How Specific Are Learning Disabilities?

Despite historical emphasis on "specific" learning disabilities (SLDs), academic skills are strongly correlated across the curriculum. Thus, one can ask how specific SLDs truly are. To answer this question, we used bifactor models to identify variance shared across academic domains (academic g), as well as variance unique to reading, mathematics, and writing. Participants were 686 children ages 8 to 16. Although the sample was overselected for learning disabilities, we intentionally included children across the full range of individual differences in this study in response to growing recognition that a dimensional, quantitative view of SLD is more accurate than a categorical view. Confirmatory factor analysis identified five academic domains (basic reading, reading comprehension, basic math, math problem-solving, and written expression); spelling clustered with basic reading and not writing. In the bifactor model, all measures loaded significantly on academic g. Basic reading and mathematics maintained variance distinct from academic g, consistent with the notion of SLDs in these domains. Writing did not maintain specific variance apart from academic g, and evidence for reading comprehension-specific variance was mixed. Academic g was strongly correlated with cognitive g (r = .72) but not identical to it. Implications for SLD diagnosis are discussed.

Understanding Comorbidity Between Specific Learning Disabilities.

Current definitions of specific learning disability (SLD) identify a heterogeneous population that includes individuals with weaknesses in reading, math, or writing, and these academic difficulties often co-occur in many of the same individuals. The Colorado Learning Disabilities Research Center (CLDRC) is an interdisciplinary, multisite research program that uses converging levels of analysis to understand the genetic and environmental etiology, neuropsychology, and developmental outcomes of SLDs in reading (RD), math (MD), and writing (WD), along with the comorbidity between these SLDs and other developmental disorders. The latest results from the CLDRC twin study suggest that shared genetic influences contribute to the significant covariance between all aspects of reading (word reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension) and math (calculations, math fluency, and word problems), and distinct genetic or environmental influences also contribute to weaknesses in each specific academic domain. RD and MD are associated with a range of negative outcomes on both concurrent measures and measures of functional outcomes completed 5 years after the twins were first assessed. Over the next several years the CLDRC will continue to expand on this work by administering a comprehensive test battery that includes measures of all dimensions of academic achievement that are described in current definitions of SLD and incorporating these measures in new neuroimaging and molecular genetic studies.

The genetic and environmental etiologies of the relations between cognitive skills and components of reading ability.

Although previous research has shown cognitive skills to be important predictors of reading ability in children, the respective roles for genetic and environmental influences on these relations is an open question. The present study explored the genetic and environmental etiologies underlying the relations between selected executive functions and cognitive abilities (working memory, inhibition, processing speed, and naming speed) with 3 components of reading ability (word reading, reading comprehension, and listening comprehension). Twin pairs drawn from the Colorado Front Range (n = 676; 224 monozygotic pairs; 452 dizygotic pairs) between the ages of 8 and 16 (M = 11.11) were assessed on multiple measures of each cognitive and reading-related skill. Each cognitive and reading-related skill was modeled as a latent variable, and behavioral genetic analyses estimated the portions of phenotypic variance on each latent variable due to genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental influences. The