skills will influence these students performance on broader reading outcomes. Statement of the Problem As students progress through elementary school, they encounter increasingly complex words that involve the use of affixes (i.e., prefixes, suffixes) to decode multisyllabic words, complex spellings, and root words that change in spelling and sound depending on the surrounding syllables (Katz & Carlisle, 2009; Nagy & Anderson, 1984). In the English language, differ ent spellings represent vowel sounds that sound similarly (e.g., gate, gait, neigh, stay, hey), and the spelling and pronunciation of root words can change depending on whether they are transparent (i.e., spelled and pronounced consistently as in bat and b at ter) or opaque (i.e., spelled and pronounced differently depending on the affixes added as in calf a nd calves or sign and signal). In order to decode, spell, and understand complex words in English, students must develop either explicit or implicit under standings about the underlying morphology of

PAGE 20

20 words. That is, they must be morphologically aware and able to understand how the smallest meaning units of words or morphemes (e.g., sign in signatory) influence the pronunciation and meaning of words as well a s the grammatical role words play. As MA involves a specific skill to aware and have access to word structure with form and meaning (e.g., root words, prefixes, suffixes, and grammatical inflections ), it requires skills and abilities that are necessary to recognize the underlying structure of morphemes in relation to words and understand the meaning of morphologically comp lex words (McBridge Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow, & Shu 2005). In order for a child to successfully read morphologically complex words, th ey need to take a series of processes sequentially or simultaneously in reading such as recognizing, using words parts that carry significance, and understanding the meaning of those words, which requires complex cognitive and language processes. Thus, an cognitive and language skill weakness can cause limited performance with word recognition, using words parts (e.g., prefixes, suffixes, root words), or combining words parts consisting of morphologically complex words (Bowey, 2001; Gathercole et al., 1999). Therefore, it is important to comprehend specific deficits in cognitive and/or language abilities to better understand student reading performance. In spite of the significance of building morphological knowledge to become profic ient readers, there has been scant attention to the development of MA skills of students with disabilities. The existing literature in the field of reading has highlighted the importance of effective reading programs that include the five essential reading skills acquired between kindergarten and third grade necessary for skilled reading, consisting of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary skills, reading fluency, and

PAGE 21

21 reading comprehension (National Reading Panel 2000). Accordingly, most intervention stu dies have focused on such skills, and reading intervention studies for struggling readers or students with specific learning disabilities have put more emphasis on phonology and phonics training (Katz & Carlisle, 2009). The use of morphological knowledge i n oral and written language tasks is relatively less researched (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000; Bowers et al., 2010). Some studies of MA interventions include students with learning disabilities or dyslexia as a target group (e.g., Arnbak & Elbro, 2000; Casalis e t al., 2004; Carlisle, 1987, 1996; Champion, 1997; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Siegel, 2008); however most intervention studies have excluded students who meet special education eligibility under the category of specific learning disability or have Individual Educational Programs (IEPs) Therefore, it appears that the way to develop MA skills for students with disabilities based on their specific characteristics (e.g., phonological awareness deficits, naming speed deficits) remains to be established. More gen erally we know that research examining interventions in MA shows that Baumann et al., 2003; Berninger et al., 2008; Bowers & Kirby, 2010; Dixon & Englemann, 2001; Katz & Carlisle, 2009). Research has also demonstrated the importance of providing MA instruction in the earlier grades since MA is a better predictor of decoding ability than phonological awareness b y 10 years of ages (Apel & Lawr ence, 2011; Mann & Singson, 200 3 ). Additionally, instruction in MA has been shown to improv

PAGE 22

22 involving the roots and affixes learned and sometimes their comprehension o f text (Baumann et al., 2003). Not all students, h owever, benefit similarly from MA instruction. Students with reading disabilities have a variety of cognitive and linguistic deficits that affect their abil ity to respond to instruction. For instance, students with higher verbal comprehension scores on int elligence tests were more likely to profit from such instruction and transfer their knowledge more easily (Katz & Carlisle, 2009). S tudents with higher verbal IQ scores were more likely to demonstrate stronger growth and transfer of MA knowledge (Deacon & Kirby, 2004). T he cognitive and language factors that have been causally related to the responsiveness of students with reading disabilities may influence development of MA skills targeted in instruction (McBridge Chang et al., 2005). However, cognitive an d language variables related to the acquisition of MA skills or using such skills in decoding and understanding meaning of words have been the focus of relatively little research. Therefore, there is a need to conduct more research focusing on which cognit ive and language weaknesses or strengths are associated with developing MA skills among stu dents with reading disabilities and how to provide them with appropriate MA instruction bas ed on their language and cognitive abilities This dissertation study has potential to contribute to our learn. Additionally, the findings from this study may inform future intervention studies needed to more effectively teach students with r eading disabilities to read and understand multi syllabic words.

PAGE 23

23 In short, what is known suggests that cognitive and language abilities are pivotal to many aspects of reading abilities. Children who have strong morphological skills might be able to approac h a novel multisyllabic word and break it into parts in order to predict the meaning or decode words as a whole without conscious phonetic or morphemic decoding Children with reading disabilities show deficits in MA skills, and accumulated evidence demon strates significantly associated with reading achievements as a consequence of reading instruction. Different researchers have argued convincingly that certain cognitive and language skills are especiall y important for developing different reading skills (e.g., word recognition, reading comprehension, vocabulary etc.). However, the relationships instruction are not as w ell established for children with reading disabilities. Purpose of the Study The findings from previous research provide guidance on how to effectively provide normally achieving students with MA intervention. Unfortunately, the literature on effective M A instruction for students with r eading disabilities is scarce. Moreover, there is no study investigating the roles of cognitive and language abilities in predicting MA intervention. To be most effective, int ervention should be in cognitive and language abilities The primary purpose of this study was to investigate how well cognitive and language processing variables (i.e., phonological awareness, rapid nam ing, orthographic knowledge/awareness, verbal comprehension, working memory, executive function, non verbal intelligence) predict the degree of responsiveness to MA instruction

PAGE 24

24 for third grade students with decoding deficits. More specifically, this study was designed to exa mine (a) how students with word analysis deficits respond to a previously researched MA intervention that involves learning about affixes (prefixes) and the role they play in changin and (b) underlying cognitive and la nguage variables that predict the abilities of students with decoding deficits to add prefixes to real words and then understand the meaning of those words in a sentence level comprehension task. The correct responses on three morphological tasks (i.e. bas e word recognition task, prefix and base word recognition task, sentence level comprehension task) were used as measures of responsiveness to morphological intervention. T he following research questions were addressed: 1. What cognitive and language variable s predict responsiveness to MA intervention on tasks emphasizing word recognition after accounting for pretest performance? Of these variables, which are the best predictors of MA intervention after accounting for pretest performance? 2. What cognitive and la nguage variables predict responsiveness to MA intervention for MA tasks emphasizing word recognition and sentence level comprehension after accounting for pretest performance? Of these variables, which are the best predictors of MA intervention after accou nting for pretest performance?

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The present study aims to determine which cognitive and language processing and to examine effects of MA instruction Th is review of literature includes three main bodies of research: (a) the importance of morphological knowledge and MA skills to struggling readers and (c) the cognitive and language variables that have been reported to be related to The studies selected for review (a) were published in referred journal s (b) provided empirical evidence of the development of morphology, (c) targeted MA intervention for students with or without reading disabilities (d) included students in grades K 12 with specific learning disabilities or dyslexia, (e) reported student achievement measures using descriptive statistics, (f) focused on th e contribution of the cognitive and language variables to successful reading, and (g) included at least one dependent measure that assessed one or more aspects of reading in English, including spelling, writing, vocabulary, decoding, or reading comprehensi on. If the study did not have a reading related outcome or if reading performance was measured only by brain imaging it was not included in the literature review. The overall search included several steps. First, an electronic database search was conduct ed using the Educational Resource Information Clearinghouse (ERIC), American Psychological Association (APA PsycNET), EBSCO HOST, PsyINFO, and Google Scholar using variations of the following search terms: morphological awareness, morphological knowledge, morphemes, morphology and reading, decoding,

PAGE 26

26 word study, reading, word part, affix, prefix, root word, base word, reading, dyslexia, disability, cognitive abilities, working memory, verbal intelligence, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, and oral language proficiency. Second, the references of selected papers to identify meaningful studies that did not ap pear in the first search step were reviewed The specific criteria for inclusion in this review were tha t an article (a ) included the partic ipan ts who were students in grades K 12 and students with specific learn ing disabilities or dyslexia, (b ) reported an intervention or a performance /comparison of groups design, (c ) reported student achievement measures, (d ) included at least one dependent measure which assessed one or more aspects of reading such as spelling, writing, vocabulary, decod ing, or reading comprehension. If the study did not have a reading related outcom e, the study was not included. When reading performance was measured only by brain imaging, the study was not included. The Components and Roles of MA Research on how students analyze monosyllabic or multisyllabic words and identify word level units in those words has focused on decoding as the process of translating writ ten forms into language forms. The decoding process requires readers to use their phonological, orthographic, and sema n tic knowledge in learning to re ad (Reichle & Perfetti, 2003). T his section includes a brief r eview of the types of morphemes literature on the sig nificance of morphology, and relat ionship between morphological knowledge and word recognition. Additionally, a description of how readers use their knowledge of morphograph s when decoding complex words is provided Further, this review will provide critic al information to design MA interventions that are linguistically and developmentally appropriate for students with word analysis deficits.

PAGE 27

27 Types of Morpheme s A morpheme is a main unit of analysis in morphology and refers to a combination of sounds that h ave a semantic me aning or grammatical function. Morphemes consist of phonemes (the smallest linguistic units of spoken language), and consist of graphemes (the smallest units of written language) in written language (Fromkin, 2013) A morphe me may or may not stand alone. For example, the word students has two morphe mes : s tudent is a morpheme, and s is a morpheme. The word student is a morpheme that can stand on its own. Thus, it is a monomorphemic or simple word (i.e., words that have only one morphem e and have a unit of meaning). A morpheme can be either a base or an affix, and an affix can be categorized into two types: prefix (e.g., pre un ) a nd suffix (e.g., able, ish). For example, student is the base morpheme, and s is a suffix; whereas in the word unhappy, happy is the base morpheme, and un is a prefix. Words with more than one morpheme a re called polymorphemic words. Polymorphemic words include bimorphemic (i.e., consisting of two morphemes as the words waiting and waited) or multimorphemic (i.e., consisting of more than two morphemes as the words reusable and unhappiness ) words. Polymorphemic words are composed of two basic types of morphemes : free standing, or unbound morphemes and bound morphemes. Free or unbound morphemes are morphemes t hat can stand alone in a sentence (e. g., student, learn, and etc.) Bound morphemes are morphemes that cannot stand alone; they are always part of a larger word and are attached to other unbound morphemes, such as prefixes and suffixe s (e.g., dict in dict ation.). Bound morphemes also can be lexical morphemes (e.g., {com} as in combine, compose) or grammatical morphemes (e.g., -s in students means more than one). Bound grammatical morphemes are known as affixes and can be further divided into two types:

PAGE 28

28 in flectional morphemes or affixes (e.g., ed, ing, s) and derivational morphemes or affixes (e.g., ly, tion, pre un ) (Fromkin, 2013) In the following section, the way children decode bimorphemic or multimorphemic words and gain access to the meanings of such words will be addressed. Roles of Morphemes When Learning to Read Experimental evidence on morphological structure supports two opposing hypotheses regarding the processing of morphemes to gain access to the lexicon; the full listing hypothesis and the decomposition hypothesis (Reed, 2008 ; Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2003). The full listing hypothesis claims that students first recognize multisyllabic words in their entirety, often referred to as whole word processing procedures, and they begin to dec ompose words into their morphological units only after they have attained lexical access to the complex words. In contrast, the decomposition hypothesis has assumed that students read complex words (e.g., unhappiness) by first recognizing the individual m orphemes and then automatically blending them to recognize the word (Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2003). Under the full listing hypothesis, lexical entries are whole words or sight words; while for the decomposition hypothesis, lexical entries ar e roots, stems, o r base words. Presently, research has not resolved which approach to decoding morphologically complex words is accurate -full listing or decomposition procedures. Regardless of which approach students use when decoding multisyllabic words, it is clear that they must acquire knowledge about the different morpheme structures if they are to successfully decode and understand complex words. Studies that investigate morphological development in children show that children first learn inflectional affixes (Reed 2008) before learning derivational suffixes

PAGE 29

29 (Carlisle & Stone, 2005; Carlisle & Katz, 2 006; Reed, 2008; Vogel, 2001). This developmental pattern in learning may be due to the fact that there are only a limited number of inflectional affixes in English; w hereas derivational affixes a re more varied and complex. English has only eight inflectional affixes and all are suffixes (i.e., plural (e.g., youngest), present (e.g. learn), past (e.g., learned), past participle (given), and present participle (e.g., giving); whereas there are numerous derivational morphemes and derivational affixes that can be either suffixes (e.g., ful, ly, al) or pref ixes (e.g., un dis anti ). Furthermore, because many derivational affixes are adopted from Latin (e.g., basic meaning of co is together as in coauthor and cohort), Greek (e.g., basic meaning of auto is self or same as in automatic), Anglo Saxon (e.g., root meaning of bind is t ying or fastening as in bind and binder), or other languages, students need to learn the meaning origins of roots, prefixes, and suffixes to fully understand the meanings and uses of words that include these affixes and transfer their lexical knowledge to decode new words (Henry, 20 10). Thus, acquiring fluency with derivational affixes is more challenging MA Skills and Reading and Spelling Proficiency Written English is comprised of both phonemes (i.e., representations of sound) and morphemes (i.e., repre sentations of meaning) (Ca rlise & Stone, 2005). Therefore, it reading ability. Cumulative evidence has shown that phonological awareness tasks are the best predictors of reading difficulty in early reading acquisition (Adams, 1990; Snow et al., 1998; Wagner Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1994). Less attention, however, has been

PAGE 30

30 Recently, stud ies of reading in English have demonstrated the relationship of MA and a variety of literacy skills (Carlisle, 1995; 2000; Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Kirby et al. 2012) for students in intermediate (Carlisle, 1995; 2000; Leo ng, 2000) and upper grades (Nag y & Sc ott, 1990). Research has informed us that MA plays a key role in reading and spelling even when other language variables are controlled (Carlisle, 2000; Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Kirby et al. 2012; Treiman & Cassar, 1996). Additionally, MA predicts vocabular y growth (Bowers & Kir by, 2010). For example, in a 4 year longitudinal study investigating the roles of MA and phonological awareness on three aspects of reading development (i.e., pseudoword reading, single word reading, and reading comprehension) of stud ents in Grades 2 through uniquely to pseudoword reading, single word reading, and reading comprehension after controlli ng for phonological awareness. After controlling for verbal and nonverbal intelligence and phonological awareness, MA skills independently contributed to growth in pseudoword reading, single word reading, and reading comprehension in Grade s 3 through 5. At Grades 4 and 5, MA made a greater contribution to pseudoword reading and reading comprehension than phonological awareness did after controlling for verbal and nonverbal intelligences of Grade s 4 and 5; whereas phonological awareness made a stronger contri bution to single word reading. predi ctors of their reading comprehension, implying that MA skills play a significa nt role in understanding text. From these findings, it was argued that MA skills may play a role in reading development that is comparable to or stronger than the role played by phonological awareness skills.

PAGE 31

31 There is also evidence that supports the link between morphological knowledge and its use in understanding derived words and reading c omprehension (Carlisle, 2000). Carlisle (2000) investigated the relationship between 3 rd a nd 5 th g morphological knowle dge and reading comprehension. Specifically, Carlisle assessed orthography when de rivational affixes were added. For both 3 r d and 5 th graders, ability to read derived words accounted for a significant portion of the variance in reading comprehension, and this relation ship was stronger for 5 th graders (for 3 rd 43% ( F (3, 30) = 7.42, p < .001, for 5 th 53%, F (3, 21) = 8.03, p <.0 1), showing that there is a words and their reading comprehension ability. structure to literac y outcomes, Nagy and his colleagues used structural equation modeling of covariance structures (Nagy et al.,2003, 2006). For example, they (2003) found that MA measured by three indicators (i.e., suffix choice, compound structure, and morphological related ness) contributed uniquely to reading comprehension for the second grade at risk readers on the path analysis ( Z = 4.64, where test statistic, Z 2.00, p < .05). The correlation between MA and reading comprehension for fourth grade at risk writers was stronger ( r = .80, p < .05) than the second grade at risk readers ( r = .69, p < .05). Similarly, in a study investigating the contribution of MA to literacy outcomes (i.e., reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, spelling, and accuracy and rate of decoding morphologically complex words) for three groups of upper grade children (4 th /5 th 6 th /7 th/ and 8 th /9 th ), Nag y, Beringer, and Abbott (2006) foun d that MA

PAGE 32

32 uniquely contributed to reading comprehension ( Z = 5.02 for 4 th /5 th, p < .001; Z = 2.17 for 6 th /7 th, p < .05; Z = 3.56 for 8 th /9 th, p < .001), reading vocabulary ( Z = 5.05 for 4 th /5 th, p < .001; Z = 2.30 for 6 th /7 th, p < .05; Z = 35.15 for 8 th /9 t h, p < .001), and spelling ( Z = 2.77 for 4 th /5 th, p < .01; Z = 2.63 for 6 th /7 th, p < .01; Z = 2.76 for 8 th /9 th, p < .01) for all three grade level groups of students on the path analyses. Regarding the measures of accuracy and rate of decoding morphologica lly complex words, MA made a significant and unique contribution to all the measures of rate of decoding morphologically complex words (i.e., decoding inflected words, decoding prefixed and pseudoprefixed words, decoding prefixed irregular stems, decoding suffixed irregular stems, decoding sets of morphologically related words) for the 8th/9th grade students, and to some measures of accuracy of decoding morphologically complex words for the 4th/5th grade and 8th/9th grade students (i.e., decoding inflected words, decoding prefixed and pseudoprefixed words, decoding prefixed irregular stems, decoding suffixed irregular stems, decod ing suffixed irregular stems). In addition, MA is highly correlated with vocabulary knowledge in all three grade level groups ( r = .83 for 4 th /5 th r = .72 for 6 th /7 th r = .67 for 8 th /9 th p < .001). Relationships among MA and literacy o utcomes of students with d isabilities. Several studies investigated the relationship between students with disabilities, MA, and rea ding and spelli ng development. Specifically, researchers examined how limited reading and spelling abilities of students with disabilities affected their understanding of morphological structure and use (e.g., Carlisle, 1987; Casalis et al., 2004; Champion, 1997; Siegel, 2008). Casalis, Cole and Sopo (2004) and Siegel (2008) examined the performance of dyslexic students on MA tasks and its relationship

PAGE 33

33 children without reading disabilit i es who read at the same level. Casalis et al. (2004) examined how dyslexic French children performed on a series of MA tasks compared to a group of chronologically age matched peers and a group of peers matched on their reading achievement. Results showed that students with dyslexia scored significantly below students in the other two groups on all tasks ( F (2,96) = 77.94, p < .001), and there was an interaction between MA tasks and the three groups ( F (6,288) = 8.46, p < .001), showing that the difference a mong the three groups varied depending on the types of MA tasks (e.g., suffix deletion task, derivation in sentence completion task). For instance, children matched on chronological age showed highest scores on the suffix deletion task and the derivation in sentence context task, followed by scores of their peers matched on their reading achievement and dyslexia; however, there was no group difference between the group of peers matched o n reading achievement and the dyslexia group on the derivation in sent ence context task. Siegel (2008) examined the relation of MA to reading and spelling skills for three groups of sixth grade children: those with dyslexia, those who were typical readers, and those who were Eng lish language learners (ELLs). She found that there were significant differences between two of the groups (i.e., dyslexic group vs. normally achieving students group) on the morphological tasks ( F (1,1060) = 254.30, p < .0001) and the students with dyslexia scored lower on the word and pseudoword mo rphological tasks. The type of morphological tasks (i.e., word vs. pseudoword) also had a significant effect, F (1, 1060) 200.96, p < .0001 ), resulting in both groups having lower scores on the pseudoword as opposed t o the word morphological task. D yslexic

PAGE 34

34 performance on reading (i.e., with pseudoword reading fluency, r = .50, p < .001) and spellings tasks ( r = .52, p < .001). Additionally, MA made an independent contr ibution to reading comprehension and spelling achievement that was higher than the contribution made by phonological aware ness and oral language skills. Furthermore, the links between MA and reading comprehension were stronger than th ese between phonologic al processing and reading comprehension These findings show that MA is a skill that contributes independently to reading comprehension and spelling. Hauerwas and Walker (2003) investigated morphological, phonological, and orthographic awareness skills of students with spelling deficits in 5 th 7 th and 8 th grades and their abilities to spell inflectional morphology in writing tasks compared to students matched on spelling achievement and students of the same age. Comparisons of performance among the three g roups showed that students with spelling deficits performed worse on all three spelling tasks (i.e., spelling of inflected verbs in sentence context, spelling of inflected verbs in list format, base word spelling) ( F (2, 85) = 65.27, p < .001). In addition the ability to spell inflected forms in sentence context of students with spelling deficits was significantly correlated with MA ( r = .40, p < .05), phonological awareness ( r = .58, p < .01), and orthographic awareness at ( r = .51, p < .01). However, MA of students with spelling deficits was not related to base word and list form spelling tasks. Additionally, they found that the mistakes (e.g., omitting inflected endings) students with demonstrated spelling deficits made on an inflected verb task varied according to their understanding of how inflected endings can be used to show

PAGE 35

35 mistakes spelling matched students made on the same tasks varied according to their inflected verbs is close ly related to their MA skills. Carlisle (1987) investigated the per formance of learning disabled 9 th graders on the morphological structure, spelling, and suffix addition tasks of derived forms and base forms compared to the performance of normally achieving 4 th 6 th and 8 th graders on these same tasks. Results showed th at the four groups displayed differences on derived forms ( F (3,78) = 18.91, p < .001) and the base forms ( F (3,78) = 16.88, p < .001). Interestingly, even though MA skills of 9 th graders with learning disabilities fell between those of normal 6 th and 9 th gr aders, developmental patterns of learning orthographic and phonological rules were similar to those o f normally achieving students. Findings from studies by Hauerwas and Walker (2003) and Carlisle (1987) demonstrated that students with specific learning di sabilities had deficits in their morphological knowledge and exhibited difficulties in spelling that seemed to be associated with lack of MA skills. Carlisle (1996) examined the morphological errors of students with learning disabilities durin g a creative writing activity. Twenty six normally achieving students and 16 students with learning disabilities en gaged in a picture story task. Students were presented with a picture and pro mpt and asked to write freely. Results showed that second grade students wit h learning disabilities made more errors than their nondisabled peers in the use of present tense ( t (41) = 2.82, p < .05) (e.g., it learn he learn we learns ), and the progressive form ( t (41) = 2.04, p < .05) (e.g., he was playing

PAGE 36

36 and read ); whereas no si gnificant difference was found between third grade students with learning disabili ties and their same age peers. She also found significant story writing ( r = .54, p < .0 01) and spelling ( r = .35, p < .001). Additionally the frequency and accuracy of the use of morphological forms in their written stories varied nd graders ha d fewer use s of morphologically complex words than 3 rd g raders, and students with learning disabilities had fewer use s of morphologically complex words than non learning disabled students in their writing. Overall, research findings show that students who have deficits in reading and spelling tend to demonstr ate difficulties using their morphological knowledge to analyze morphologic al structure in complex words. Poor MA has been shown to affect not only comprehension, and spe lling (Casalis et al., 2004; Carlisle, 1996; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Siegel, 2008). Moreover, MA skills of such students are related to lower scores on word recognition and writing tasks after taking into account the effects of other related factors such as phonological or orthographic awareness, suggesting that MA appears to be causally related to reading achievement. Ways in which morphological awareness facilitates the learning of component reading skills such as spelling, vocabulary and reading compre hension are well documented (e.g., Bowers et al., 2010; Carlisle, 1995; 2000; Templeton, 2004) and suggest that morphological knowledge can be a predictor and facilitator of literacy skills. Thus, it seems reasonable that morphological instruction should be used to facilitate

PAGE 37

37 complex multisyllabic words (Bowers et al., 2010; Carlisle, 1995). Furthermore, researchers suggest that morphological awareness instruction is beneficial to struggling readers because morphological knowledge (i.e., use of orthographic structures to (e. g., Casalis et al., 2004). In the following section, studies on MA interventions focused on struggling readers will be reviewed to frame the effects of MA int erventions on reading outcomes of student s with reading disabilities MA Intervention for Students with Reading Disabilities A large amount of research has demonstrated the significant contribution of MA to reading, spelling and vocabulary achieveme nt (e.g., Arnbak & Elbro, 2000; Carlisle, 2000; Carlisle, 2007; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Nagy et al., 2006 ; Siegel, 2008) Any efforts to improve students MA skills also seem to impro ve important reading outcomes. Researchers who conducted intervention stu dies have provided evidence of causal links between deliberate morphological instruction and literacy deve lopment (Bowers et al., 2010). Researchers have also provided supportive evidence that teaching MA may be helpful for struggling readers (Abbott & Ber ninger, 1999; Carlisle, Stone, & Katz, 2001; Carlisle & Stone, 2006; Casalis et al., 2004; Elbro & Arnbak, 1996; Henry 2003; Nunes & Bryant, 2006). The following review will present the findings of recent meta analys i s studies (Bowers et al., 2010; Reed, 2008), and morphological intervention studies that included students with disabilities. In a meta analysis using 22 intervention studies conducted by Bowers, Kirby, and Deacon (2010), they found that (a) morphological instruction focused on root words and

PAGE 38

38 affixes was more effective than instruction that emphasized affixes alone, (b) integrated morphological interventions (morphological instruction integrated with other instruction or literacy skills) ( s d = 1.25 for sublexical linguistic outcomes or morpheme level) were more effective than isolated instruction (morphological instruction targeted only morphological content) ( s d = 0.24 for sublexical linguistic outcomes), and (c) morphological instruction was helpful for learners at all ages even though the amount of gain differed based on the age of the students and whether the outcome measure d involved morphemes or words. Additionally, the authors found that morphological instruction benefited students who struggled with reading, spelling, and v ocabulary when they were taught in a small group or individu al instruction. The authors concluded that both young and old students can profit from MA instruction if it is devel opmentally appropriate, inclu ding morpho (p. 167). Interestingly, the authors identified 8 intervention studies (Abbott & Berninger, 1999; Arnbak & Elbro, 2000; Berninger, Nagy et al., 2003; Berninger, Winn et al., 2008; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Tyler, Lewis, Haskill, & Tolbert, 2003; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006) that included less able children, and morphological content that targeted affixes, base or stems for word meaning, an d oral and written morphology. Also, mo rphological in the 8 intervention studies. In these 8 studies, the selected words, instructional grouping (small group or individual), instructional time per session and num ber of sessions varied.

PAGE 39

39 Reed (2 008) qualitatively synthesized seven morphology intervention studies conducted between 1986 and 2006 invo lving students in grades K 12. The author selected 7 studies that focused on morphology instruction, in roots and affi xes, and measured gains in one or more reading related outcomes (e. g., word identification, spelling, vocab ulary, reading comprehension). The research findings from studies in this review revealed that (a) morphological skill does not develop normally in children with reading and hearing disabilities, (b) stronger effects were associated with root word instruction in combination with affix instruction, and (c) morphology could successfully be combined with training in other skills without adding instructio nal time. According to the author, there has been little research conducted on the effect of explicit morphological instruction using an experimental design where the subjects are randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions with fidelity implemen tation. Moreover, there are only two experimental studies that included struggling readers (e.g., Abbott & Berninger, 1999; Vadasy et al., 2006). A couple additional studies were identified that were not review. Arnbak and Elbron (2000) investigated 33 fourth and fifth grade dyslexic minute lessons of MA training to investigate whether the s skill s development o f reading and sp elling skills. A total of 540 minutes were dedicated to the intervention for the experimental group, and the training results were compared to a contro l group of same aged children. Students received isolated morphological training in small groups (3 4 stu dents) with explicit instruct ion from the remedial teacher. The instruction targeted stu Students were made familiar

PAGE 40

40 with semantically tra nsparent and opaque morphemes. In addition, a significant portion of the instructional t using prefix and s uffix families. sed pre and post intervention. A series of 17 different tasks were employed. These tasks were similar to those used in correlational studies that demonstrated relationships between MA and reading and spelling skills. Both groups made equal gains on measures of phonological awareness, phoneme discrimination and picture naming. Consistent with other findings i predicted performance on the morpheme subtraction task ( r = .28, p < .05), but were not associated with growth in MA. There was no support for links between p honological processing and MA. Importantly, these findings demonstrate that it is possible to improve morphological knowledge levels in students with dyslexia through targeted, explicit intervention regardless of their entering phonological awareness abilities. Morphological Content and Tasks representation of morphological knowledge and their use in oral and written language (Carlisle, 1987, 1996), and the descriptiveness of morphological tas ks varied f rom study to study. word tasks (Ca slisle, 1987; Champion, 1997). Suffix addition tasks (e.g., dun + y = ___) (Carlisle, 1987) and deletion tasks (e.g., sagesse / sage ) (Casalis, Cole, & Sopo, 2003) required students to iso late suffixes from base words. Several studies examined morphologically complex words (Casalis et al., 2003).

PAGE 41

41 Teaching Prefix and Suff ix F amilies Based on existing empirical studies, researchers have recommended teaching students new or complex words by helping to cluster affixes into meaning based groups or families, which are called prefix or suffix families as a word part clue, is eff ective (e.g., Baumann et al., 2003; Baumann, Font, Edwa rds, & Boland, 2005; Edwards, F ont, Baumann, & Boland, 2004). Instruction in prefix families has also been combined with instruction in context clues as a way of helping students use their knowledge of prefixe s and context to decode words. In a study examining the impact of MA instruction on 5th grade students (Baumann et al., 2005) students were taught the following word families: not, number, below or part, again and remove, before and after, agains t, excess, and bad Additionally, they were taught to use the appositive context clues that were set off by commas, dashes, or colons, as well as signal words such as or or a Students were divided into groups where they received combined instruction in MA and contextual analysis, MA instruction alone, and contextu al analysis instruction alone. Following the lessons, students were tested on their ability to recall meanings of words used to teach the morphemic and contextual analysis skills, infer unfamiliar words th at contained morphemic elements that were embedded in text and included taught context clues (transfer words), and comprehend text including transfer w ords. Results indicated that (a ) students of all ability levels benefited equally from the instr uction in morp hemic or contextual analysis, (b ) there was an immediate and delayed impact of the morphemic and con textual analysis instruction, (c ) there was an immediate impact of morphemic and contextual analysis instru ction for transfer words, and (d ) t here was no evidence that instruction in morphemic or contextual analysis (in isolation, or combination)

PAGE 42

42 word meaning regardless of whether they received the intervention i n i solation or combination. T he treatment effects for the morphemic analysis instruction using prefix families were, in general, stronger than they were for contextual analysis instruction (mean effect size for morphemic analysis instruction was .78 and me an effect size for contextual analysis instruction was .60). Similarly, Baumann and his colleagues (2003) investigated the effects of integrated instruction in morphemic and contextual analysis strategies embedded within subject matter lessons on 5 th grade d on their text comprehension. A q uasi experimental design was used to compare the effects of morphemic and contextual analysis instruction with the effects of textbook vocabulary instruction during social st udents lessons. General education teachers taught students how to derive word meanings through morphemic analysis using 8 affix families (i.e, not, before, excess, number, re, quality of, ward, ful), and asked students to infer meaning th rough contextual analysis. Results showed that students who received morphemic and contextual analysis instruction were better able to infer meanings of novel morphologically complex words (i. e., words with affixes) ( F (1, 6) = 54.840, p < .001) and morphologically and con textually decipherable words on a delayed test ( F (1, 145) = 4.858, p = < .05, but not on an immediate post test. These findings suggest that (a) morphemic analysis instruction including high frequency affixes organized by meaning based families can help st udents decode and understand new complex words independently, and (b) receiving M A instruction helps students expand learning word meanings beyond what they are taught.

PAGE 43

43 The results of intervention studies indicated that there is evidence that students wi th disabilities would benefit from morphological instruction targeted at their instructional level. Also, studies support the use of targeted, explicit intervention to improve morphological knowledge levels in students with reading problems (Arnbak & Elbro n, 2000; Vadasy et al., 2006). Less able readers seem to benefit from more explicit ins truction (Bower et al., 2010). In addition, the morphological tasks used during intervention can influence the degree to which students profit from intervention. Which morphological tasks are used may lead to different outcomes of learning new, complex words (Baumann et al., 2002, 2003), suggesting the potential of using affix families to teach MA skills. Clearly, research findings from these studies suggest that attent ion should be paid to how morphological awareness interventions are structured, in terms of the morphological processing of students with disabilities and their understanding of how affixes are related to part of speech. s how changing features of an intervention will affect the learning of students with disabilities Language and Cognitive Variables Associated with Early Reading Achievement Early cognitive and language skills are predictive of later reading achievement ( Numerous studies have examined relationships between component skills of reading (e.g., phonics, vocabulary) and reading achievement (e.g., Anthony & Lonigan, 2004; Hogan, Catts, & Litt le, 2005; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Storch & Whitehurst; 2002) using longitudinal data. Research has demonstrated that working memory, intelligence, phonological awareness, rapid naming and oral language proficiency are related to important reading and spelli ng outcomes (e.g., Siegel, 2008) and may be related to MA

PAGE 44

44 Specific language and cognitive variables are likely to influence the response of students with disabilities to the MA intervention. Research has established a strong link tive and language abilities and their word recognition and reading comprehension. Over the past years, however, the study of the roles of cognitive and language read has received little attention The following review summarize s the literature o n cognitive and language variables shown to predict Phonological A wareness One early reading skill that has been shown to be a strong predictor of later reading achievement for English speakers is phonological aw areness (Wagner et al., 1994). ilson & Lonigan, 2010, p. 63). Phonological processing involves acce ss to the phonological structure of spoken language as well as proces sing written language (Jorm & Sh are, 1 983; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Compared to other predictive variables, phonological awareness has been reported to be the most powerful predictor of reading skill development, particularly word ; Scarborough, 1998). Also, phonological awareness is a strong and significant predictor of word reading skills in elementary children until around second grade (Tor gesen et al., 1999; Ehri, 1992; Ehri et al., 2001; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). I ts predictive value is diminished after this period when children are transitioning (Hogan et al., 20 05; Scarborough, 1998) For example, in a five year longitudinal study of 216 children, Wagner and his colleagues (1997) assessed phonological awareness, word

PAGE 45

45 reading, and vocabulary s kills from kindergarten through 4 th grade. While i ndividual differences in phonological awareness and vocabulary predicted later word reading skill, the amount of unique variance explained by phonological awareness in predicting later word rea ding skills declined from 23% kindergarten to second grade, 8% from first to third gr ade, and 4% from second to fo u rth grade. In a longitudinal study beginning in preschool, Storch and Whitehurst (2002) examined domains, code related skills (e.g., print concepts and phonological awareness) and oral language skil ls (e.g., receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, and narrative recall) to determine which skills best predicted future reading achievement. Consistent with previous studies, the authors found a stronger relationship between the two domains during pre school than in the first and second grades, showing that the predictive strength of skills within these domains varies along a developmental continuum. Additionally, Catts and his colleagues (1999) found that second grade children with poor reading skills were four to five times more likely than good readers to demonstrate problems in both phonological awareness and oral lang uage as early as kindergarten. Some studies have examined the degree to which phonological awareness skills are a moderator or mediato r of the relationship between MA and selected reading abilities (e.g., Deacon & Kirby, 2004). Rapid Automated N aming Naming speed, which is called rapid automatized naming (RAN), has also proven to be a significant pred ictor of later reading skills. RAN i s the result of lexical access (Badian, 1998; Kirby, Parrila, & Pfeiffer, 2003; Wolf & Bowers, 1999) since it requires the retrieval of phonological information from long term memory in response to visual stimuli. In a longitudinal study, Kirby and his col leagues (2003) examined the extent to

PAGE 46

46 which early reading skills such as phonological awareness and rapid naming speed performance predicted re ading development in children. Results of their study showed that phonological awareness was strongly related to reading ability during the first two years of school while rapid naming performance tended to be more related to reading ability in the later grades. Furthermore, children who performed poorly on the phonological awareness and rapid naming tasks in kinderg arten were most likely to show reading difficulties in Grade 5, followed by the group of children who performed poorly on only the namin g speed tasks in kindergarten (Kirby et al., 2003) Since RAN s word recognition abilities (NRP, 2000) and MA skills help readers recognize words (Carlisle, 2003), some researchers have been interested in the role of RAN in MA skills (e.g., McBride Chang, Shu, Zhour, Wat, & Wagner, 2003; Plaza & Cohen, 2004). Verba l Comprehension Verbal comprehension or o 2010, p.63). understand, and remember information provided orally and use that information in novel tasks ( McGrew, Schrank, & Woodcock 2007 ). While most studies have focused primarily on phonological awareness and/or rapid naming performance as predictors of childre researchers have demonstrated that many children who have difficulties learning to read also have a history of oral proficiency deficits as well as phonological awaren ess deficits (e.g., Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin 1999; Pearce & Gayle, 2009). Compared to their same age peers, children with larger vocabularies tended to be more proficient

PAGE 47

47 readers than children with smaller vocabularies (e.g., Bishop & Adams, 1990; Catts et al., 1999; Pearce & Gayle, 2009; Scarboroug h, 1998). For example, (2009) found that students with higher verbal comprehension scores were more likely to profit from MA instruction and transfer their knowledge more easily to novel words presented in a passage. Kaye, Sternberg and Fonseca (1987) also found that students who have better verbal comprehension are more likely to use contextual information or cues to facilitate, thus, they can apply such ability to decode and infer the meaning of complex words. Similarly, Stage and his colleagues ( Stage, Abbott, Jenkins, & Berninger, 2003) showed that students with higher verbal comprehension scores responded more rapidly to a set of early reading intervention s involving alphabetic principle and reading first grade books Researchers hav e not established, however, the relationship between vocabulary and MA, though, giv en the meaning based aspect of MA, it would be surprising not to find a strong relation ship between the two skills. Executive Functions Executive function refers to brain working memory, and inhibitory control cognitive processes that are utilized in planning, problem solving, and goal 648). Research has demonstrated that deficit s in executive functions have been linked to 2000; Reiter, Tucha, & Lange 2005 ). Reiter et al. (2005 ) examined a variety of aspects of executive functioning in two group s of children with a mean age of 10.8 years, one with dyslexia and another without dyslexia. According to their findings, children with dyslexia displayed impairments of both verbal and figural fluency functions, indicating that children with dyslexia demo nstrate impairments in a variety of executive functions

PAGE 48

48 related to literacy ou tcomes. In a longitudinal study Altemeier Abbott, and Berninger (2008) investigated the development of executive functioning in grades 1 to 6 and its contribution to reading ou tcomes for children with and without dyslexia. Their findings showed that children tended to continue to develop their executive functions, and inhibition and rapid automatic switching tasks accounted for the amount of variance in sures that are timed (i.e., reading fluency). Also, inhibition consistently predicted timed literacy tasks for both children with and without dyslexia. E xecutive functions were more associated with literacy achievement in children without dyslexia than tho se with dyslexia, suggesting that children with dyslexia may not able to engage or use executive functions as effectively a s normally achieving children Orthographic Processing or Knowledge Orthographic knowledge re fers to the knowledge of how sound s (ph onemes) of spoken language are represente d in written form s S killed readers are capable of understanding the conventions of orthographic aspects of sequentially printed letters and making use of such letters to recognize whole words (Levy, Gong, Hessels, Evans, & Jared, 2006). Further, s killed readers tend to read whole words as word chunks of associated letters, and they are able to recognize a visual pattern of word chunks or whole words (Adams, 1990). There is considerable evidence that limited skill i n orthographic knowledge is associated with lower level of performance on reading such as word recognition (Bowers, Golden, Kennedy, & Young, 1994). In a study by Leslie and Thimke (1986), they investigated the relationship between word recognition, orthog raphic knowledge, and use of orthographic knowledge in word recognition using fifty six first and second graders. Results showed that children who scored below their grade level tended to

PAGE 49

49 have a lo wer score in word recognition, indicating that a child who has better orthographic knowledge may read words faster than a child who has poorer orthographic knowledge. Manis, Doi and Bhadha (2000) investigated relationship s among phonological awareness, orthograph ic skills and naming speed in second graders. The ir findings revealed that (a) both phonemic awareness and naming speed in letter and digit naming tasks uniquely accounted for variance in orthographic skills, indicating that there might be intertwined co nnections among these variables and (b) poor phonemi c awareness or naming speed might negatively influence the acquisition of good orthographic processing skills. Nagy and his colleagues (2003) investigated the contribution of phonological, orthographic, morphological, and oral vocabulary factors to word re ading, spelling, and reading comprehension outcomes in 98 second and fourth graders at risk. Phonological factor measured by the Rosner Auditory Analysis Test was correlated with orthographic factor measured by the Receptive Coding and Word Choice tasks fr om the Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL) (Berninger, 2001). For both second and fourth 4 th graders, orthographic skills students have contributed to reading multisyllabic words. Verbal or Non Verbal Intelligence E vidence from several sources show s a relationship between reading abilities and verb al or non verbal Intelligence. For example, Foorman and her colleagues (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998) examined the effects of four types of classroom reading instructions (i.e., d irect code, embedded code, implicit code research, implicit code standard) on the growth of vocabulary, phonological processing, and word reading skills of first and second grade children, and included

PAGE 50

50 covariates of verbal IQ, age, and ethnicity. In the an alysis of growth using growth curve modeling, verbal intelligence was a significant predictor of expected performance for both phonological processing and word reading skills, meaning that children with higher intelligence tend to have higher phonolo gical and word reading skills. Similarly, in a study examining reading growth of first grade students who are at risk for reading disabilities, Stage, Abbott, Jenkins, and Berninger (2003) examined the impacts of verbal intelligence on the growth of word identif ication and word attack skills using growth curve analysis, they showed that verbal intelligence was significantly correlated with slope on word attack ( r = .21, p < .05) and word identification ( r = .30, p < .01). Some studies have demonstrated the relat ionship between verbal intelligence Deacon and Kirby (2004) used two subtests figure memory and verbal spatial relations from the Das Naglieri Cognitive Assessment S ystem (Naglieri & Das, 1997) to measure verbal and nonverbal intelligen ce in second graders T he two measures of intelligence and their MA skills were moderately correlated (figure memory and MA r = .30, verbal spatial relations and MA r = .36), suggesting that students with higher verbal IQ scores were more likely to demonstrate stronger growth and transfer of MA knowledge. Working M emory Working memory refers to the cognitive capacity t o briefly store and manipulate information necessary for comprehensio n and reasoning (Alloway et a l., 2008; Meyer et al., 2010). (Cain, Oa khill, & Bryant, 2004, p 32). determined by learned skills through any formal or informal education or other

PAGE 51

51 environmental influences, which implies that it may be the purest indicator of his or her learning capacity. Hence, many research ers have tried to establish a link between Gathercole, Brown, & Pickering, 2003; Meyer et al., 2010; Swanson, 2004). According to the model of working memory developed by Badd eley and Hitch (Baddeley, 1996, 2000; Baddeley & Hitch, 1974), the function of working memor y depends on the capacity of a central executive as a control mechanism and two slave systems the phonological loop ( also called the articulatory loop or phonetic loop ) and the visuospatial sketchpad. The phonological loop processes spoken or written language, and it deals with sound or phonological information. The visuospatial sketchpad is responsible for visual and spatial processing of received stimuli and its r etrieval from the long term memory. Many studies examining the properties of working memory and the three working memory systems have shown that each component of working memory differentially al., 2010; Swanson, 2004; Swanson & Beebe Frankerngerger, 2006). Research focusing on the capacity of the phonological loop has reported that it is relat ed acquisition, particularly vocabulary (Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998), but less is known about the relationship between the visuospatial sketchpad and literacy skills. memory skills has been supported by a number of studies (e.g., Cain et al., 2004; de Jong 1998; Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005; Swanson, 1994). Cain, Oakhill, and Bryant (2004) found that working memory capacity explained unique variance (i.e., = .69,

PAGE 52

52 .55, .52 ( p < .05) in reading comprehension scores in Time 1 (age 8 9), Time 2 (age 9 10), and Time 3 (age 10 11) respectively) after controlling the contribution made by verbal ability and word reading skill for students 8 11 years old. Similarly, working memory deficits for po or comprehenders at age 8 w ere related to word reading ability and resulted in lower SAT scores compared to the good comprehenders at 11 years old (Cain & Oakhill, 2006). There is considerable evidence that children with reading disabilities have low working memory capacity that affects develo pment of their de coding skills (De Jong, 1998). De Jong (1998) found that children with reading disabilities performed worse than their normal reading peers on both the language domain tasks (i.e., reproducing a sequence of three to eight high frequency CV C words) and numerical domain tasks (i.e., reproducing a seque nce of three to eight digits). Gathercole and her colleagues (Gathercole, Lamont, & Alloway, 2006) investigated the contribution of working memory capacity of 46 students with reading disabiliti es to their reading and mathematics skills. Results showed that the severity of reading difficulties, as assessed by three subtests of the Wechsler Objective Reading Dimension (i.e., reading of letters and single words, spelling of letters and single word s, and reading comprehension), among students with reading disabilities were significantly associated with working memory and language and phonological processing abilities. Further, working memory skill independently reading skills. Although there are no studies correlating working memory abilities and MA skill in students with reading disabilities it is likely that MA skill is affect ed by working memory. To decode and understand multisyllabic words based on knowle dge of morphology,

PAGE 53

53 students are supposed to use language and phonological processing skills and these memory abilities. r text comprehension would be different depending on whether verbal skills are controlled (Nation, A dams, Bowyer Crane, & Snowling, 1999) whether number based working memory tasks are used or word or sentence based tasks are used (Oakhil l, Cain, & Bryan t, 2003). The findings of the meta analysis conducted by Carretti and her colleagues (Carretti, Borella, Cornoldi, & De Beni, 2009) showed that the effect size for working memory measures and reading comprehension abilities varied depending on the characte ristics of working memory task (i.e., tasks required verbal skills vs. visuospatial skills, tasks required storage skills v s. storage/processing skills). Thus, it is important for future research to improve its understanding of how working memory skills af of read ing multisyllabic words and understand ing such words. Studies have demonstrated that reading related cognitive and language processing variables such as phonological awareness, RAN, and oral language proficiency are strong predictors early reading skills. Less is known, however, about the relationship among these variables and MA, or its development. Previously, MA has been treated as a language skill that predicts reading ability. Researchers have not, however, exam ined those variables that predict MA and its development. Cognitive and Language Characteristics of Struggling Readers and Their Influences on Responsiveness to Morphological Intervention reading abilities Thus,

PAGE 54

54 respon siveness to intervention (e.g., Bie miller & Siegel, 1997; Foorman et al. 1998; Torgesen et al., 1997; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1997). Biemiller and Siegel (1997) examin ed the relationship among language and ., Bridge vs. Whole Language). Specifically, they used longitudinal data collected over a two year period to determine the predic tive abili ty of reading related measures (i.e., recognition discrimination, rapid naming, phoneme analysis) and language related measures (i.e., working memory, oral cloze, vocabulary development, oral comprehension). The students in the Bridge reading program outp erformed th e students in the Whole Language program in word identification Further, the significance of predictive variables was different according to each reading program. That is, the letter naming, phoneme analysis, and oral cloze were effective pred ictors of word identification gains in the group of children who received Whole Language instruction; whereas these predictive variables were not predictors of word identification outcomes in the Bridge program These findings imply that the influence of s characteristics may vary and have different roles in responding to reading instruction according to which reading program is used. Stage, Abbott, Jenkins, and Berninger (2003) examined the impact of verbal int elligence, language abilities (phonological, rapid naming, and orthographic), and attention ratings on at intervention. Bivariate correlations between verbal intelligence and other cognitive a nd linguistic variables and reading scores on word identification and word attack showed that verbal intelligence was significantly correlated with slope on word attack ( r = .21, p

PAGE 55

55 < .05), word identification ( r = .30, p < .01), phonological skill ( r = .39 p < .01), and RAN ( r = .19, p < .05), accounting for 4%, 9%, 16% and 4% of the variance, respectively. attention ratings of students. Both phonological and RAN skills were correlat ed with gains in word attack ( r = .30 with phonological skill, r = .39 with RAN skill, p < .01) and word identification ( r = .35 with phonological skill, r = .55 with RAN skill, p < .01). Moreover, students with double or triple deficits in language skil ls (RAN, phonological, and orthographic processing) responded more slowly to early intervention than students without language ss to reading intervention and the degree to which students respond to reading intervention may differ according to what types of deficits in reading related language processes students have. Defining Students Responsiveness Researchers have measured and reading instructions such as phonological awareness, letter sound recognition, and word recognition (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compto n, 2004). For example, researchers have suggested universal screening for early literacy skills at the beginning of each semester and combin ing it with short term progress monitoring to identify student responsiveness (Compton et al., 2006; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Speece & Case, 2001 ). For instance, Speece and Case (2001) evaluated the performa nce of a novel method of identifying early reading difficulty, compar ed to the identification based on the IQ reading achievement discrepancy model. point measures of reading fluency and phonological awa reness were not valid to identify students with reading problems, implying that ongoing progress monitoring is necessary

PAGE 56

56 to identify whether or not they have disabilities. In most cases of such studies, normalized pre or post test s based on the reference groups and standard assessment protocols (e.g., the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Unfortunately, l morphological instruction, and no standard treatment protocols that have explicitly scripted morphological activities ar e available. Moreover, there is neither a norm referenced cut off point regarding MA skills nor performance benchmarks that can provide evidence showing whether the student have failed to respond to morphologica l instruction. reading intervention based on their growth on targeted reading outcomes and how to abilit y to respond to reading instruction. For example, Foorman and her colleagues (1998) used growth curve modeling to examine t he effects of four types of classroom reading instructions (i.e., direct code, embedded code, implicit code research, implicit code standard) on the growth of vocabulary, phonological processing, and word reading skills assessed by standardized measures. Similarly, Stage and his colleagues (2003) abilities and verbal intelligence and their influences on the degree of reading growth in word identification and word attack abilitie s as a consequence of early reading instruction.

PAGE 57

57 Implications for Research The findings from this literature review provide an empirical foundation for the present study. Repeated studies have established that skill in MA is a key predictor of both vocabu lary knowledge and reading comprehension (Casalis et al. 2004; Carlisle, 1996; Hauerwas & Walker, 2003; Siegel, 2008). Further, a limited amount of research MA you can improve their skill in that area their ability to apply their learning to novel and pseudo words, and their reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge (Bowers, Kirby, & Deacon 2010). Students with reading disabilities, however, have underlying cognitive and language deficits that ma y hamper their ability to learn MA skills, even when presented with explicit, systematic instruction. Additionally, the research examining instruction in MA for students with reading disabilities is small compared to the research examining the development Therefore, it is important to identify those MA skills that students with reading disabilities can learn and the degree to which learning those skills will influence these students performance on broader reading ou tcomes. In particular, the roles of abilities that might help them respond to morphological instruction need to be established. Understanding skill in MA and how it can be developed provides researchers the fou ndation for creating curriculum and other educational materials that can help students with reading disabilities make important decoding and meaning connections.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This study aims to identify those cognitive and language problems that best predict the performance of students with reading problems on MA skills before and following a brief intervention The following two questions will be answ ered : (a) What cognitive and language variables predict responsiveness to MA intervention on tasks em phasizing word recognition after accounting for pretest performance? Of these variables, which are the best predictors of MA intervention after accounting for prete st performance? And (b) What cognitive and language variables predict responsiveness to MA intervention for MA tasks emphasizing word recognition and sentence level comprehension after accounting for pretest performance? Of these variables, which are the best predictors of MA intervention after accounting for pretest performance? Participants a nd Setting This section is to describe the participants that were involved in this study, including selection process and criteria according to the five specific steps. First, after the approval of the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Department of Research, Assessment and Student Information in Alachua County, the Alachua County Public Schools Office of Research distributed the research protocol to public school principals at Alachua County public schools (For copies of IRB do cumentation, including the study protocol, paren tal consent letter, and student assent form, see Appendix A) This study was also rents of school aged children. Second, t he investigator informed school personnel and parents about this study and recruiting p otential participants who were third grade students who had standard scores below the

PAGE 59

59 25 th percentile on the Word Reading subtest of the Florida Assessment for Instructi on in Reading (FAIR). Also, the investigator provided third grade teachers with a brief description of this study and the benefits of participating in this study. Third, school personnel (i.e., principal, reading coach, and teachers) referred the students who met the criteria based o n the FAIR scores. For those students who were recruited by the advertisement and did not have FAIR scores, the Word Attack subtest of the Woodcock Johnson Achievement or the Phonological Awareness subtest of the Comprehensive T est of Phonological Processing was administered by two trained r esearch assistants with Students scoring below the 25 th percentile on these measures were also potential participants. Fo u rth, the school principals distributed consent fo rms to the parents of these students asking their permission to participate in the study as required by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB). Finally, f rom the students who return ed parent consent forms as well as child assent forms, 42 were randomly selected to participate in the study Students with word decoding skills above the 25 th percentile, those with behavioral or emotional concerns and those with a cognitive delay or severe communication or speech deficits were excluded from the study. One student program conflicted with the assessment and intervention schedule. Out of 41 students, two students left the study due to the health or f amily issues. Therefore, the fi nal pool of participants consisted of 39 students. A summary of demographic information for all subjects is provided in Chapter 4 (Table 4 1).

PAGE 60

60 Research assistants (instructors) contact ed the parents of the participating student s and f ou nd o ut whether or n ot the student was enrolled in the after s chool program. If the student was enrolled in the after school program, we inform ed the parent that a researcher w as meeting with the student during the week. For students enrolled in the after school program, we c ontact ed the after school coordinator to meet with the participating students. If the student was not enrolled in the after school program, we request ed to set up a n appointment with the parent. Cognitive and Language Measures There were seven cognitive a nd language measur es administered to the participants: (a) p honological awareness (PA), (b) rapid automatized naming (RAN), (c) working memory, (d) executive function, (e) verbal comprehension, (f) non verbal intelligence, and (g) orthographic knowledge. T he following sections contain a description of each of the c ognitive and language measures All cognitive and language assessments were administered prior to beginning the intervention portion of the study. Phonologi cal Awareness (PA) and Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) PA and RAN measures used in this study included subtests from the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP: Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). This norm referenced test is designed to (a) assess and document an ls in phonological processing, and (b) to identify those with phonolo gical processing difficulties. The CTOPP includes three indicators of phonological abilities: (a) Phonological Awareness Quotient (PAQ) that measures an individual's awareness of and abil ity to access the phonological structure of oral language; (b) Phonological Memory Quotient (PMQ) that measures an individual's ability to code information phonologically for temporary storage in working or short term memory; and (c) Rapid

PAGE 61

61 Naming Quotient (RNQ) that measures the individual's efficient retrieval of phonological information from long term or permanent memory, as well as the ability to execute a sequence of oper ations quickly and repeatedly. Internal consistency or alternate forms reliability coeffic ients exceed .80 in magnitude. The test retest coeffi cients range from .70 to .92. Predictive validity of the CTOPP composites with the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests Revised one year later was .71 for Phonological Awareness, .42 for Phonological Me mory, and .66 for Rapid Naming (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Phonological a wareness (PA) In this study, the composite score consisting of the standard scores of two PA subtests (Elision and Blending words), which are called Phonological Awareness Composite Score (PACS), as suggested in the manual (Wagner et al., 1999 ) The PACS measures an Elision This 2 0 item subtest measures the ability to separate the sounds of the word and remove phonological segments from spoken words to form other words. The examiner requires a student to say a word, and then say the word after a specific sound has been dropped. For The test is stopped after five consecutive errors in a row. Blending words. This 20 item subtest use the speech sounds to form words. The child listens to a series of audiocassette recorded separate sounds and then is asked to blend these separate sounds together to make a whole word. For example, the student is ask

PAGE 62

62 row. For Elision and Blending words tasks, the total score is the number of correct test items up to the ceiling. The com posite score in accordance with the sum of standard scores of these two tasks was used for data analysis Rapid automatized naming (RAN) two RAN subtests (Rapid Digit Naming a nd Rapid Letter Naming), which is called Rapid Naming Composite Score (RNCS) w as used as suggested in the manual (Wagner et al., 1999 ). The abilities measured by the RNCS include efficient retrieval of phonological information from long te rm or permanent memory and executing a sequence of oper ations quickly and repeatedly. Efficient retrieval of phonological information and execution of sequences of operations are required when readers attempt to decode unfamiliar words. Rapid digit naming. This is a timed task that measures the ability to quickly and orally name aloud digits. CTOPP has two versions, Form A and B on each page. Each form has 6 randomly arranged digits (i.e., 2, 7, 4, 5, 3, 8) in nine columns by three rows. Rapid letter n amin g This is a timed task that measures the ability to quickly and orally name aloud letters. CTOPP has two versions, Form A and B on each page. Each form has 6 ran domly arranged letter s (i.e., a, t, s, k, c, n) in nine columns by three rows. For rapid digi t and letter naming, the number of seconds the examinee takes to name all of the letters on Form A and Form B were calculated. The composite score in accordance with the sum of standard scores of these two tasks was used for data analysis

PAGE 63

63 Working Memory Automated Working Memory Assessment (AWMA: Alloway, 2007) was used to working memory ability. The AWMA is a computer based assessment and the "first standardized tool for non specialist assessors such as classroom teachers to use for screening their pupils for significant working memory problems quickly and effectively" (Alloway et al., 2008, p. 726) This test has been used mostly as an experimen tal measure in studies. The AWMA scores of 128 students in England randomly selected acros s schools and age ranges had few change s between the first testing time and the second time, establishing test retest reliability (Alloway, 2007). C oncurrent validity of the AWMA was established by comparing student scores on the AWMA to their scores on th e Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 4 th UK Edition (WISC IV) ; Alloway (2007) reported that 75% of children identified as having a poor working memory by the AWMA also obtained standard scores of 85 or less on the WIS C IV Memory Index" (p. 60). In t his study, the composite standard scores of three subtests of Verbal Working Memory (i.e ., Listening Recall, Counting Recall, and Backwards Digit Recall) automatically calculated by the software was used to represent For the Listening Recall test, participants listened to a series of individual sentences and were asked to judge if each sentence is true or false. At the end of each trial, in a They received scores for (a) responding true or false correctly to each sentence, and (b) recalling the final word in each sentence correctly. For the Counting Recall test, partic ipants were asked to count the number of red circles in an array of circles and triangles and then

PAGE 64

64 attempted to recall the tally of numbers in sequence. They received scores for (a) counting the correct number of circles in the array, and (b) recalling the tallies correctly in sequence. For the Backw a rds Digit Recall test, participants listened to a sequence of digits and were asked to recall each sequence in backwards order. They received a correct score when they recalled each number in the correct backwa rds order for each trial. The composite scores summed up by the standard scores of all three tests were used for data analysis. Executive Function Delis Kaplan Executive Function System (D KEFS Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001 ) was used to examine the studen executive function skills. The D KEFS is the first nationally standardized set of tests to evaluate higher level cognitive functio ns in both children and adults. The D KEFS comprises nine tests that were designed to stand alone. Therefore, there are n o aggregate measures or composite scores for an Nine subtest s include : Trail Making, Verbal Fluency, Design Fluency, Color Word Interference, Sorting, Twenty Questions, Word Context, Tower, and Proverb Test. All nine s ubtests are sc and a standard deviation of 3. Evidence of reliability and validity for each subtest has been well documented (Swanson, 2005). Elis, Kramer, Kaplan, and Holdnack (2004) reported the construct validity of D KEFS has been established across numerous clinical populations. The internal consistency coefficients of 9 subtests range from .43 to .90. In this study, only the Color Word Interference Inhibition task was administered ; it has been considered to be most relate d to successful literacy skills ( Altemeier et al. 2008 ). Participants were give n 50 item s and were asked to read the color names printed in a different colored ink. For example, the word red is printed in green ink, and the

PAGE 65

65 participants needed to name the color of the ink (i.e., green) that the letters are printed and not read the word red. The scaled scores in accordance with the total completion time to name 50 items were used. Verbal Comprehension In this study, the Verbal Comprehension test from Woodc ock Johnson III Normative Update Complete (WJNUC: Wo odcock, McGrew, Schrank, & Ma ther, 2007) word level verbal comprehension ability. The Verbal Comprehension test includes four subtests: Picture vocabulary (test 1A), synonym s (test 1B), antonyms (test 1C), and verbal analogies (test 1D). This test is a co normed set of subtests in the WJNUC battery for measuring general intellectual ability, specific cognitive abilities, oral langu age, and academic achievement. The Verbal Com prehension subtest is used to measure lexical (vocabulary) knowledge and language development (general development in sp oken English language skills). The test retest reliability of the Verbal Comprehension subtest ranges from .68 to .87. Participants were asked to identify pictures of familiar and unfamiliar objects (test 1A) provide synonyms (test 1B) provide antonyms (test 1C) and complete an analogy with an appropriate word (test 1D). The standard scores in accordance with the sum of the number of co rrect answers of four subtests were used for data analysis. Non Verbal Intelligence R SPM: Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998 ) perceive and th ink clearly, make meaning out of confusion, and formulate new concepts when faced with novel information. This test includes 60 questions. Evidence of convergent validity has been established with subtests of other batteries. The

PAGE 66

66 correlations are as follow s for the following tests and subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III: (a) r = .64 for the Full Scale score, r = .79 fo r the Performance Scale score, (c) r = .49 for the Verbal Scale score, and r = .81 for t he Matrix Reasoning subtest. (i. e., high correlations have been established based on subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (i.e., Matrix Reasoning ( r = .81), Performance IQ ( r = .79), Full Scale IQ ( r = .64), and Verbal IQ ( r = .49) ( Wechsler 1997). The SPM is also correlat ed with the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Short Form ( r = .43) ( Watson & Glaser, 2006). With the standardization sample of 793 people, the internal consistency reliability estimate for t he Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) total raw score was .88, indicating high internal consistency ( Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998 ). In this study p articipants were given 40 minutes and were asked to identify the missing element that completes a pattern. They were asked to use a one page open ended answer sheet t o mark their answer. The examiner marked each answer as right or wrong. The total number of correct responses was used. Orthographic Knowledge The Orthographic Coding Task ( Olson, Forsberg, Wise, and Rack, 1994) used to wledge ability. F or a sample consisting of 92 participants (33 in fourth grade 33 in sixth grade and 26 in eighth grade ), the split half reliability of the sample was .97 (Roman et al., 2009). P articipants were presented with 50 pairs of phonologically m atched words in each column, where only one is a re al word (e.g., room vs. rume). Thirty five word pairs were selected from t he Orthographic Coding task employed in a study b y Olson and colleagues (1994). Fifteen additional items were included at the begin ning of the task to make it more approachable for less able children (e.g., cup and kup ; cat and kat ). Participants were presented on paper with

PAGE 67

67 50 pairs of phonologically matched words with alternate spellings in two columns, with only one spelling repres enting the correct spelling of the word (e.g., hert vs. hurt ). Participants circled the correctly spelled word for each pair and were given 60 seconds to co mplete as many items as they could They were told that accuracy was more important than speed. Su mmary of Assessment Procedures Each student was individually administered subtests that comprise d of two composites from the Comprehensive Te st of Phonological Processing. These subtests rapid naming abilities: (a) Phonological Awareness Quotient and (b) Rapid Naming Quotient. The Automated W orking Memory Assessment was used to provide a measure of working memory, and the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System was used to assess ex ecutive functioning abilities. Verbal comprehension was assessed using the Verbal Aptitude Composite of the Woodcock Johnso n Cognitive Abilities Battery. Non verbal intelligence was assessed using ( RSPM). Orthogr aphic awareness was assessed using a researcher developed measure employed in previous studies and the spelling subtest of the Woodcock Johnson Achievement Battery. The table 3 1 shows the instruments and target 7 m easures that will be used in this study.

PAGE 68

68 Table 3 1 Instruments and measures of cognitive and language a bilities Instrument T arget ability to measure in this study Time spent per individual student Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing Phonological awareness Rapid naming 15 30 mins Automated Working Memory Assessment Working memory 30 45 mins Delis Kaplan Executive Function System Executive function 15 20 mins Woodcock Johnson III Normative Update Complete Verbal comprehension 30 45 mins Progressive Matrices ( RSPM) Non verbal intelligence 40 mins Orthographic Coding Task Orthographic knowledge 1 min Intervention and Test Design Pre Posttest D esign This study employed a pret est posttest design. These designs are often employed in studies that exa mine respons e to intervention. In Response to Intervention studies, the amount of change from pre to post test is used as a n indicator of responsiveness. In order to examine the reliability of pre and posttest items and scores on MA assessment tasks and how stable st udent performance was without intervention two pretests with the same items were administered prior to MA intervention. The two Two additional posttests were provided to est knowledge after 5 intervention sessions and then again after 10 intervention sessions ; (a ) first posttest after sessions 1 5, and (b ) second posttest after sessions 6 10. In order to control psychometric properties ( i.e., item equivalence and difficulty across pretest

PAGE 69

69 and po st tests) of test items the same morphological items were used for the three morphological tasks (i.e., base word recognition task, prefix and base word recognition task, and sentence level compreh ension task ) As such, students were administered 7 cognitive and language predictor variables (i.e., phonological awareness, rapid naming, verbal comprehension, working memory, executive function, non verbal intelligence, and orthographic awareness) prior to two pretests and morphological intervention. Intervention Design After being assessed on the seven predictor measures, students participated in the 10 intervention sessions in a small group (2 3 students). In order to design appropriate MA interventi on for students with decoding deficits, interventions previously establis hed as effective were conside red (e.g., Abbott & Berninger, 1 999; Arnbak & Elbro, 2000; Baumann et al., 2002, 2003; Berninger et a l., 2003, 2008; Bowers et al., 2010 ; Hurry et al., 20 05; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Nunes, Bryant, & Olson, 2003). How morphological knowledge is expressed in written or spoken language varies at different ages or grades (e.g., children use inflections and simple derivations earlier than more complex derivational relations involving phonological or orthographical shifts) (Anglin, 1993 ; Carlisle, 1987 ). Research on the acquisition of developmentally appropriate morphological tasks was considered when design ing the MA intervention used in this study. MA intervention session content Prefix f amilies The MA in tervention in this study focused on simple prefixes and base words Latin and Anglo Saxon root words were selected for the base words Several researchers have recommended teaching students new or complex words usi ng prefix families, as this approach requires less cognitive effort (e.g., Baumann et

PAGE 70

70 al., 2005; Edwards et al., 2004; Vadasy et al., 2006 ). The intervention sessions included the most frequent, common prefixes for lower graders and their families (Baumann et al., 2002, 2003; Edwards et al., 2004; Grave, 2004), and each morphological task and practice was designed to incorporate examples that are developmentally appropriate ( Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston 2004 ; Nunes & Bryant, 2006 ; Katz & Carlisl e, 2009). The target words used in each session were from the most frequent word lis ts of lower elementary grades (Carroll, Davies, & Richman, 1971 ; Zeno, Ivens, Millard & Duvvuri, 1995 ) To allow for differences in cognitive and language abilities of eac h student, a number of fairly easy MA tasks were added to the ma terial (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000). The author and scholars who have expertise in reading intervention for students with reading disabilities developed an intervention protocol. Table 3 2 shows t he types of prefix families that were used in each sessi on in this study. The prefix families listed below are chosen based on both an analysis of common words in print and research findings on common affixes (Baum ann et al., 2002; ; Pike, 20 11 ). Table 3 2 Target Prefixes Families Session Family Prefixes 1 Not (1) un dis in 2 Not (2) im il ir 3 Position pre post mid 4 Bad mis mal 5 All prefixes in lessons 1 4 6 Over or Under over super sub 7 Against, opposite of anti non de 8 Again and Cause re en 9 Number uni mono bi 10 All prefixes in lessons 6 9

PAGE 71

71 Target word selection. The ta rget words used in each intervention session were chosen from lists of most frequently used words, including: (a) t h Frequen cy Guide (Zeno et al. 1995), (b) the 4,000 word families of Hieb Zones corpus ( Hiebert, 2005), and (c) The American Heritag e Word Frequency Book (Carroll et al. 1971). According to the Word Frequency Book, frequencies ar e determined in terms of how many times they occur in written language. For example, a value of 90 indicates a word that appears once in 10 words of text, and a value of 50 means a word appears once in 100,000 words, and so on. According to Carroll et al. (1971), h igh frequency words refer to the words that have a value of 50 or higher, and l ow frequency indicates the words that having a value of 37 or lower. Initially, a total of 200 base words were chosen based on these freq uency lists. After reviewing th e se words with reading experts, a total of 96 target base words were selected for 10 MA intervention sessions. For the review session, 10 to 15 target words were chosen based T he selected target words for e ach intervention session are presented in the Appendix B. MA Intervention Procedures Students received MA inte rvention for 40 50 minutes, two to three times a week (based on after school program and parents schedule) for a total of 10 sessions in a small grou p (2 or 3 students). Each intervention session was structured to provide explicit instruction; first, the instructor explained the concepts of prefixes and base words; second, the s tudents were presented familiar words with t argeted prefixes. Students wer e most likely to determine the prefix s meaning if it was used with words they already kn e w (e.g., unhappy, dislike, incorrect for Not prefix families such as un

PAGE 72

72 dis in ); th ird, they were presented with the mea ning of base words and how th ey are combi ned with targeted prefixes families. For each intervention session, two evidence based instructional activities were of morpheme units in words: (a) Blending and segmenting (Ghaemi, 2009; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010; Nunes et al., 2003 and (b) word mapping (Harris Schumaker, & Deshler, 2011). At the end of each session, students reviewed their knowledge on morphology using new words as transfer stimuli (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000). An intervention transcript of the first intervention session is presented in the Appendix C Intervention session structure Intervention sessions were conducted with two to thr ee students When conducting an intervention session students w ere provided a corresponding packet (e.g., pencils, student sheets) and the instructor briefly introduce d the topic to the group. the instructor provide d an example using Then, the instructor p rompt ed the students to predict the prefix and circle the prefix on the whiteboard. Then, students were asked and prompted to predict the base word and underline it. T he students were asked to give t heir definition of what the base word (i.e., The instructor suggest ed a more correct definition if needed. Then the student s were asked to define the word s with prefixes ( c ompare d the two definitions to deduc e a definition for the prefix ( instructor p rovide d a summary for the student to clarify and reiterate the concept that un the prefix and it base word which you are not feeling

PAGE 73

73 At this point, the instruct or asked individual student s or the group to circle the prefixes and underline the base words for the corresponding row on the ir packets. Once completed, they worked thr ough each word in the row, predicting the prefix and its meaning, predicting the base word and its meaning, and deducing the overall meaning of the word. Then, the instructor r epeat ed the process of using the whiteboard to introduce a new prefix and provid e an example, using the worksheet to circle prefixes and underline base words and working through each word in the row. After working through the examples the instructor use d word mapping activities and work sheet s to break down the target morphemes and practice words provided. If necessary, one or two practice word s per each target prefix were discussed. The student s wrote the practice word in the first box. In the next row, instead of circling and underlining, the student s wrote the prefix in one box a nd the ba se word in another. The students then proceed ed to the next row of boxes to define the meaning of the prefi x and base word. The instructors then prompt ed the student to define the practice word overall. Once all tar get and practice words were disc ussed, the group proceeded to the conclusion of the intervention. As a group, the instructor and students read each word on the list and used their hand s to tap the table at the beginning of each word (See Appendix C ). Training of instructors Four graduate student research assistants who have experience teaching reading were trained by the author and reading expert to administ er intervention s and assessments for a total of 20 hours. During this training, research assistants (instructors) were introduced to the purpose of this study and the specific goals of morphological intervention. Also, they were introduced to the materials contained in the

PAGE 74

74 intervention, and how they should be implem ented within a small group. The research assistants observed a model imp lementing the first and second intervention session as well They simulated the first interventi on session in varying contexts (e.g., one to one intervention, small group intervention, providing feedback, prompting response). After each training session la sting 2 to 3 hours, the research assitants discussed their intervention simulation and provided feedback to each other. Pretest The purpos e of this set of assessments was understanding of morphologically complex words encountered during their intervention sessions and t o determine whether students were able to apply the same strategies for word learning to new words. M orphological tasks that have been widely used in previo us research were selected to a ssess the children s morphological knowledge (e.g., Arnbak & Elbron, 2000; Calisle, 1987; 1996; Casalis et al., 2004 ; Vadasy et al., 2006). Most of these tasks do not have documented psychometric properties or norms. Students were assessed on the three types of morphological assessment tasks: (a) b ase word recognition task, (b) p refix and base word recognition task, and (c) a s entence comprehension task. All the items in each task were developed and validated by a team of read ing experts and scholars from the University of Florida, and all of the items were thoroughly examined by reading teachers as well as researchers. For all the three tasks, an internal consistency alpha was calculated. The first task on each test was a prac tice item, which was not scored. The purpose of this item was to e n sure that the all student s underst oo d and bec a me familiar with the test process. Feedback was given for the practice item. Assessors were provided a script for administering the

PAGE 75

75 assessment and scoring procedures. The MA assessment s cript is presented in the Appendix D Base W ord R ecognition T ask This task was to forms correctly. Four words were shown, and student s were asked to ci rcle the word that the instructor provided orally. If the student could ch eck the word the instructor assigned You will circle the word that I say. Are you ready? Look at the wor ds (Instructor points to it) Circle the word that ould circle the wo rd happy, the student earn ed 1 point. If not, the student earn ed 0. This test was administered four times, twice as pretests, and tw ice as posttest s This task include d a total of 30 i tems, with 15 target words taught during intervention sessions an d 15 n ovel words. Students could earn one point per item according to their verbal answers on an answer key, thus the highest possible total score in this task is 30 (See Appendices D and E) Prefix and B ase W ord R ecognition T ask This task was pronounce multisyllabic words involving prefix es and base words. Through this task, students demonstrated how to combine prefix es and base words and how to read them correctly. Students were ask ed to read the word involving prefix es and base word s For Look at this word happy (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word part un out) in front of happy (Use a prefix un card with the word happy and place the un in front of happy). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? If the student c ould read the word without a ny assistance, the student earn ed 2 point s and mov e d to next item. If the student c ould no t say the word,

PAGE 76

76 the student c ould say it c orrectly wi th assistance, the student earn ed 1 point. If the student could not read the word wi th assistance, the student earn ed 0. The words with prefixes did not require orthographical and phonological changes in the base words. The score was determined by the number of correct verbal responses. This task included 30 items, with 15 of targe t word items and 15 novel words items to assess the ability to transfer their knowledge to novel tasks, thus the highest possible total score in this task is 60. This t est was administered four times, twice as pretests, and tw ice as posttest s (See Appendices D and E) Sentence C omprehension T ask This task in a sentence when a prefix has been appended The ass essor read a sentence involving a prefix and base word to the student, and the student was asked to look at the sentence as the assessor read it. Then, the student was asked to answer which sentence represent ed the meaning of the prefix and base word corre will read a sentence to you. You can look at the sentence as I read it. Then I will ask nhappy m eans in this sentence? Ready? I will give you three choices to pick from. Select the choice that means unhappy. ( a ) S he feels joyful with her cat. ( b ) She is not pleased with her cat. ( c ) She fe els that her cat is T he s tudent s earned 1 point for a correct response or a 0 for an incorrect response. This task include d a total of 30 items, with 15 target words and 15 n ovel words. The assessor presented each item visually and orally. The total score was the

PAGE 77

77 number of correct items, with higher scores in dicating greater level of understanding the meaning of prefix es and base words. Thus, the highest possible total score in this task is 30. This test was administered four times, as two pretests, and two times as a posttest (See Appendices D and E) The fo llowing fig ure (Figure 3 1) represents procedures for administering the pretest, intervention, and posttest. Figure 3 1 Procedures for cognitive and language assessments, pre and posttests, intervention Pilot Study A pilot st udy was conducted prior to the implementations of both MA pre and posttests and MA interventions with the purpose of evaluating the feasibility of the MA tasks and intervention scripts. In the pilot study, the three types of MA tasks and the first interve ntion session were implemented with a total of three students (i.e., one reading at

PAGE 78

78 third grade level and two reading below third grade level and having word reading deficits determined by CTOPP and WJ). The administration procedures were similar to the on es described in this study. As a result of the pilot study, a few modifications were made to the MA tasks and intervention script to ensure that the base words were not too difficult for students and that test and intervention administration could be i mplemented with fidelity. First, a few words not understood by students were removed (e.g., freeze and anti freeze). Second, the intervention script was developed further to promote intervention fidelity across 4 or assessing MA was revised in a way to easily with each test administration script) Intervention Fidelity All 4 instructors participated in a total of 20 hours of inte rvention training. For each intervention training session, two instructors were paired and delivered the instruction to each other using the intervention script. They were supervised by the author who provided feedback on their performance after the role p lay. During the intervention and data collection, 10 Intervention sessions and 4 MA assessment sessions were randomly selected to assess treatment fidelity. The author of the study assessed treatment fidelity by observing the interventions in real time whi le checking to ensure that targeted activities were implemented according to the intervention script and used appropriate error correction and feedback. Data Analysis The data analysis for this study was designed to address the research questions, and stat istical calculations were performed using the Statistical Package for Social

PAGE 79

79 Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. All statistical tests were evaluated using an alpha level of .05, unless otherwise stated. Descriptive data were computed for all measures associate cognitive and language abilities as well as three MA tasks scores. Pearson product moment correlation coefficient s were used to determine relationships among the: (a) seven cognitive and language variables, (b) pretest scores of the three MA tasks, and (c) posttest scores of the three MA tasks. In order to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the two pretests (second pretest two weeks after the first pretest), a dependent samples t test was used. To examine how students responded to the MA intervention over three time points (i.e., pretest, first posttest, and second posttest) a repeated measures of ANOVA and paired samples t used t o evaluate the assumption of sphericity. If the assumption was violated, the Huynh Feldt correction was applie d and the degrees of freedom w as corrected. Simple and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine if single or multiple cognitive and language variables predicted student performance on the three MA tasks after accounting for student performance on the pretest.

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to examine the roles of cognitive and language abilities, and pretest performan ce on the MA tasks in predicting responsiveness to MA intervention for third grade students with decoding deficits Specifically, I was interested in answering the following research questions: 1. What cognitive and language variables predict responsiveness t o MA intervention on tasks emphasizing word recognition, after accounting for pretest performance? Of these variables, which are the best predictors of MA intervention after accounting for pretest performance? 2. What cognitive and language variables predict responsiveness to MA intervention for MA tasks emphasizing word recognition and sentence level comprehension, after accounting for pretest performance? Of these variables, which are the best predictors of MA intervention after accounting for pretest perfor mance? In order to answer the research questions, a pre and posttest design was employed. After being assessed on the seven predictor measures (i.e., PA, RAN, verbal comprehension, executive function, orthographic knowledge, non verbal intelligence, and v erbal working memory) participants were provided with a total of 10 MA interventi on session s that involved learning about prefix familie s and understanding the role th at target prefixes Student performance was assessed f our times (two pretests prior to MA inte rvention, first posttest after five interventions sessions, and second posttest after 10 intervention sessions) using three MA tasks; (a) base word recognition (b) prefi x and base word recognition and (c) s entence level comprehension The goal of this chapter is to present the results obtained from the various analyses. This chapter is divided in the following sections: (a) d emographic characteristics of the sample, (b) d escriptive statistics, (c) e quivalence of pr etest m ean s

PAGE 81

81 by t ime (d) c orrelations among cognitive and language variabl es and pre and posttests, (e) r esponsiveness to the MA intervention, (f) cognitive and language variables that p redict responsiveness to MA i ntervention and (g) t he roles of initia l performance as a predictor. These sections are organized in a way to sequentially answer two research questions. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample The final sample of students contained 39 third grade students from 4 schools in Alachua County, FL. Of the 39 study partic ipants used for the analysis, 19 (48.7%) were female and 20 (51.3 %) were male The children ranged from 8 years, 5 months of age to 10 years, 7 months of age (M = 9 years, 5 months, S D = 6.9 months). A ll students were identified a s native English speakers by their teachers and parents; 14 ( 3 5.9 % ) were African American, 2 (5.1%) were Asian, 15 (38.4%) were Caucasian, 4 (10.3%) were Hispanic, and 4 (10.3 % ) were designated as other or unknown. Table 4 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample Frequency Percent of Sample Gender Female 19 48.7% Male 20 51.3% Ethnicity African American 14 35.9% Asian 2 5.1% Caucasian 15 38.4% Hispanic 4 10.3% Unknown 4 10.3% Lunch status Free or Reduced 12 30.8% Regular 27 69.2% Primary language English 39 100.0% Non English 0 0%

PAGE 82

82 As a proxy for socioeconomic status (SES), the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch was used, and 12 (30.8%) students qualified for free or reduced lunch programs. Stud ents with severe behavior disorders, speech and language impairment, or more significant cognitive disabilities were not included. Table 4 1 summarizes demographic information for the complete sample. Descriptive Statistics Table 4 2 represents each of th e cognitive and language assessments as well as MA pre and posttests along with an abbreviation used throughout the paper. Table 4 2. Variables and corresponding abbreviations Variable Abbreviation Cognitive and Language Variables CTOPP Phonolog ical Awareness Composite Scores PA CTOPP Rapid Automatized Naming Composite Scores RAN WJNUC Verbal Comprehension VC DKEF Executive Function Color Word Inference Inhibition EF Orthographic Knowledge/Coding Task OK RSPM Non Ver bal Intelligence NVIQ AWMA Verbal Working Memory VWM MA Tasks Task1: Base Word Recognition Task, 1 st and 2 nd pretests BR Pre1, BR Pre2 Task1: Base Word Recognition Task, 1 st and 2 nd posttests BR Post1, BR Post2 Task2: Prefix + Base Word Recognition Task, pretest PBR Pre1, PBR Pre2 Task2: Prefix + Base Word Recognition Task, posttest PBR Post1, PBR Post2 Task3: Sentence Level Comprehension Task, pretest SC Pre1, SC Pre2 Task3: Sentence Level Comprehension Task, posttest SC Post1, SC Post2 language abilities as well as three MA tas ks scores were calculated. The seven cognitive and language variables used in this study are shown in Ta ble 4 3 with their

PAGE 83

83 means (M), standard deviations (SD), percentile ranks of the mean for the case that the standard and normal distribution is provided, and SD of the norm group provided by assessment technical manuals. Table 4 3. Descriptive statistics for cognitive and language variables Variables/Tests M SD Min Max Norm group M (SD) PA* 78.93 11.62 64 103 100 (15) RAN* 87.33 7.58 76 106 100 (15) VC* 89.08 13.00 68 116 100 (15) NVIQ 20.30 4.59 10 28 29 (8) VWM* 87.95 5.73 77 98 100 ( 15) EF* 5.26 1.39 3 8 10 (3) OK 22.60 5.50 10 42 Note. denotes M and SD based on standard score; Percentile ranks indicate the percentage of scores that fall at or below a given score in a standardized test; Norm group M (SD) indicates the mean and standard deviation for the normative group; N = 39. Also, the means and standard deviations of two pretests and two posttests are presented in the Table 4 4. Table 4 4. Descriptive statistics for MA pretests and posttests Variables First Second M SD Min Max M SD Min Max Pretest BR 26.90 3.34 17 30 .83 26.49 3.16 19 30 .77 PBR 51.95 4.94 43 59 .79 51.44 4.71 41 59 .76 SC 19.05 5.16 8 29 .77 18.79 5.31 9 28 .79 Posttest BR 27.36 3. 34 19 30 .82 27.51 2.64 20 30 .70 PBR 54.03 5.45 40 60 .87 54.10 5.56 39 60 .88 SC 20.64 5.58 6 29 .78 22.77 4.75 13 30 .82 Note. The total score for BR is 30; the total score for PBR is 60; the total score for SC is 30; indicates Cronbac h's alpha reliability coefficient

PAGE 84

84 alpha coefficients are reported for two pretests and two posttests for each task of BR, PBR, and SC According to the Table 4 4, the values of alpha coefficients of MA pretests and posttests ranged from .70 to .88, showing acceptable to good degree of internal consistency reliability. Figure 4 1 displays the means of pre and two posttest scores for three MA tasks (i.e., BR, PBR, and SC) Figure 4 1 Means of three MA tasks over time

PAGE 85

85 Equivalence o f Pretest Mean s by Time In order to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the two pretests (second pretest after two week later of first pretest), a dependent samples t test was used. On the pretest, each task in cluded both target words and new words, t tests were conducted separately (i.e., BR Pre1 with target words vs. BR Pre2 with target words, and BR Pre1 with new words vs. BR Pre2 with new words) to see if there was any difference between target word items an d new word items. Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 4 5 by week for each of BR, PBR, and d and the dependent samples t statistic a re reported for each variable. The mean differe nces are d Table 4 5. Summary of t test for two pretests Task First Second Mean Difference d t df p M SD M SD BR Target words 13.41 1.73 13.21 1.61 .21 .13 1.75 38 .088 New words 13.49 2.01 13.28 1.69 .21 .11 1.16 38 .253 PBR Target words 25.74 2.60 25.46 2.45 .28 .11 1.54 38 .133 New words 26.21 2.67 25.97 2.51 .23 .09 1.06 38 .298 SC Target words 9.97 2.89 9.69 2.84 .28 .10 1 .36 38 .18 New words 9.08 2.49 9.10 2.60 .03 .01 .13 38 .89 Note. The total score for Task 1 (BR) target words is 15; The total score for Task 1 (BR) new words is 15; the total score for Task 2 (PBR) target words is 30; the total score for Task 2 ( PBR) new words is 30; the total score for Task 3 (SC) target words is 15; the total score for Task 3 (SC) new words is 15.

PAGE 86

86 Results of the t tests showed that t he mean difference s be tween the 1 st and 2 nd pretest scores for each task were not significant a nd the effect sizes were very small In sum there is little or no evidence of change in performance over the two weeks. Based on the results of the t tests, the two pretests were averaged to represent one pretest score administered prior to the start of M A interventions. Means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum scores of collapsed pretests are presented in Table 4 6. Coefficient alpha was .90, .89, and .89 for BR Pre, PBR Pre, and SC Pre, respectively. Table 4 6. Means and standard deviations of collapsed pretest Variables/Tests Pretest M SD Min Max BR Pre 26.69 3.34 18 30 .90 PBR Pre 51.69 4.73 43 59 .89 SC Pre 18.92 5.11 8.5 28.5 .89 Correlations among Cognitive and Language Variables and Pre and Posttests In order to examine the relationship among cognitive and language variables as well as MA assessment scores of three tasks (i.e., BR, PBR, and SC), Pearson product moment correlation coefficient s were calculated to determine relationships among the: (a) seven cognitive and language variables, (b) pretest scores of three MA tasks, and (c) po sttest scores of the three MA tasks. Cohen (1988) conventions were used to determine the strength of the relationship between Correlations among Co gnitive and Language Variables Table 4 7 displays a correlation matrix showing intercorrelations among the 7 cognitive and language variables. As expected, significant inter correlations were found

PAGE 87

87 among cognitive and language variables. The highest significant correlation was found between OK and VWM, r = .57, p < .01, followed by between VC and OK, r = .52, p < .01; the lowest significant correlation was found between PA and OK, r = 31, p < .05, preceded by the correlation between PA and VWM, r = .34, p < .05. RAN was moderately correlated with OK ( r = .39, p < .05) and with VWM ( r = .38, p < .05), and there was a high correlation with PA ( r = .49, p < .01). Also, VC was stro ngly correlated with VWM ( r = .49, p < .01). There were moderate to high correlations between OK and PA, RAN, VC, NVIQ and VWM, r = .31, r = .39, r = .52, r = .42, and r = .57 respectively. Table 4 7. Intercorrelations among cognitive and language variabl es Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. PA .49** .27 .29 .31* .17 .34* 2. RAN .40* .22 .39* .04 .38* 3. VC .34* .52** .30 .49** 4. EF .17 .30 .35* 5. OK .42** .57** 6. NVIQ .37* 7. VWM p <.05. ** p <.0 1. Correlations of Pretest and Two Posttest Sores Table 4 8 displays a correlation matrix showing intercorrelations among pretest and two posttest scores of three MA tasks (i.e., BR, PBR, and SC). Fo r BR task, high correlations were established for BR Pre and BR Post1 ( r = .94), BR Pre and BR Post2 ( r = .85), and BR Post1and BR Post2 ( r = .87), p < .01. For PBR task, there were high correlations between PBR Pre and PBR Post1 ( r = .85), PBR Pre and PB R Post2 ( r = .70), and PBR Post1 and PBR Post2 ( r = .86), p < .01. Similarly, for SC task, high correlations were found between SC Pre and SC Post1( r = .92), SC Pre and SC Post2

PAGE 88

88 ( r = .78), and SC Post1 and SC Post2 ( r = .86), p < .01. Also, there were mode rate to high correlations across three tasks (i.e., BR, PBR, and SC) : BR Pre and PBR Pre ( r = .77), BR Pre and SC Pre ( r = .57), BR Pre and PBR Post1 ( r = .83), BR Pre and SC Post1 ( r = .52), BR Pre and PBR Post2 ( r = .79), and BR Pre and SC Post2 ( r = .47 ), p < .01. It should be noted that for all three MA tasks, correlations between pretest scores and first posttest scores were higher than the correlations between pretest scores and second posttest scores. Table 4 8. Intercorrelations of pre and posttes ts Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. BR Pre .94** ¤ .85** ¤ .77** .83** .79** .57** .52** .47** 2. BR Post1 .87** ¤ .71** .85** .84** .52** .48** .42** 3. BR Post2 .52** .69** .81** .43** .44** .39* 4. PBR Pre .85** ¤ .70** ¤ .58** .49** .43** 5. PBR Post1 .86** ¤ .49** .48** .45** 6. PBR Post2 .35* .37* .39* 7. SC Pre .92** ¤ .78** ¤ 8. SC Post1 .86** ¤ 9. SC Post2 Note ¤ denotes c oefficients for the same variable at d ifferent time points ; p < .05. ** p <.0 1. Cor relations of Gain Scores from Pretest to First and Second P osttest s Table 4 9 displays a correlation matrix showing intercorrelations among gain scores from pretest to first posttest, from pretest to second posttest, and from first posttest to second postt est for three MA tasks (i.e., BR, PBR, and SC). For initial progress (pretest to first posttest), moderate correlations were established between BR Post1 Pre and PBR Post1 Pre( r = .39, p < .05) and PBR Post1 Pre and SC Post1 Pre, but negative between BR Po st1 Pre and SC Post1 Pre. Similarly, for gain scores from

PAGE 89

89 pretest to second posttest, there was moderate correlation between BR Post1 Pre and PBR Post2 Pre ( r = .40, p < .05), but not between PBR Post1 Pre and SC Post1 Pre and between BR Post1 Pre and SC P ost1 Pre. For gain scores from first posttest to second posttest, moderate correlation was found between BR Post2 Post1 and PBR Post2 Post1 ( r = .37, p < .05), but not between PBR Post2 Post1 and SC Post2 Post1 and between BR Post2 Post1 and SC Post2 Post1 Table 4 9. Intercorrelations of gain scores Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. BR Post1 Pre .40* .29 .39* .40* .17 .04 .03 .04 2. BR Post2 Pre .76** .09 .40* .46* .18 .24 .14 3. BR Post2 Post1 .18 .14 .37* .19 .23 .12 4. PBR Post1 Pre .69* .02 .32* .23 .03 5. PBR Post2 Pre .70** .28 .31 .15 6. PBR Post2 Post1 .07 .20 .18 7. SC Post1 Pre .53** .15 8. SC Post2 Pre .76** 9. SC Post2 Post1 Note. Gain scores were computed by subtracting pretest scor es from first posttest (i.e., BR Post1 Pre, PBR Post1 Pre, and SC Post1 Pre), pretest scores from second posttest (BR Post2 Pre, PBR Post2 Pre, and SC Post2 Pre), and first posttest from second posttest ((BR Post2 Post1, PBR Post2 Post1, and SC Post2 Post1 ); p < .05. ** p <.01. Correlations of Cognitive and Language Variables with Pretest Scores Table 4 10 presents a correlation matrix showing correlations between cognitive and language variables with pretest scores for the three MA tasks (i.e., BR Pre, P BR Pre, and SC Pre). BR Pre scores were significantly and moderately to highly correlated with PA ( r = .42), RAN ( r = .47), VC ( r = .53), EF ( r = .34), OK ( r = .38), and VWM ( r = .37). PBR Pre scores were also significantly and moderately correlated with P A ( r = .32), RAN ( r = .40), and OK ( r = .32). There was no significant correlation found

PAGE 90

90 between pretest scores of sentence level comprehension and cognitive and language variables. Table 4 10 Correlations of cognitive and language variables with pretes t scores Measures PA RAN VC EF OK NVIQ VWM BR Pre .42** .47** .53** .34* .38* .05 .37* PBR Pre .32* .40* .24 .09 .32* .02 .15 SC Pre .20 .27 .29 .27 .12 .11 .10 p <.05. ** p <.0 1. Cognitiv e and Language Variables with First Posttest Scores Table 4 11 presents a correlation matrix showing correlations of cognitive and language variables with the first posttest scores across three MA tasks. The f irst posttest scores of the BR task were modera tely to highly correlated with PA ( r = .39), RAN ( r = .46), VC ( r = .55), EF ( r = .33), OK ( r = .37), and VWM ( r = .36). The p osttest scores involving prefix es and base words were also moderately correlated with PA ( r = .33), RAN ( r = .53), VC ( r = .44), a nd OK ( r = .32). Posttest scores related to sentence level comprehension were moderately correlated with VC ( r = .39) and EF ( r = .38). Table 4 1 1 Correlations of cognitive and language variables with first posttest scores Measures PA RAN VC EF OK NVIQ VW M BR Post1 .39* .46* .55** .33* .37* .10 .36* PBR Post1 .33* .53** .44** .23 .32* .05 .28 SC Post1 .21 .26 .39* .38* .18 .27 .15 p <.05. ** p <.0 1. Cognitive and Language Variables with Second Pos ttest Scores Table 4 1 2 shows a correlation matrix display ing correlations of cognitive and language variables with the first posttest scores across three MA tasks (i.e., BR Post2, PBR Post2, and SC Post2). The second posttest scores of the base word recog nition

PAGE 91

91 task were moderately to highly correlated with PA ( r = .43), RAN ( r = .47), VC ( r = .59), EF ( r = .36), OK ( r = .45), and VWM ( r = .40). Posttest scores involving prefix and base words were also moderately correlated with PA ( r = .40) and OK ( r = .4 8) and highly correlated with RAN ( r = .53), VC ( r = .57), and VWM ( r = .51). Posttest scores related to sentence level comprehension were strongly correlated with VC ( r = .54) and moderately correlated with EF ( r = .37). Table 4 1 2 Correlations of cognit ive and language variables with second posttest scores Measures PA RAN VC EF OK NVIQ VWM BR Post2 .43** .47** .60** .36* .45** .04 .40* PBR Post2 .40* .53** .57** .28 .48** .05 .51** SC Post2 .13 .28 .5 4** .37* .13 .25 .22 p <.05. ** p < .01 Responsiveness to the MA intervention In order to examine how students responded to the MA intervention, a repeated measures ANOVA and paired samples t tests were conducted. Participants were assessed ov er three time points (i.e., pretest, first posttest, and second posttest) and changes in mean scores for the three MA tasks were compared over the three time For the indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, X 2 (2) = 7.56, p = .02, therefore, the Huynh Feldt correction was applied and the degrees of freedom was corrected. According to the results after the Huynh Feldt epsilon correction, t here was a significant main effect of the time on the BR task, F (1.76, 66.80) = 6.10, p = .005. For the been violated, X 2 (2) = 9.85, p = .007, therefore, the Huynh Feldt correction was applie d

PAGE 92

92 and degrees of freedom was corrected. According to the results after the Huynh Feldt epsilon correction, t here was a significant main effect of the time on the BPR task, F (1.68, 63.96) = 13.33, p = .000. This result indicated that the MA intervention had a positive effect on student ability to recogniz e multisyllabic words involving prefixes and base words. For the been violated, X 2 (2) = 8.34, p = .015, therefore, the Huynh Feldt cor rection was applied and the degrees of freedom was corrected. According to the results after the Huynh Feldt epsilon correction, t here was a significant main effect of the time on the sentence level comprehension t ask, F (1.73, 65.79) = 36.06, p = .000. Thi s result indicated that the MA intervention had a positive effect on student ability to understand the meaning of multisyllabic words involving prefixes and base words at the sentence level. Table 4 1 3 Repeated measures analysis of v ariance Note. p < .05. ** p < .01 Source SS df M S F p BR Time 14.84 1.76 8.44 6.10 .005 Error (Time) 92.50 66.80 1.39 PBR Time 146.38 1.68 86.97 13.33 .000 Error (Time) 417.29 63.96 6.53 SC Time 289.56 1.73 167.25 36.06 .000 Error (Time) 305.111 65.79 4.64

PAGE 93

93 Overall, there were significant mean changes in all three MA tasks involving word recognition as well as meaning over three time points. Table 4 1 3 summarizes the results of repeated measures ANOVA analysis f or the three MA Tasks. Mean d ifferences between p retest and t wo p osttests Paired samples t tests were conducted i n order to investigate if the difference s in mean scores of the three MA tasks over three time points (i.e., pretest, first posttest, and seco nd posttest) are significant and also where the differences in the main effects are between two time points. Table 4 1 4 Table 4 1 5 and Table 4 1 6 summarize the results of paired samples t tests for three comparisons (i.e., pretest vs. first posttest, pr etest vs. second posttest, and first posttest vs. second posttest). Table 4 1 4 Difference between pretest and first posttest Task Time Mean Difference d t df p Pretest First posttest M SD M SD BR 26.69 3.34 27.36 3.34 .67 .20 3.52 38 .001 ** PBR 51.69 4.73 54.03 5.45 2.34 .46 5.08 38 .000** SC 18.92 5.12 20.64 5.58 1.72 .32 4.88 38 .000** p <.05. ** p < .01 As shown in Table 4 1 4 the first posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores for all three MA tasks. To be more specific, BR Post1 ( M = 27.36, SD = 3.34) was significantly higher than BR Pre (M = 26.69, SD = 3.34), t (38) = 3.52, p = .001. PBR Post1 (M = 54.03, SD = 5.45) was significantly higher than PBR Pre (M = 51.69, SD = 4.73), t (38) = 5.08, p = .000. Similarl y, SC Post1 (M = 20.64, SD = 5.58) was significantly higher than SC Pre (M = 18.92, SD = 5.12), t (38) = 4.88, p = .000.

PAGE 94

94 Pretest scores were also compared to the second posttest scores for all three MA tasks. As presented in Table 4 1 5 the first posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores for all three MA tasks. M ore specific ally BR Post2 (M = 27.51, SD = 2.64) was significantly higher than BR Pre (M = 26.69, SD = 3.34), t (38) = 2.92, p = .006. PBR Post2 (M = 54.10, SD = 5.56) was signi ficantly higher than PBR Pre (M = 51.69, SD = 4.73), t (38) = 3.73, p = .001. Likewise SC Post2 (M = 22.77, SD = 4.75) was significantly higher than SC Pre (M = 18.92, SD = 5.12), t (38) = 7.22, p = .000. Table 4 1 5 Difference between pretest and second posttest Task Time Mean Difference d t df p Pretest Second posttest M SD M SD BR 26.69 3.34 27.51 2.64 .82 .27 2.92 38 .006** PBR 51.69 4.73 54.10 5.56 2.41 .47 3.73 38 .001** SC 18.92 5.12 22.77 4.75 3.85 .78 7.22 38 .000** p < .05. p < .01 Table 4 1 6 displays the comparison of first posttest scores and second posttest scores for all three MA tasks. Table 4 1 6 Difference between first posttest and second posttest Task Time Mean Difference d t df p First posttest Second posttest M SD M SD BR 27.36 3.34 27.51 2.64 .15 .05 .57 38 570 PBR 54.03 5.45 54.10 5.56 .07 .01 .17 38 870 SC 20.64 5.58 22.77 4.75 2.13 .41 4.65 38 000** p < .05. ** p < .01 As shown in Table 4 1 6 The BR Post2 (M = 27.51, SD = 2.64) was not significantly higher than BR Post1 (M = 27.36, SD = 3.34), t (38) = .57, p = .570. Similar l y, PBR Post2 (M = 54.10, SD = 5.56) was not sig nificantly higher than PBR Post 1 (M = 54.03,

PAGE 95

95 SD = 5.45), t (38) = .17, p = .870. However, SC Post2 (M = 22.77 SD = 4.75) was significantly higher than SC Post 1 (M = 18.92, SD = 5.12), t (38) = 4.65, p = .000. Cognitive and Language Variables that Predict Responsiveness to MA Intervention Simple and Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine if singl e or multiple cognitive and language variable s predict ed student performance on three MA tasks after accounting for student performance on the pretest. This section is organized according to two research questions: (a) What cognitive and language variables best predict student performance on the MA tasks that involve primarily word recognition, and (b) What cognitive and language variables best predict performance on the MA tasks that involve word recognition and sentence level comprehension. For each resea rch question, gain scores on the three MA tasks served as the dependent variable. For the first dependent variable, gain scores for the three MA tasks were computed by subtracting the students' average pretest scores from their first posttest scores (i.e., BR Post1 minus BR Pre, PBR Post1 minus PBR Pre, SC Post1 minus SC pre). For the second dependent variable, gain scores for the three MA tasks were computed by subtracting the students' pretest scores from their second posttest scores (i.e., BR Post2 minus BR Pre, PBR Post2 minus PBR Pre, SC Post2 minus SC Pre) Research Question 1 : Cognitive and Language Variables and Student Performance on Word Recognition Task Multiple regression analyses were conducted i n order to investigate whether single or multipl e cognitive and language variables predicted unique variance in gain from the pretest to the first posttest scores after controlling for pretest scores. In the first multiple regression analysis the pretest and one cognitive or language variable was

PAGE 96

96 inclu ded in the analysis; in the second the pretest and the seven cognitive and language variable s were included. Student performance on BR task over time In the first set of regression models, cognitive and language variables did not predict gains from the p retest to first posttest on the BR task after accounting for average scores on the pretest. Similar findings held for predicting gains from the pretest to second posttest on the BR task, with one exception. VC was the only variable that added significant p redictive power in predicting gains from the pretest to second posttest on the BR task after controlling for average pretest scores ( = .30, p < .05). In the second set of regression models, there was no cognitive or language variable that c ould add significant predictive power in predicting gains from pretest to BR Post1 on the BR task after accounting for average scores on the prete st. Similar findings held for predicting gains from the pretest to BR Post2 on the BR task after controlling average scores on the pretest. Table 4 17. Results of multiple regression analyses for BR task Cognitive/ Language Variables Dependent Variable Post1 Pre a Post2 Pre b First Second First Second p p p p PA .04 .983 .11 .607 .14 .336 .10 .551 RAN .06 .759 .24 .337 .13 .369 .01 .970 VC .21 .267 .12 .612 .30 .045* .25 .178 EF .02 .910 .06 .286 .13 .370 .12 .447 OK .05 .786 .10 .700 .22 .119 .20 .293 NVIQ .14 .383 .12 .550 .03 .984 .21 .201 VWM .07 .695 .01 .056 .16 .276 .01 .961 Note: a Dependent variable is first posttest minus pretest; b Dep endent variable is second posttest minus pretest; p < .05. ** p < .01

PAGE 97

97 Table 4 17 summarizes the results of the first and second sets of multiple regression analyses where dependent variables are BR Post1 minus BR Pre and BR Post2 minus BR Pre. Student per formance on P BR task over time In the first set of regression models, cognitive and language variables did predict gains from the pretest to PBR Post1 RAN ( = .43, p < .05) and VC ( = .47, p < .01) added significant predictive power in predicting gains from the pretest to PBR Post1 after controlling for BR Pre. Results from the simple regression analyses using gains on the PBR Post2 showed that RAN ( = .41, p < .05), VC ( = .58, p < .01), OK ( = .39, p < .05), and VWM ( = .56, p < .01) added signific ant predictive power after controlling PBR Pre. Of the significant variables, VC was the best predictor of PBR Post2 gains. Table 4 18. Results of simple and multiple regression analyses for PBR task Cognitive/ Language Variables Dependent Variable Pos t1 Pre a Post2 Pre b First Second First Second p p p P PA .13 .449 .10 .583 .19 .264 .12 .423 RAN .43 .014** .30 .159 .41 .017* .22 .215 VC .47 .004** .39 .050 .58 .000** .30 .074 EF .29 .078 .15 .367 .30 .063 .10 .532 OK .10 .568 .20 .353 .39 .018* .06 .748 NVIQ .06 .742 .20 .282 .08 .612 .25 .111 VWM .30 .079 .17 .389 .56 .000** .42 .017* Note: a Dependent variable is first posttest minus pretest; b Dependent vari able is second posttest minus pretest; p < .05. ** p < .01 In the second set of regression models, there were no significant predictors of gains from the pretest to PBR Post1 after controlling PBR Pre. As with the simple regression analysis, VWM ( = .42, p < .05) added significant predictive power in predicting gains

PAGE 98

98 from PBR Pre to PBR Post2 after controlling PBR Pre. Table 4 18 summarizes the results of the first and second sets of multiple regression analyses for the PBR task. Table 4 19 displa y s a summary of results for the BR and PBR tasks that primarily involve word recognition. Table 4 19. Summary of results for BR and PBR tasks Dependent Variable Post1 Pre a Post2 Pre b First Second First Second Significant predictive variables c RA N (PBR) VC (PBR) VC (BR, PBR) RAN (PBR) OK (PBR) VWM (PBR) VWM (PBR) Note: a Dependent variable is first posttest minus pretest; b Dependent variable is second posttest minus pretest ; c Cognitive and language variables that had significant values Research Question 2: Cognitive and Language Variables and Studen t Performance on Sentence Comprehension Task Single and multiple regression analyses were conducted i n order to test whether single or multiple cognitive and language variables in c ombination with pretest scores predicted unique variance in the first posttest scores on the MA tasks involving sentence level comprehension, after accounting for average pretest scores. For and posttest scores on the S C task were used. Student performance on SC task over time In the first set of regression models, VC ( = .34, p < .05) and EF ( = .38, p < .01) added significant predictive power in predicting gains from SC Pre to SC Post1 after accounting for average scores on SC Pre. VC ( = .50, p < .01), however, was the only variable that added significant predictiv e power in predicting gains from SC Pre to SC Post2 after accounting for average SC Pre scores.

PAGE 99

99 In the second set of regression models, there were no significant predictors of gain scores from SC Pre to SC Post 1 after accounting for average scores on the pretest. VC ( = .58, p < .01) and OK ( = .37, p < .01), however, added significant predictive power in predicting SC Post2 af ter controlling SC Pre. Table 4 20 summarizes the results of the first and second sets of multiple regression analyses for the SC tasks. Table 4 20. Results of simple and multiple regression analyses for SC task Cognitive/ Language Variables Dependent Variable Post1 Pre a Post2 Pre b First Second First Second p p p p PA .06 .709 .01 .950 .04 .783 .17 .283 RAN .05 .775 .08 .731 .12 .774 .09 .605 VC .34 .047* .31 .151 .50 .001** .58 .001** EF .38 .025** .30 .118 .25 .107 .08 .571 OK .17 .309 .01 .998 .04 .798 .37 .040* NVIQ .30 .066 .20 .314 .23 .118 .22 .161 VWM .17 .332 .20 .588 .22 .155 .07 .681 Note: a Dependent variable is first posttest minus pretest; b Dependent variable is second posttest minus pretest; p < .05. ** p < .01 Table 4 21 shows the summary of results for the SC task that primarily involves sentence level reading comprehension. Table 4 21. Summary of results for SC task Dependent Variable Post1 Pre a Post2 Pre b First Second First Second Significant predictive variables c VC E F VC VC OK Note: a Dependent variable is first posttest minus pretest; b Dependent variable is second posttest minus pretest ; c Cognitive and language variables that had significant values ; p <.05. ** p < .01

PAGE 100

100 Summary o f Results for Research Question s Simple and multiple regression models were employed to test which cognitive and language variables best predict performance on the MA tasks that involve word recognition (i.e., BR an d PBR) and sentence level comprehension (SC). In simple Pre to BR Post1, and VC was the only variable that predicted gains from BR Pre to BR Post2; whereas RAN and VC significantly predicted gains from PBR Pre to PBR Post1 as well as gains from PBR Pre to PBR Post2. Additionally, OK and VWM significantly predicted gains from PBR Pre to PBR Post2. VWM is the only variable that predicted gains from PBR Pre to PBR Post2. In short, for t he BR task which only include d base words, both and overall progress (pretest to second posttest) did not seem to be predicted by cognitive and language variables, with one exception (VC). However, for the PBR task that involve d prefixes and base words, student performance was predicted by their cognitive and language variables. For the SC task, VC predicted both gains from SC Pre to SC Post1 and SC Pre to SC Post2. Overall, it was found that pretest pe rformance account ed for all of the variance in performance on some tasks, but not others. For the SC task and PBR task other variables combined with the pretest account for a significant portion of the variance in performance. The Roles of Initial Perform ance as a Predictor It was observed that (a) there were moderate to strong correlations between initial performance variables (i.e., MA score changes from pretest to first posttest) (See Table 4 9) and (b) changes in scores in the three MA tasks were ident ified as significant (see Table 4 14, 4 15, and 4 16). These findings are consistent with previous studies

PAGE 101

101 (e.g., Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Stage, Abbott, Jenkins & Berninger, 2003). Thus, single and multiple regression analyses where initial performance w as added as one of the variables ed a role in predict ing overall changes in the pretest to second posttest. Student p erformance on MA t asks with i nitial p erformance as a p redictor Single and mult iple regression analyses were conducted i n order to investigate whether cognitive and language variables as well as initial performance can predict unique variance in the second posttest scores after controlling for pretest scores. For each task, results from the simple regression are reported first follo wed by results from multiple regressions. Table 4 22, 4 23, and 4 24 shows the results of simple and multiple regression analyses for the BR, PBR, and SC tasks Table 4 22. Results of regression analyses f or BR task with initial performance as a predictor Cognitive/ Language Variables & Initial Performance Dependent Variable Post2 Pre a Single Multiple p p Post1 Pre .30 .020 .30 .031* PA .14 .336 .13 .397 RAN .13 .369 .08 .659 VC .30 .045* .21 .221 EF .13 .370 .14 .353 OK .22 .119 .23 .202 NVIQ .03 .684 .25 .115 VWM .16 .276 .01 678 Note: a Dependent variable is second posttest minus pretest; p < .05. ** p < .01

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 23. Results of regression analysis for PBR task with initial performance as a predictor Cognitive/ Language Variables & Initial Performance Dependent Variable Post2 Pre a Single Multiple p p Post1 Pre .69 .000** .50 .000 ** PA .19 .264 .07 .562 RAN .41 .017* .07 .635 VC .58 .000** .10 .476 EF .30 .063 .01 .918 OK .39 .018* .16 .293 NVIQ .08 .612 .15 .245 VWM .56 .000** .34 .0 22 Note: a Dependent variable is second posttest minus pretest ; p < .05. ** p < .01 Table 4 24. Results of single and multiple regression analysis for SC task with initial performance as a predictor Cognitive/ Language Variables & Initial Performance Dep endent Variable Post2 Pre a Single Multiple p p Post1 Pre .53 .000** .4 0 .003** PA .04 .793 .16 233 RAN .12 .444 .12 .427 VC .50 .001** .40 .005** EF .25 .107 .04 .777 OK .04 .798 .37 .020* NVIQ .23 .118 .14 .431 VWM .22 .155 .4 6 .003** Note: a Dependent variabl e is second posttest minus pretest ; p < .05. ** p < .01 For all of the three MA tasks (BR, PBR, and SC), initial performance added significant predictive power in predicting gains from the pretest to BR Post2 ( = 30, p = .020 for simple regression; = 3 0, p = .031 for multiple regression), PBR Post2 ( = 69, p = .000 for simple regression; = 50, p = .000), and SC Post2 ( = .53, p = .000 for simple regression; = 46, p = .000 for multiple regression) after controlling pretest

PAGE 103

103 nitial performance was the best predictor for overall gains in the three MA Tasks.

PAGE 104

104 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the entering language and cognitive variables in their responsiveness to an i ntervention and understand words. The aim of this chapter is to summarize and interpret results obtained in this study in light of previous research, and provide imp lications for educational practice and future research. The chapter is organized in the following sections: (a) overview of the study, (b) summary of findings, (c) interpretation of findings in light of previous research, (d) limitations, and (e) implicati ons for future research Overview of the Study Thirty nine 3 rd grade students scoring below the 25 th word analysis scores participated in this study. The average age of participants was 9.5 years old, and 12 students received free/reduced school meals. The participants were assessed on seven independent variables prior to starting the intervention. These variables include d : (a) phonological awareness (PA) (b) rapid automatized naming (RAN) (c) verbal comprehension, (d) execut ive function, (e) orthographical knowledge, (f) non verbal intelligence, and (g) verbal working memory. Each of these variables has been linked to various reading skills in previous research ( Badian, 1995; 1998; 2010 ). After being assessed on the independent variables, students participate d in the MA intervention twice a week, for a total of 10 sessions. An intervention protocol was deve loped by the author and other researchers who have expertise in reading assess ment and intervention for students with reading disabilities. All target words used in each intervention session were

PAGE 105

105 selected based on high frequency words for lower elementary grades. Four research assistant s with teaching exper ience in reading were trai ned for about 20 hours and provide d MA instruction The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive ability of cognitive and skills were measured by assessing their reco gnition of base words (BR), recognition of prefixes and base words combined (PBR), and their understanding of words with prefi xes in a sentence (SC). Data w ere collected through two pretests and two posttests. Items used for the three MA tasks were the sam e across both pretests and posttests. that there was no significant change between the two pretests. Thus, average pretest scores for each of the three MA tasks were used in the a nalyses. Gains from average respond to instruction, in combination with the language and cognitive variables, predicted responsiveness to MA instruction on the second posttest. Summary of Findings This section summarizes study results according to the major research questions. Predictors of Student Responsiveness to MA Instruction in Recognizing Base Words and Prefixes The first research question focused on those cog nitive and language variables that predicted responsiveness to the MA intervention in recognizing base words and prefixes, after accounting for pretest performance. Results of repeated measures

PAGE 106

106 ANOVAs for BR and PBR tasks showed significant gains from aver age pretest score to were larger than those from the first posttest to the second posttest, meaning that students made little improvement on word recognition tasks aft er the second set of MA intervention sessions (i.e., sessions 6 10) Simple regression analysis showed that verbal comprehension was the only significant predictor of PBR; whereas, simple regression analyses showed that gains made from average pretest scor e to second PBR posttest score were predicted by verbal comprehension, verbal working memory, RAN, and orthographic knowledge. Although performance on PA and RAN were significantly correlated with performance on the two pre and posttests, RAN was the only average pretest score to the first PBR posttest score. In the multiple regression analyses, only verbal working memory predicte d gains from pretest scores to second PBR posttest score s Further, multiple regression analy sis showed that gains from the average BR and PBR pretest scores to the first BR and PBR posttest scores were the best predictors of second BR and PBR posttest scores. Thus, initial response to intervention was the best predictor of later performance. Pre dictors for Student Responsiveness to MA Instruction in Understanding Multisyllabic Words in Sentences The second research question examined the predictive ability of cognitive and language variables in responsiveness to MA intervention for the SC task. A nalyses of data gathered from cognitive and language assessments as well as student performance on the SC task revealed several key findings.

PAGE 107

107 Overall, students showed significant gains from average SC pretest to second SC posttest, indicating that student s improved in their ability to identify the meaning of to first SC posttest were smaller than those from first SC posttest to second SC posttest, meaning that students made more improvement in the SC task after the second set of the MA intervention sessions. verbal comprehension scores were significant predictor s aver age SC pretest score to first SC posttest score and verbal comprehension was the posttest score. Multiple regression analyses showed that verbal comprehension and or thographic knowledge were the only language and cognitive variables that average SC pretest score to first SC posttest score, however, were the strongest predictor of the second SC posttest score, showing that initial performance is the best predictor of responsiveness to intervention on SC tasks. Summary of Findings Results from this study show however, the influence of these skills seems to vary depending on the demands of the task. When students are required to recognize multisyllabic words in isolation, they seem most disadvantaged by poor verbal comprehension scores. However, when they are asked to recognize multisyllabic words

PAGE 108

108 in the context of a sentence (i.e., the sentence comprehension task), they seem disadvantaged by both their verbal comprehension scores and their orthographic knowledge Further, the amount of student response to MA intervention is the best predictor of how students with reading difficulties will respond to future instruction. Interpretation of Findings in Light of P revious R esearch Findings from this study add to a body of evidence demonstrating the role that their ability to respond to instruction in this area. Cognitive and Languag e Abilities and Reading Multisyllabic Words Past research has found strong evidence for the cognitive and language (Evans, Floyd, & McCrew, 2002; McCrew & Wendling, 2010). Numerous researchers have documen ted the contribution that reading skills (e.g., word recognition, reading fluency, vocabulary, or reading comprehension) ( e.g., Adams, 1990; Badian, 19 94; Catts et al. 2001; Catts & Kamhi, 2005; Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006; Elbro, Borstrom, & Peter sen, 1998; Scarborough, 1998) To date, however there has been little research examining how udy overall poor reading achievement also may influence their ability to acquire MA skills. The following section addresses the cognitive and language variables that were existing literature.

PAGE 109

109 Verbal comprehension Findings from this study showed that, after initial response to intervention, verbal comprehension was the best predictor of improvements in both recognizing and understanding words with prefixes in isolation and in sentences. This finding is consistent with previous research studies demonstrating linkages between verbal comprehension and word learning. Specifically, Katz and Ca students with higher verbal comprehension scores were more likely to profit from MA instruction and transfer their knowledge more easily to novel words presented in a passage Similarly, Stage and his colleagues (2003) showed that stu dents who had higher verbal comprehension scores responded quicker to a set of early reading interventions involving the alphabetic principle and reading first grade books. Orthographic knowledge ed with pretest and posttest BR and PBR scores, and multiple regression analysis showed that orthographic knowledge was a significant predictor of gains on the SC task. These findings are supported in other studies where researchers established the relatio nship between elementary aged students (i.e., grades 4, 6, and 8), Roman and colleagues (2009) ixes to words in a production task that orthographic awareness of typi cally developing fifth graders was highly correlated with MA measured by MA decomposition and derivation tasks. The c urrent study extends these findings by showing that students with stronger orthographic knowledge

PAGE 110

110 are able to better understand multisyllabic words in sentences. Thus, students with weaker orthographic skills may need more support during MA intervention. Verbal working memory In this study, verbal working memory did not play the same strong role that it has in previous studies. Verbal working memory was not a significant predictor of gain scores from the first PBR posttest to the pretest average. However, verbal working memory was a significant predictor in only one of the multiple regression analyses; the analysis involving the second PBR score. Findings from this study were surprising given the strong role that working memory has played in reading or lang uage processing disabilities in previous studies (e.g., Cain et al., 2004; de Jong, 1998; Gathercole et al., 2006; Seigneuric & Ehrlich, 2005; Swanson, 1994). PA and RAN PA and RAN skills also did not play a role in predicting responsiveness to interventi PA and RAN skills were significantly correlated with BR pretest and posttest scores and PBR pr gain scores as a consequence of MA intervention. These findings are somewhat at odds with a substantive research base that has shown that PA and RAN independently contribut e to early reading skills (Compton, 2000; Cutting, 1997; Schatschneider et al., 2002). For example, PA has been considered to be the most significant variable in the development of proficient reading in lower grades ( Badian, 2001 ; Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2005 ). Specifically, PA skill was strongly correlated with basic reading skills such as word recognition, pseudoword

PAGE 111

111 decoding (Swanson et al., 2003), and dividing syllables into phonemes (Yap & Balota, 2009). Similarly, weak RAN ability has been shown to be re lated to weak reading skills (Swanson et al., 2003; Wolf, 1984; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). Results of this study, however, are consistent with findings from the correlational study conducted by Casalis et al (2004). Casalis and colleagues found evidence that ph onological processing was MA for students with reading disabilities. These results can be also supported by r ecent studies in brain research that has indicated that the brain seems to use separate parts when processing PA ve rses MA ( Richards et al., 2006). This might be why many advocate for MA as a viable alternative decoding strategy for students with poor PA skills (e.g., Casalis et al., 2004; Richards et al., 2006). Overall Conclusion s Although there has been a considerable amoun t of research published on the contribution of MA to the development of reading and spelling skills there is limited research examining how children of morphological skill Also, little research ev idence has been provided in terms of what cognitive and language variables determine the extent to which children with decoding deficits benefit from MA reading intervention. Thus, this study was conducted to advance the literature on the roles that cognit responsiveness to the MA reading intervention. Findings from this study demonstrate that cognitive and language variables likely play a role in the acquisition of MA skill; however deficits in verbal comprehen sion, and to a lesser extent orthographic knowledge, seem to play a more important role in predicting how they will respond to intervention.

PAGE 112

112 Limitations The current stu dy attempted to provide information about how selected cognitive and language abilities of students with word decoding deficits are likely to be associated with their progress and learning in MA measured by three types of MA tasks (i.e., BR, PBR, and SC). Although a variety of techniques were employed to ensure that the MA measures were reliable and that the intervention was delivered with fidelity there were s ome limitations to this study. The following section describes these limitations. Limited number of student participants. The first limitation perta ins to the small sample size. Although attempts were made to recruit an adequate sample, there were a limited number of students that met the inclusion criteria and were available to join an additional pr ogram after school (i.e., MA intervention). Also, there were three students who were chronically absent or dropped out after cognitive and language assessments. Thus, the overall sample available for analysis was 39. This small sample might impact the resu lts of the study and limit the generalizability of its findings. Measures of MA skills. response to MA instruction based on their scores obtained from three types of MA tasks. Currently, there are no stan dardized measures of MA abilities avai lable to use; thus, the study relied on researcher generated measures for both pretests and posttests. Although the tasks were generated and revised according to feedback from two experts and the pilot study, weaknesse s in the design of these measures may have Use of composite scores. In the current study composite scores were used to improve power and increase reliability of three individua l measures: PA, RAN, and verbal working memory (Rosenberg et al., 2012; Hoeft et al., 2011). In this study, PA

PAGE 113

113 composite scores were calculated based on combined standard scores of CTOPP Elision and Blending words. Although Elision and Blending words skill s are types of PA and these subtests can be combined to represent PA skill, research has shown that each measure is related to different aspects of reading (Plaza & Cohen, 2003; Katzir, 2006). In future studies with larger sample sizes, it might be useful to include performance on individual subtest scores (e.g., Elision, Blending words) to investigate Verbal comprehension m easure In the current study, the Verbal Comprehe nsion subtest from the Cognitive Test battery of the Woodcock Johnson III Normative Update Complete ( Wo odcock, McGrew, & Mother, 2007) was used. This test is standardized and includes four subtests (i.e., Picture Vocabulary Synonyms big yes Verbal Analogi measure ability to use word knowledge and to reason based on acquired word knowledge. This measu re only involves a single word or picture without any additional context to support student comprehension, such as using words in sentences or text. The opportunity to access context helps students to understand vocabulary and concepts (Mille r & Veatch, 20 1 0 ). Therefore, a verbal comprehension measure that is presented in expository or narrative text, that requires the examinee to use their existing word knowledge or experience within the context of connected text, might be more reliable. Multiple measures involving multiple events The results of the current study showed that predictors changed depending on whether it is the first posttest or the

PAGE 114

114 second even though the same MA tasks (i.e., BR, PBR, and SC) were used across two pretests and posttests. There might two reasons why the significant predictors could differ depending on whether change to the first or second posttest is predicted. First, it could be an unfortunate combination of Type I and Type II errors as (a) relatively small sample of data was u sed and (b) relatively many variables and tests were run for the regression models. Second, it could reflect the fact that the first and second posttests measure different aspects of achievement and/or that there were different instructional events and a d ifferent time span intervening between pretest, the first posttest, and the second posttest. Implications for Future Research cognitive and language variables that impact d ifferent reading skills for students with socioeconomic status influences their current or future reading performance (e.g., Ramani & Siegler, 2011; Scarborough, Dobrich, & H ager, 19 91; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). R esearchers have also established relationships among c ognitive and language abilities word recognition (e.g., Bowers et al., 1994; Georgiou, Parrila, & Papadopoulos, 2008; Leslie & Thimke, 1986; Manis et al., 2000), Speece & Case, 2001) and reading comprehension (e.g., Cain et al., 2004; Cutting & Scarborough, 2006 ) Although MA skills are essential t o becoming a proficient reader, there has been little research examining the cognitive and language variables that words. Findings from this study help to identify those c ognitive and linguistic abilities

PAGE 115

115 that underlie the acquisition of MA skill s in students with reading disabilities useful in predicting future learning. Clearly, fu ture research is needed to determine if findings from this study can be replicated and extended. Implications for f uture r esearch This study provided evidence that can be s tandardized MA measures. The development of such measures would allow reliable findings from the next. Items included in this study might be used to guide and generate ite ms that could be included in the development of such standardized assessments. Also, further studies must include additional items involving prefixes and this area. A dditionally, i nformation from this study can provide the foundation for conducting large scale and longitudinal studies that assess the role that language and cognition play in determining responsiveness of students with reading disabilities to MA in terven tion over a one or two year period Such studies would provide information about the degree to which students with different entering cognitive and language abilities can profit from MA interventions over time. For instance, by longitudinally tracking stud deficits could be clustered and compared to each other to better determine their growth trajectories In addition, intervention studies might target a set of prefix and suffix famili es, or only suffix families, for a longer period and through more sessions.

PAGE 116

116 Information from these studies could guide how MA interventions are developed and implemented for students at different age levels, children with language impairments, or English l anguage learners. Specifically, researchers could investigate the relationship between different cognitive and language profiles and the duration and intensity of Additi onal research is also needed to inform potential approaches for individualizing MA intervention. In this study, responsiveness to MA intervention was students with poor verbal comprehension experienced greater difficulties during multisyllabic decoding at the word level, and students with poor verbal comprehension and orthographic skills were most likely to struggle with sentence level comprehension task. Future studies examinin g the extent to which research on the cognitive and language variables influence responsiveness to intervention can be used to develop weaknesses. For instance, students wit h deficits in verbal comprehension may learn to recognize multisyllabic words more easily in text when they are also taught context clues for recognizing vocabulary. Research from the current study and others demonstrate that cognitive and language abilit responsiveness to intervention. Thus, researchers need to conduct more research aimed at better understanding the development of MA in students with reading disabilities and how knowl edge of these students cognitive and language abilities can be used to design interventions for them and predict who will have difficulty responding

PAGE 117

117 to intervention. Such research is essential to better understanding the processing deficits underlying the challenges students with reading disabilities face in acquiring MA skills and how they might be supported through carefully designed MA interventions.

PAGE 118

118 APPENDIX A IRB DOCUMENTATION

PAGE 119

119

PAGE 120

120

PAGE 121

121

PAGE 122

122

PAGE 123

123

PAGE 124

124

PAGE 125

125

PAGE 126

126 APPENDIX B TARGET PREFIXES AND SE LECTED WORDS USED IN MA INTERVENTION Session Prefixes Target words 1 un dis in unkind, unfair, uneasy, unhappy, unsafe displace, dislike, disable, disorder, dishonest inactive, indirect, inexact, incorrect, independent 2 im il ir impatient impure, immoral, imbalance, improper irregular, irrelevant, irresponsible illegal, illiberal, illogical 3 pre post mid prejudge, pretest, prepay, preheat, preschool postwar, postdate, postact, postflight, postgraduate midterm, midwinter, midtow n, Mideast, midway 4 mis mal misunderstand, misbehave, misplace, miscast, miscall malodor, maldevelop, maladapted, maladjusted, malpractice 5 REVIEW (chosen based on stude nt performance during sessions 1 4 ) 6 over super sub overeat, ov erprice, oversleep, overheat, overwork superfast, superbusy, supersafe, superbright, supercute subocean, subtitle, submarine, subsoil, suburban 7 anti non de antismoking, antiwar, antisocial, anticrime, antinoise nonfat, nondairy, nonsense, nonpr ofit, nondrinker decompose, devalue, degrade, defog, deform 8 re en refreeze, rejoin, react, replay, recall enlarge, enable, ensure, enact, enclose 9 uni mono bi unicorn, uniform, unisex, unicycle, unicore monorail, monotone, monoline, mo noaxial, monoski bicycle, bicolor, bimonthly, bifold, biannual 10 REVIEW (chosen based on student performance during sessions 6 9)

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX C SESSION 1 INTERVENTION SCRIPT Intervention Materials : whiteboard, color boxes, blue and read pens, word car ds 1. Introduction to Prefixes and base words [Prefix] Today we are going to be learning about prefixes. Prefixes are small parts of words that help us to change the meaning of a take the following word Do you k now what this word is? Yes, it is safe What does it mean to be safe ? Now, I am going to change the word safe un of it (Say un ). Now, what word do I have? (Children say unsafe ). Yes, it is unsafe Does anyone know what it means to b e unsafe ? (Get student responses. If they cannot define, use it in a sentence The girl was very unsafe when she rode her bike on the slippery street. Once you use unsafe in a sentence, get the students to tell you what it means). Is unsafe the same as saf e ? No, it is not. Unsafe is the opposite of safe because the un unsafe means not safe We have a special name for word parts that come at the beginning of a words and that change the meaning of words. The se word parts are called prefixes. Can you say the word prefix? Yes, that is correct, prefixes. [Base word] Also, we have another part of the word to learn are words like safe I can change the meaning of the word safe by add ing a prefix to it. So we can change safe to unsafe Now we have two different words. One word is safe as in The girl feels safe when she rides her bike on the dry street The other word is unsafe as in The girl feels unsafe when she rides her like on the slippery str eet un safe to unsafe Today, we are going to be learning about three different prefixes that mean not. Those un dis in (Write the prefixes on the board)

PAGE 128

128 2 Instructional activity 1 : Blending a nd segmenting multisyllabic words [Prefix un ] un un What word is this? (Show and point to the word happy ). Yes, it is happy What does happy mean? (Student r esponse). Yes, happy means that you feel good about something. Happy is the base word. Now, un happy What word do you have no w? Now, what does the word mean? If you know base words and their prefixes, you can read the word a nd understand it. unkind unfair undo unhappy unsafe ) Now, we are going to see if we can break the words apart, say the base and what it means and say the prefix. What is the first word on the list? (Show and point to the word unkind ) Yes, it is unkind What is the prefix in unkind ? Yes, it is un Could you circle the prefix? Yes, un is the prefix. What is the base word? Yes it is kind Can you underline the base word? Now, try to find the pref ix and ba se word in the next two words and then we will talk about it (Provide the words undo and unfair ) un dis in [Prefix dis ] What is this word? (Student says d isli ke) like dis What does the word like mean? (If they struggle ask them to tell you a word that means the same as like). What happens when you put dis in front of like yes it means that you do not like it. So dis

PAGE 129

129 work with the prefix dis What wo rd is this? (Show the word able ). Yes, it is able What does able mean? (S tudent response). Yes, able means that you feel y ou can do something. Able is the ba se word. Now, put dis What word do you have no w? (Student response; If they struggle ask them to put two words together by modeling). Now, what does the word mean? If you know base words an d their prefixes, you can read the word and understand it. For example, you know base word able (Point to able ) and prefix dis which means not (Point to dis ). Then, you can predict what this word means. di splace dislike disable disorder dishonest ) Now, we are going to see if we can break the words apart, say the base and what it means and say the prefix. What is the first wor d on the list? Yes, it is dislike What is the prefix in dislike ? Yes, it is d is Coul d you circle the prefix? Yes, dis is the prefix. What is the base word? Yes it is like Can you underline the base word? Now, try to find the pref ix and base word in the next three words (Show and point to disorder dishonest and displace ) and then we will talk about it. Okay, now t dis Now, we are going to work with one more prefixes in [Prefix in ] What is this word? (Student says incorrect; If they struggles or hesitates to say then read out incorrect an d ask them to repeat after you ) Can you find the base wor correct Wha in What does the word correct mean? (If they struggle ask them to tell you a word that means the same as correct ). What happe ns when you put in in front of correct? Yes, it means that it is not correct. in

PAGE 130

130 work with the prefix in What wo rd is this? (Show the word direct ). Yes, it is direct What does direct mean? (S tudent respo nse). Yes, direct means that there is no one or nothing in between. Is Direct the ba se word or prefix? Yes, it is base word. in direct What word do you have no w? (Student response). Now, what does the word mean? If yo u know base words and their prefixes, you can read the word and understand it. ( Show inactive indirect inexact incorrect independent ) Now, we are going to see if we can break the words apart, say the base and w hat it means and say the prefix. What is the first wor d on the list? Yes, it is inactive What is the prefix in inactive ? Yes, it is in Coul d you circle the prefix? Yes, in is the prefix. What is the base word? Yes it is active Can you underline the base word? Now, try to find the prefix and base word in the next two words (Shows and point to inexact and independent) and then we will talk about it. un dis and in means not. 3. Inst ructional activity 2: Word Mapping

PAGE 131

131 Now, we are going to play with words that have un dis and in in them. Here are the first three words (Show unclean disgrace insufficient ). break each word into prefix and base word to guess the meaning o f a new word. (Model how to complete Word Mapping task) First, map the words by breaking it down into its words parts For the word unclean for example, write un in the prefix box and write clean in the base word box after breaking down. Second, guess th e meaning of the word unclean using the meaning of prefix and the meaning of base word For example, the prefix un means not and the base word clean means it is free from dirt, marks, or stains. Third, guess the meaning of the word unclean by putting the word part meaning together. For example, you can Fourth, if you are done with your map, and raise your hand silently. I will see if your answer is correct. 4. Review Now, we are going to read this list of prefix and bas e words together accurately and quickly. Here are the words to read (Provide a worksheet with a list of words). I am going to tap the table for you to read aloud (Show how to read each word with tapping) Are you ready? Go.

PAGE 132

132 APPENDIX D MA WO RD R ECOGNTNION AND DECODING TEST For the assessor : The tasks on this pretest involve three skills. Task 1 involves word recognition of a base word. Task 2 involves word recognition of a prefix and base word together. Task 3 involves identifying the meaning of the word when a prefix is appended. There is one practice item. Please follow the student instructions when training students on how to complete the task. You will not assign points for the practice item. Instructions to student : We are going to spe nd time working with words. I am going to ask you to do three different things with many different words. First, we are going to practice, so that you will understand what to do. When we are done, I have a surprise for you. Are you ready? #. Practice: unh appy Task Test Instruction Point (1) Recognition of base word I am going to show you four words. You will circle the word that I say. Are you ready? Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word that says happy (Give a 1 if the child can c heck happy ) 1 0 (2) Recognition of prefix + base word happy (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word part un happy (Use a prefix un card with the word happy and place the un in front of happy ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. Then, move to first test item. If the child cannot do it, say) Watch me I un happy word do you have? (Show the child the word unhappy Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). (If the child cannot read, model it for the child). This word is unhappy unhappy me more words. 0 2 1 (3) Meaning of prefix + base word Now, I will read a sentence to you. You can look at the sentence as I read it. Then I will ask you a question about the word that is in bold. unhappy with Can you tell me what the word unhappy means in this sentence? Ready? I will give you three choices to pick from. Select the choice that means unhappy a. She feels joyful with her cat. b. She is not pleased with her cat. c. She feels that her cat is smart. 1 0

PAGE 133

133 #1. unable Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it). Circle the word able 1 0 able (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word able un card with the word able and place the un in front of able ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I un able (Show the child the word unable ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 unable Can you tell me w hat the word unable means in this sentence? I will give you three choices to pick from. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). b. The boy wants to skate again. c. The boy hates to skate outside. 1 0 #2. preview Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word view 1 0 view (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word view a prefix pre card with the word view and place the pre in front of view ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I pre view (Show the child the word preview ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 preview Can you tell me what th e word preview means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices) a. The girls read the homework again in class. b. The girls complete the homework in class. c. The girls look through the homewor k before class. 1 0

PAGE 134

134 #3. superfast Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word fast 1 0 fast (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this word part fast super card with the word fast and place the super in front of fast ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I f super fast have? (Show the child the word superfast ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 superfast Can you tell m e what the word superfast means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices) a. My dog can run very fast b. My dog can run very far. c. My dog has difficulty running. 1 0 #4. inexact T est Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word exact 1 0 exact (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small exact in card wi th the word exact and place the in in front of exact ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I in exact (Show the child the word inexact ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 inexact Can you tell me what the word inexact means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. She answered the math question correctly. b. She was unable to solve the math question correctly. c. She solved the math question qu ickly. 1 0

PAGE 135

135 #5. rejoin Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word join 1 0 join (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word join re card with the word join and place the re in front of join ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I re join (Show the child the word rejoin ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 rejoin Can you tell me what the word rejoin means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. We are able to join the dance club again. b. We cannot join the dance club. c. We hate to join the dance club. 1 0 #6. midn ight Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word night 1 0 night (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word night mid card with the word night and place the mid in front of night ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I mid night have? (Show the child the word midnight ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 midnight Can you tell me what the word midnight me ans in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. They have to leave after night. 1 0

PAGE 136

136 #7. impure Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word pure 1 0 pure (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word pure im c ard with the word pure and place the im in front of pure ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I im pure (Show the child the word impure ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 impure Can you tell me what the word imp ure means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices) b. He is sick because he drank unclean water. c. He is sick because he drank too much water. 1 0 #8. overeat Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word eat 1 0 eat (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this word part eat over card with the word eat and place the over in front of eat ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I over eat (Show the child the word overeat ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) The boy tried not to overeat Can you tell me what th e word overeat means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The boy tried to stop eating too much. b. The boy tried to eat fast. c. The boy tried to eat more than usual. 1 0

PAGE 137

137 #9 bicycle Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word cycle 1 0 cycle cycle bi card with the word cycle and place the bi in front of cycle ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I bi cycle (Show the child the word bicycle ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) bicycle Can you tell me what the word bicycle means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). 1 0 #10. misuse Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word use 0 1 use (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word use a prefix mis card with the word use and place the mis in front of use ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I mis use (Show the child the word misuse ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 misuse Can you tell me what the word misuse means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices) a. She can spend too much money when she goes shopping. b. She knows how to use her money when she goes shopping. c. She can br ing her money when she goes shopping. 1 0

PAGE 138

138 #11. dislike Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word like 1 0 like (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word part ( like dis card with the word like and place the dis in front of like ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child canno t then say) Watch me I dis like (Show the child the word dislike ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 dislike g Can you tell me what the word dislike means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The students want to go to the gym as soon as possible. b. The students are ready to go to the gym. 1 0 #12. mistreat Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word treat 1 0 treat put this small word treat mis card with the word treat and place the mis in front of treat ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I mis treat (Show the child the word treat ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sente mistreat Can you tell me what the word mistreat means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The boy seems to play with his dog. b. The boy seems to fee l very happy with his dog. c. The boy seems to behave badly with his dog. 0 1

PAGE 139

139 #13. antiwar Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word war 0 1 war (Instructor points to it). Now I am goin g to put this word part war anti card with the word war and place the anti in front of war ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assist ance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I anti war (Show the child the word antiwar ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) antiwar Can you tell me what the word antiwar means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. He is writing a book against war. b. He is writing a book during a w ar. c. He is writing a book about a war 1 0 #14. illegal Test Instruction Scoring point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word legal 1 0 legal (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small legal il card with the word legal and place the il in front of legal ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If th e child cannot then say) Watch me I il legal have? (Show the child the word illegal ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 the street at a red light is illegal Can you tell me what the word illegal means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. We can cross the street when a red light appears. b. We need t o cross the street when a red light appears. c. We are not allowed to cross the street when a red light appears 1 0

PAGE 140

140 #15. depart Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word part 1 0 part (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word part de card with the word part and place the de in front of part ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I de part (Show the child the word depart ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 depart Can you tell me what the word depart means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. She is going to a rrive earlier than 8:00am. b. She is going to arrive later than 8:00am. c. She is going to leave at 8:00am. 1 0 #16. distrust Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word trust 1 0 trust (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small word trust dis card with the word trust and place the dis in front of trust ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I dis trust (Show the child the word distrust ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly w ith your assistance). 0 2 1 distrust Can you tell me what the word distrust means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choice s). a. The students are disappointed by what the stranger told them. b. The students are excited about what the stranger told them. c. The students have doubts about what the stranger told them. 1 0

PAGE 141

141 #17. irregular Test Instruction Point Look at t he words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word regular 1 0 regular (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small regular ir card with the word regular and pl ace the ir in front of regular ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I ir regular word do you have? (Show the child the word irregular ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 irregular Can you tell me what the word irregular means in thi s sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. She sleeps very well at night. b. She has trouble sleeping at night. c. She sleeps at the same time every night. 1 0 #18. impossible Test Inst ruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word possible 1 0 possible (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small possible im card w ith the word possible and place the im in front of possible ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I im possible have? (Show the child the word impossible ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) It is impossible for her to score Can y ou tell me what the word impossible means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. She is capable of scoring well on the final exam. b. She is unable to score well on the final exam. c. S he feels good about her score on the final exam. 1 0

PAGE 142

142 #19. antismoking Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word smoking 1 0 smoking (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small smoking anti card with the word smoking and place the anti in front of smoking ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any a ssistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I anti smoking have? (Show the child the word antismoking ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read antismoking Can you tell me what the word antismoking means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The people in the room smoke a lot. b. The people in the room want to start smoking. c. The people in the room are against smoking. 1 0 #20. subgroup Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word group 1 0 group (Instructor p oints to it). Now I am going to put this small group sub card with the word group and place the sub in front of group ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I sub group have? (Show the child the word subgroup ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assis tance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) subgroups to complete their class project Can you tell me what the word subgroup means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The kids are divided into smaller groups in the class to do their work. b. The kids work in groups that involve students from other classes. c. The kids form smaller groups outside the class to do their work. 1 0

PAGE 143

143 #21. prejudge Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word judge 1 0 judge (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small judge pre card with the word jud ge and place the pre in front of judge ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I pre judge what word do you have? (Show the child the word prejudge ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 prejudge Can you tell me what the word prejudge mean s in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). b. sh the first one. 1 0 #22. reproduce Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word produce 1 0 produce (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small produce re card with the word produce and place the re in front of produce ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot the n say) Watch me I re produce have? (Show the child the word reproduce ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) reproduce th e letter his mother wrote long ago Can you tell me what the word reproduce means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. John will write a letter just like the one his mother once wrot e. b. John will not be able to make a copy of the letter his mother once wrote. c. John will work fast to write a letter for his mother. 1 0

PAGE 144

144 #23. misbehave Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word behave 1 0 behave behave mis card with the word behave and place the mis in front of behave ). Now what word do we have? Ca n you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I mis behave have? (Show the child the word misbehave ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 misbehave Can you tell me what the word misbehave means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. P ick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). 1 0 #24. unaware Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word aware 1 0 aware awar e un card with the word aware and place the un in front of aware ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I f you put th un aware have? (Show the child the word unaware ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) unaware of the hurricane alert until she saw it on TV Can you tell me what the word unaware means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. She was not informed about the hurricane alert until she saw it on TV. b. She was surprised by the hurricane alert on TV. c. She was informed about the hurricane alert before she saw it on TV. 1 0

PAGE 145

145 #25. refreeze Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word freeze 1 0 freeze tor points to it). Now I am going to put this small freeze re card with the word freeze and place the re in front of freeze ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I re freeze (Show the child the word refreeze ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 refreeze Can you tell me what the word refreeze means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. He c. He forgot to get the ice cream before the party. 1 0 #26. prearrange Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word arrange 1 0 arrange arrange pre card with the word arrange and place the pre in front of arrange ) Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I pre arrange have? (Show the chi ld the word arrange ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) prearrange Can you tell me what the word prearrange means in this sentence? I will give you thr ee choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. We were able to prepare tables before the guests arrived. b. We were unable to prepare tables before the guests arrived. c. We forgot to prepare the tables before the guests arrived. 1 0

PAGE 146

146 #27. decompose Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word compose 1 0 compose compose de card with the word compose and place the de in front of compose ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I f de compose have? (Show the child the word decompose ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 decompose water Can you tell me what the word decompose means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The scientist knows how to combine two parts to make water. b. The scientist knows how to break down water into two parts. c. The scientist knows how to use many parts to make water. 1 0 #28. incomplete Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word complete 1 0 complete (Instructor points to it). Now I am going to put this small complete in card with the word complete and place the in in front of complete ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? ( Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I in complete have? (Show the child the word incomplete ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) The boy turned in incomplete Can you tell me what the word incomplete means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The boy turned in his homework earlier than the due date. b. The boy turned in his homework later than the due date. 0 1

PAGE 147

147 #29. impatient Test Instruction P oint Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word patient 1 0 patient patient im card with the word patient and place the im in front of patient ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I im patient have? (Show the child the word impatient ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 (Read the sentence) The woman is impatient Can you tell me what the word impatient means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. It is hard for the woman to wait for her mail to come. b. It is very exciting for the woman to wait for her mail to come. c. It is fun for the wom an to wait for her mail to come. 1 0 # 30. counteract Test Instruction Point Look at the words (Instructor points to it) Circle the word act 1 0 act act counter card with the word act and place the counter in front of act ). Now what word do we have? Can you read it out for me? (Give a 2 if the child can read the word without any assistance. If the child cannot then say) Watch me I counter act have? (Show the child the word counteract ). (Give a 1 if the child can say correctly with your assistance). 0 2 1 in a campaign to counteract Can you tell me what the word counteract means in this sentence? I will give you three choices. Pick the best answer among them (Read out three choices). a. The boy participated in a campaign to support school bullying. b. The boy participated in a campaign that is against school bullying. c. The boy participated in a campaign on school bullying. 1 0

PAGE 148

148 MA Word Recognition and Decoding Task Scoring Sheet Student Name: Assessor: School: Date: Pre1 ( ) Pre2 ( ) Post1 ( ) Post2 ( ) #. Words (1) (2) (3) #. Words (1) (2) (3) 1. unable 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2. preview 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3. superfast 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 4. inexact 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 5. rejoin 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 6. midnight 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 7. impure 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 8. overeat 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 9. bicycle 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 10. misuse 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 11. dislike 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 12. mistreat 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 13. antiwar 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 14. illegal 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 15. depart 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 16. distrust 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 17. irregular 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 18. im possible 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 19. antismoking 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 20. subgroup 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 21. prejudge 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 22. reproduce 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 23. misbehave 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 24. un aware 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 25. refreeze 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 26. prearrange 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 27. decompose 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 28. incomplete 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 29. impatient 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 30. coun teract 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 Total Total (1) Recognition of base word (2) Recognition of prefix + base word (3) Meaning of prefix + base word Target words (odd#): /15 New words (even#): /15 Target words (odd#): /30 New wo rds (even#): /30 Target words (odd#): /15 New words (even#): /15

PAGE 149

149 APPENDIX E MA TEST STUDENT SHEET Student Name: School: Date: Pre 1 ( ) Pre 2 ( ) Post 1 ( ) Post 2 ( ) #. Practice happen haptic habit happy The girl is unhappy with her cat. a. She feels joyful with her cat. b. She is not pleased with her cat. c. She feels that her cat is smart.

PAGE 150

150 #. 1 above able abuse a bove The boy is unable to skate. b. The boy wants to skate again. c. The boy hates to skate outside. #. 2 view value visit virtue The girls preview the homework in class. a. The girls read the homework again in class. b. The girls complete the homework in class. c. The girls look through the homework before class.

PAGE 151

151 #. 3 feast fast face fade My dog can run superfast a. My dog can run very fast b. My dog can run very far. c. My dog has difficulty running. #. 4 exact excel expert expect She used an inexact way to solve the math question. a. She answered the math question correctly. b. She was unab le to solve the math question correctly. c. She solved the math question quickly. #. 5

PAGE 152

152 joint join joy joke We can rejoin the dance club. a. We are able to join the dance club again. b. We cannot join the dance club. c. We hate to join the dance club. #. 6 nine light night neigh They have to leave at midnight a. They have to leave after night. ck at night.

PAGE 153

153 #. 7 push pure purse pool His sickness is caused by drinking impure water b. He is sick because he drank unclean water. c. He is sick because he drank too much water. #. 8 eat eel each ease The boy tried not to overeat due to his weight. a. The boy tried to stop eating too much. b. The boy tried to eat fast. c. The boy tried to eat more than usual.

PAGE 154

154 #.9 circle certain cycle child bicycle #. 10 use huge upon urban She can misuse her money when she goes shopping. a. She can spend too much money when she goes shopping. b. She knows how to use her money when she goes shopping. c. She can bring her money when she goes shopping.

PAGE 155

155 #. 11 like light lime lake The students dislike going to the gym. a. The students want to go to the gym as soon as possible. b. The students are ready to go to the gym. c. The students d #. 12 trees trick treat threat The boy seems to mistreat his dog. a. The boy seems to play with his dog. b. The boy seems to feel very happy with his dog. c. The boy seems to behave b adly with his dog.

PAGE 156

156 #. 13 wall will well war He is writing an antiwar book. a. He is writing a book against war. b. He is writing a book during a war. c. He is writing a book about a war #. 14 legal level lean lagan Crossing the street at a red light is illegal a. We can cross the street when a red light appears. b. We need to cross the street when a red light appears. c. We are not allowed to cross the street when a red l ight appears.

PAGE 157

157 #. 15 port potter part pals She is scheduled to depart at 8:00am. a. She is going to arrive earlier than 8:00am. b. She is going to arrive later than 8:00am. c. She is going to leave at 8:00am. #. 1 6 truth trust treat true The students distrust what the stranger told them. a. The students are disappointed by what the stranger told them. b. The students are excited about what the stranger t old them. c. The students have doubts about what the stranger told them.

PAGE 158

158 #. 17 reflect regard regret regular She is worried about her irregular sleep habits. a. She sleeps very well at night. b. She has trouble sleepin g at night. c. She sleeps at the same time every night. #. 18 possess possible posture positive It is impossible for her to score high enough on the final exam. a. She is capable of scoring well on the final exam. b. She is unable to score well on the final exam. c. She feels good about her score on the final exam.

PAGE 159

159 #. 19 smoking smoothing smuggling smashing The people belong to an antismoking group. a. The people in the room smoke a lot. b. The people in the room want to start smoking. c. The people in the room are against smoking. #. 20 group growth growl ground The kids get into subgroups to complete their class project a. The kids a re divided into smaller groups in the class to do their work. b. The kids work in groups that involve students from other classes. c. The kids form smaller groups outside the class to do their work.

PAGE 160

160 #. 21 just juicy junior judge prejudge what this new candy will taste like. #. 22 produc t propose promise produce John will reproduce the letter his mother wrote long ago a. John will write a letter just like the one his mother once wrote. b. John will not be able to make a copy of the letter his mother once wrote. c. John will work fast to write a letter for his mother.

PAGE 161

161 #. 23 behave belove belong become The children misbehave a. The children are very obedient when the #. 24 award aware awake awful She was unaware of the hurr icane alert until she saw it on TV. a. She was not informed about the hurricane alert until she saw it on TV. b. She was surprised by the hurricane alert on TV. c. She was informed about the hurricane alert before she saw it on TV.

PAGE 162

16 2 #. 25 freeze freedom fresh french refreeze the ice cream after the party. c. He forgot to get the ice cream bef ore the party. #. 26 arrange arrest arrival array We were able to prearrange tables for the guests. a. We were able to prepare tables before the guests arrived. b. We were unable to prepare tables before the guests a rrived. c. We forgot to prepare the tables before the guests arrived.

PAGE 163

163 #. 27 compass composite compose comprise The scientist is able to decompose water into two parts. a. The scientist knows how to combine two parts to ma ke water. b. The scientist knows how to break down water into two parts. c. The scientist knows how to use many parts to make water. #. 28 complete compile compete compute The boy turned in incomplete homework on the du e date. a. The boy turned in his homework earlier than the due date. b. The boy turned in his homework later than the due date.

PAGE 164

164 #. 29 patent patrol pattern patient The woman is impatient to get her mail. a. It is hard for the woman to wait for her mail to come. b. It is very exciting for the woman to wait for her mail to come. c. It is fun for the woman to wait for her mail to come. #. 30 ant act alt art The boy participated in a campaign to counteract school bullying. a. The boy participated in a campaign to support school bullying. b. The boy participated in a campaign that is against school bullying. c. The boy participated in a campaign on school bullying.

PAGE 165

165 LIST OF REFERENCES recognition to students with reading disabilities in grades 4 7. Annals of D yslexia, 49, 223 250. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alloway, T. P. (2007). Automated Working Memory Assessment. London: Pearson Assessment. Alloway, T.P., Gathercole, S.E., Willis, C. & Adams, A. (2004). A structural analysis of working memory and related cognitive skills in young children. Experimental Child Psychology, 87 85 106. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from EBSCOhost. Arnbak, E., & Elbro, C. (2000). The effects of morphological a wareness training on the reading and spelling skills of young dyslexics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44(3), 229 251. Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Kirkwood, H. J., & Elliott, J. E. (2008). Evaluating the validity of the Automated Wor king Memory Assessment. Educational Psychology, 7, 725 734. Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300 316. Al Otai ba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414 431. Altemeier, L., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2008). Executive f unctions for reading and writing in typical literacy development and dyslexia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 30, 588 606. Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development 58 (10), Serial No. 238. Anthony, J. L., & Lonigan, C. J. (2004). The nature of phonological sensitivity: Converging evidence from four studies of preschool and early grade school children. Journal of Educational Psychology 96 43 55. Apel K., & Lawrence J. (2011). Contributions of morphological awareness skills to word level reading and spelling in first grade children with and without speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 1312 1327.

PAGE 166

166 Arnbak, E., & Elbro, C. (2000). The effects of morphological awareness training on the reading and spelling skills of young dyslexics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 44 229 251. Baddeley A D. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 4 9, 5 28. Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417 423. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. (Vol. 8, pp. 47 89). New York: Academic Press. Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S. E., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105 (1), 158 173. Badian, N. (1994). Preschool prediction: Orthographic and phonological skills, and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 3 25. Badian, N. (1995). Predicting reading ability over the long term: The changing roles of letter naming, phonological awareness and orth ographic processing, Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 79 96. Badian, N. A. (1998). A validation of the role of preschool phonological and orthographic skills in the prediction of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 472 481. Badian, N. A. (2001). Phonolog ical and orthographic processing: Their roles in reading prediction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 179 202. Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction in morphology and context on fifth grade American Educational Research Journal 40 447 494. Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 150 176. Baumann, J.F., Font, G., Edwards, E.C., & Boland, E. (2005). Strategies for teaching middle grade students to use wordpart and context clue to expand reading vocabulary. In E.H. Hi ebert & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 179 205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M.,Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelli ng instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 167

167 Berninger, V. (2001). Process assessment of the learner: Test battery for reading and writing San An tonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Swanson, H. L., Lovitt, D ., Trivedi, P., Lin, S., ... Amtmann, D. (2010). Relationship of word and sentence level working memory to reading and writing in second, fourth, and sixth grade. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 1 79 193 Berninger, V., Nagy, W., Carl isle, J., Thomson, J., Hoffer, D., Abbott, S., et al. (2003). Effective treatment for dyslexics in grades 4 to 6. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 382 417). Timonium, MD: York Press. Berni nger, V.W., & O'Donnell, L. ( 2005). Research supported differential diagnosis of specific learning disabilities. In A.Prifitera, D.H.Saklofske, & L.G.Weiss (Eds.), WISC IV clinical use and interpretation, scientist practitioner perspectives (pp. 189 233). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Berninger, V., Winn, W., Stock, P., Abbott, R., Eschen, K., Lin, S.J., et al. (2008). Tier 3 specialized writing instruction for students with dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 95 129 Biemiller, A., & Siegel, L. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of the Bridge Reading Program for children at risk for reading failure. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 83 92. Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the rel ationship between specific language impairment, pho nological disorders and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 31 1027 1050. Blair, C & Razza, R P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive functi on, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647 663. Bowers, P. G., Golden, J. O., Kennedy, A., & Young A. (1994). Limits upon orthographic knowledge due to processes indexed by naming s peed In V.W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge: Theoretical and developmental issues, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands (1994), pp. 173 218 Bowers, P. N., & Kirby, J. R. (2009). Effects of morphological instruction on vocabula ry acquisition. Reading and Writing. DOI: 10.1007/s11145 009 9172 z. Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: a systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80 (2), 144 179.

PAGE 168

168 Bowey, J. A. (2001). Does poor exception word reading reflect vocabulary deficits? Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 177 177 comprehension: An investigation of sema Memory, 14 553 569. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J.V. (2006). Assessment matters: Issues in the measurement of reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 697 708. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P.E. (2 Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31 42. Carlisle, J. F. (1987). The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived for ms by learning disabled and normal students. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Reseach, 89(90), 105 120. Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language pro cessing (pp. 189 210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. stories. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8(61), 61 72. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness o f the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169 190. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291 332. Carlisle, J. F. (2004). Morphological processes that influence learning to read. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 318 339). New York: Guilford Press. Carlisle, J. F. (2007). Fostering morphological processing, vocabulary development and reading comprehension. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: implications for reading comprehension (pp. 78 103). New York: Guilford Pres s. Carlisle, J. F., & Katz, L. A. (2006). Effects of words and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading and Writing, 19, 669 693. Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Qua rterly, 40, 428 449.

PAGE 169

169 Carlisle, J. F., Stone, C. A., & Katz, L. A. (2001). The effects of phonological transparency on reading derived words. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 249 274. Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., & De Beni, R. (2009). Role of working mem ory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 246 251. Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mi fflin Casalis, S., Cole, P., & Sopo, D. (2004). Morphological awareness in developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 114 138. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidenc e from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3 331 361. 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 clinic al implications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 38 50. Catts, H. W., & Kamhi, A. G. (2005). Language and reading disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw Hil l. Champion, A. (1997). Knowledge of suffixed words: a comparison of reading disabled and nondisabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 47, 29 55. Compton D. L. (2000). Modeling the growth of decoding skills in first grade children Scientific Studies of Readin g, 4, 219 259 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 (2), 394 40 9 Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277 299 morphological awareness and their use of root morphemes in spelling British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 567 575.

PAGE 170

170 Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morp reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223 238. Deacon, S. H., Parrila, R., & Kirby, J. R. (2008). A review of the evidence on morphologica l processing in dyslexics and poor readers: A strength or weakness? In F. Manis, A. Fawcett, G. Reid, & L. Siegel (Eds.), The Sage handbook of dyslexia (pp. 212 237). London: Sage. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 70(2), 75 96. Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001b). Delis Kaplan Executive Function System (D 218). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Delis, D. C., & Kramer, J. H. (2004). Reliability and validity of the delis kaplan executive function system: An update. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10(2), 301 303. Dixon, R ., & Englemann, S. (2001). Spelling through morphographs DeSoto, TX: SRA/McGraw Hill. Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 501 520). New York: Guilford. Edwards, C. E., Font, G., Baumann, J. F., & Bola nd, E. (2004). Unlocking word meanings: Strategies and guidelines for teaching morphemic and contextual Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 159 176). New York: Guilford. Ehri, L. (1992). Re conceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107 143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ehri, L. (2005). Development of sight wor d reading: Phases and findings. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135 154). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Ehri, L. C. (2010). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics in the language arts classroom: A developmental appr oach. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 231 237). New York: Macmillan. Ehri L. C. Nunes S. R. Willows D. M. Schuster B. V. Yaghoub Zadeh Z. & Shanahan T. (2001). Phonemic awareness in struction helps children learn to

PAGE 171

171 read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta analysis. Reading Research Quarterly 36 250 287. Elbro, C. (1990). Differences in Dyslexia: A study of reading strategies and de fi cits in a linguistic perspective. Co penhagen: Munksgaard Elbro, C., & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209 240. Elbro, C., Borstrom, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: The im portance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly 33 36 60. Evans, J. J., Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Leforgee, M. H. (2002). The relati ons between measures of Cattell Horn Carroll (CHC) cognitive a bilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31 246 262. Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Denton, C. A., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2011). Cognitive correlates of inadequat e response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 40, 2 22. 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. Fromkin, V. (2013). An introduction to language. Cengage Learning Inc. Fuchs, D., & Deshler. D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129 136. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness to instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly 27 216 228. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Th ompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N. J., et al. (2002). Exploring the importance of reading programs for kindergartners with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Exceptional Children, 68, 295 311. Ghaemi, H. (2009). The effect of morphological tr aining on word reading and spelling of Iranian dyslexic children. World Applied Sciences Journal, 7, 57 66 Gathercole, S. E, & Alloway, T. P. (2006). Working memory deficits neurodevelopmental disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 4 15 Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide. London: Sage.

PAGE 172

172 Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C. S., & Adams, A. M. (2006). Working memory in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Experiment al Child Psychology, 93, 265 281. Gathercole, S.E., Brown, L., & Pickering, S.J. (2003).Working memory assessments at school entry as longitudinal predictors of National Curriculum attainment levels. Educational Psychology, 70, 177 194. Gathercole, S. E., Lamont, E., & Alloway, T. P. (2006). Working memory in the classroom. In S. Pickering (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 219 240). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Gathercole, S. E., Service, E., Hitch,G. J., Adams, A. M., & Martin, A J. (1999). Phonological s hort term memory and vocabulary development: F urther evidence on the nature of the relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 65 77. Gaustad, M. G., & Kelly, R. (2004). The relationship between reading achievement and morphological word analysis in de af and hearing students matched for reading level. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 269 285. Georgiou, G. K., Parrila, R., & Papadopoulos, T. C. (2008 ). Predictors of word decoding and reading fluency in English and Greek: A cross linguistic comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 566 580. Good, R. H., III, Simmons, D. C., & of decision making utility of a continuum of flu ency based indicators of founda tional reading skills for third grade hi gh stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 257 288 Goodwin, A.P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta analysis of morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60, 183 208. Graves, M .F. (2004). Teaching prefixes: As good as it gets. In J.F. Baumann & E.J. Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 81 99). New York: Guilford Harris, M. L., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D. (2011). The effects of strategic morpho logical analysis instruction on the vocabulary performance of secondary students with and without disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 17 33. Hauerwas, L. B., & Walker, J. (2003). Spelling of inflected verb morphology in children with spelli ng deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(1), 25 35. Henry, M. K. (2010). Unlocking literacy: effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

PAGE 173

173 Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabul ary curriculum for elementary students. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 243 263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hogan, T. P., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2005). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading: Implications for the assessment of phonological awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 36, 285 293. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writin g: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127 160. Hurry, J., Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Pretzlik, U., Parker, M., Curno, T. & Midgley, L. (2005). Transforming research on morphology into teacher practice. Research Papers in Education 20(2), 187 206. Johnston, R.S., & Morrison, M. (2007). Toward a resolution of inconsistencies in the phonological deficit theory of reading disorders: Phonological reading difficulties are more severe in high IQ poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 66 79. Jorm, A. F., & S hare, D. L. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103 147. Katz, L. A., & Carlisle, J. F. (2009). Teaching children with reading difficulties to be close readers. A feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hea ring Services in Schools, 40, 325 340. Katzir, T. Kim, Y., Wolf, M., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). The relationship of spelling recognition, RAN, and phonological awareness to reading skills in older poor readers and younger reading matched controls. Reading and Writing, 19, 845 872 Kaye, D.B. Sternberg, R.J., & Fonseca, L. (1987). Verbal comprehension: The lexical decomposition strategy to define unfamiliar words. Intelligence, 11, 1 20. Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenbe rg, L., Wade Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. Reading and Writing, 25, 389 410 Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. and Pfeiffer, S. (2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading de velopment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 453 464 Kirk, C., & Gillon, T. G. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 341 351.

PAGE 174

174 Leong, C. K. (200 0). Rapid processing of base and derived forms of words and grades 4, 5, and 6 children's spellings. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12 277 302. Leslie, L., & Thimke, B. (1986). The use of orthographic knowledge in beginning reading. Jou rnal of Reading Behavior, 18 229 241 Levy, B. A., Gong, Z., Hessels, S., Evans, M. A., & Jared, D. (2006). Understanding print: early reading development and the contributions of home literacy experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 63 93 Lombardino, L. J. (2012). Assessing and differentiating reading and writing disorders: Multidimensional model. US: Delmar, Cengage Learning Mahony, D. (1994). Using sensitivity to word struct ure to explain variance in high school and college level rea ding ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 19 44 Manis, F. R., Doi, L. M., & Bhadha, B. (2000). Naming speed, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 325 333 Man n, V., & Singson, M. (2003). Linking morphological knowledge to English decoding ability: Large effects of little suffixes. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words: Cross linguistic studies (pp. 1 25). New York: Kluwer Academic Mather, N., Wendling, B. J. (2012). Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc. McBride Chang, C., Cho, J. R., Liu, H., Wagner, R., Shu, H., Zhou, A., et al. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonolog ical awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, 140 160. McBride Chang, C., Shu, H., Zhou, A., Wat, C. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2003). recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 743 751. McBride Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W. Y., & Shu, H. (2005). The Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415 435. McGrew, K S ., Schrank, F A ., Woodcock, R W. (2007). Woodcock Johnson III Normative Update. Riverside P ublishing; Rolling Meadows, IL

PAGE 175

175 McGrew. K. S., & Wendling, B. J. (2010). Cattell Horn Carroll cognitive achievement relations: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 651 675. Meyer, M. L., Salimpoor, V. N., Wu, S. S., Geary, D. C., & Meno n V. (2010). Differential contribution of specific working memory components to mathematical skills in 2nd and 3rd graders. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 101 109. Miller, M., & Veatch, N. (2010). Teaching literacy in context: Choosing and u sing i nstructional s trate gies. The Reading Teacher, 64, 154 165. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school Englis h? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 304 330. Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 134 147 Nag y, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at risk second grade readers and at risk fourth grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 730 7 42. Nagy W. E., Scott J. A. (1990) Word schemas: Expectation about the form and meaning of new words. Cognition and Instruction 7(2) 105 127 Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. B arr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 269 284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer Crane, C. A., & Snowling, M. J. (1999 ). Working Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73 139 158. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific researc h literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiv eness of early literacy interventions: A meta analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 255 267. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. New York, NY: Routledge.

PAGE 176

176 Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. connection between grammar and spelling. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 219 240). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning morphological and phonological spelling rules: An intervention study. Scientific Studies in Reading, 7, 289 307. Oakhill, J.V., Cain, K., & Bryant, P.E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language and Cognitive Processes 18 443 468. O Connor, R. E. (2007). Teaching word recognition: Effective strategies for students with learning difficulties. The Guilford Press: New York Prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159 197 O'Connor, R. E., Jenkins, J. R., & Slocum, T. A. (1995). Transfer among phonological tasks in kindergarten: Essential instructional content. Journ al of Educational Psychology 87 202 217. Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: N ew views on measurement issues (pp. 243 277). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Pearce, L. R., & Gayle, R. (2009). Oral reading fluency as a predictor of reading comprehension with American Indian and white elementary students. School Psychology Review 38 540 553 Pike, K. (2011). Morphological awareness dynamic assessment task in third grade children: A feasibility study. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Plaza, M., & Cohen, H. (2004). Predictive influence of phonological process ing, morphosyntactic skills and naming speed on spelling performance. A longitudinal study from Grade 1 to Grade 2. Brain and Cognition, 55, 368 373. Purvis, K. L., & Tannock, R. (2000). Phonological processing not inhibitory control, differentiates ADHD and Reading Disability. Journal of th e American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 485 494. Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2011). Reducing the Gap in Numerical Knowledge between Low and Middle Income Preschoolers. Journal of Applied Develop mental Psychology 32 146 159

PAGE 177

177 Raven, J., Rav en, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998 ). Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in Grades K 12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 36 49. Reiter, A. Tucha, O. & Lange, K. W ( 2005 ). Execu tive functions in children with dyslexia Dyslexia 11 116 131 Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003) experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects. Studies of Reading, 7, 219 237. Richards, T. L., Aylward, E. H., Field, K. M., Grimme, A. C., Raskind, W., Richards, A. L., Nagy, W., Eckert M., Leonard, C., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Converging evidence for triple word form theory in children with dyslexia. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30(1), 547 589. Roman, A. A., Kirby, J. R., Parilla, R. K., Wade Woolley, L., & Deacon, S. H. (2009). Toward a comprehensive view of the skills involved in word reading in grades 4, 6, and 8. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(1) 96 113. Savage R. S. (2012). Evidence based reading interventions: Implementation issues for the 21st century. In B. Kelly & D. F. Perkins (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of implementation science for psychology in education (pp. 277 297). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Savage, R. S., & Frederickson, N. (2005). Further evidence of a link b etween rapid naming and text reading rate. Brain and Language, 93, 152 159. Scarborough, J.S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14 245 302. Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. Sapiro, P. Accardo & A. Capture (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 77 121). Timonium, MD: York Press. Scarborough, H. S., Dob rich, W., & Hager, M. (1991). Pr eschool literacy experience and later reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 508 511. Schatschneider, C., Carlson, C. D., Francis, D. J., Foorman, B., & Fletcher, J. (2002). Relatio nships of rapid automat ized nam ing and phonological awareness in early reading development: Implications for the double deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 245 256.

PAGE 178

178 Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. (2004). Kind ergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 265 282 Scott, J. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2004). Developing word consciousness. In J. F. Baumann & Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 201 217). New York: Guilford Press. Seigneuric, A., Ehrlich, M. F. (2005). Contribution of working memory capacity to children's reading comprehension. A longitudinal investigation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journ al, 18, 617 656 Shaywitz S., & Shaywitz B. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1301 1309 Siegel, L. S. (2008). Morphological awareness skills of English language learners and children with dyslexia. Top Language Dis orders, 28(1), 15 27. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to ide ntifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735 749. Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disab ilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 147 156. Stage, S. A., Abbott, R. D., Jenkins, J. R., & Berninger, V. W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ reading related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 24 33. Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934 947. Swanson, L. H. (1994). Short term memory and working memory: Do both contribute to our understanding of academic achievement in children and adults with learning disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 34 50. Swanson, H. L. (2004). Working memory and phonological processing as predictors of children's mathematical problem solving at different ages. Memory and Cognition, 32, 64

PAGE 179

179 Swanson, L. H. (2006). Cross sectional and incremental changes in working memory and mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 265 281. Swanson, L. H., & Beebe Frankenberger, M. (2006). The relationship between working mem ory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology. 96, 471 491. Swanson, H. L., Sez, L., Gerber, M., & Leafstedt, J. (2004). Literacy and cognitive functioning in bili ngual and non bilingual children at or not at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology 96 3 18. Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003). Rapid Naming, Phonological Awareness, and Reading: A Meta Anal ysis of the Correlation Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73 (4), 407 440. Templeton, S. (2004). The vocabulary spelling connection: Orthographic development and morphological knowledge at the intermediate grades and beyond. In J. F. Baumann & E. J. Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 118 138). New York: Guilford Press. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilitie s, 27, 276 286. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 217 234 Torgesen, J K ., Wagner, R K ., Rashotte, C A Rose E ., Lindamood, P ., Conway, T & Garvan, C (1999). Preventing reading failure in y oung children with pho nological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to in struction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579 593 Treiman, R., & Cassar, consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63 141 170. Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L. C. (2003). Outcomes of different speech and language goal att ack strategies. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 46 1077 1094. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2006). Paraeducator supplemented instruction in structural analysis with text reading practice for second and third graders at ri sk for reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 365 378.

PAGE 180

180 Vandervelden, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). Teaching phonological processing skills in early literacy: A developmental approach. Learning Disability Quarterly 20 63 81. Velluntino, F. Scanlon, D., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601 638. Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Introduction to this special issue: the role of morphology in learning to read. Scientific Studies on Reading, 7(3), 209 217. Vogel, S. (2001). A qualitative analysis of morphological ability in learning disabled and achieving children. Journal of Learning Disabilities 16 416 420. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. T. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192 212. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). The development of reading related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology 30 73 87. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro Ed. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5 year longitudinal study. Developmental Psy chology, 33, 468 479. Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS III administration and scoring manual (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation) Wilson, S. B., & Lonigan, C. J. (2010). Identifying preschool children at risk of later reading difficulties: E valuation of two emergent literacy screening tools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 62 76 Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Mather, N. (2007). Woodcock Johnson III Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. Wolf, J. (1984). Naming, reading and the dyslexias Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 87 115. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415 438.

PAGE 181

181 Wolter, J. A., Wood, K. A., & D'zatk o, K. W. (2009). The influence of morphological awareness on the literacy development of first grade children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 286 298. Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2009). Visual word reco gnition of mult isyllabic word s. Journal of Memory & Language, 60, 502 529 Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science

PAGE 182

182 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Yujeong Park rec e in special e ducation wit h a minor in Korean language and l iterature from Pusan National University in Pusan, S. Korea where she graduated with honors ( Summa Cum Laude ). She taught students with severe/multiple disabilities literacy and communication skil ls at a public special education school in Seoul, S. Korea. She r c hildren, with a learning disabilities concentration from Seoul National University S ince she was accepted into the special e ducation doctoral prog ram at the University of Florida in 2009, her work has focused on conducting research o n effective instructional practices and reading assessment fo r students with disabilities. She has collaborated with faculty and graduate students on several interdiscip linary research projects to (1) assess the effectiveness of reading interventions and strategies for students with special needs, and (2) develop a reliable and valid assessment system in reading fo r K 12 SLDs as well as English l anguag e learners. Since 20 09, she has served as a research assistant in the Literacy Learning Cohorts (LLC) project to study the influence of professional development and coaching on literacy instruction of special education teachers. She also served as a research assistant in the National Center to Inform Policy and Practic e in Special Education (NCIPP) She has delivered more than 20 presentations at national and international conferences, including: AERA, CEC, IRA, and TED and is an author on 10 peer reviewed publications. Honors in Fien Dissertation Award in 2012 and Korean Honor Scholarship from the Korean Embassy of the United States in 2011. Other awards received include the Outstandin g International Student Award for the College of Education, Qualitative Research Award

PAGE 183

183 by the Council for Exceptional Children Teacher Education Division, and Rosser Family Graduate Scholarship She has been Division for Research (CEC DR) thr ough a national competition to participate in the 2012 2013 cohort of Doctoral Student Scholars in Special Education Research. In 2013, she graduated with a Ph.D. in special education with a minor in research and evaluation m ethodology at the University o f Florida. Her professional goals include delving deeper into research on effective literacy intervention and assessment for students with high incidence disabilities and supporting general and special education teachers to better design and implement their reading instructions in inclusive classroom settings.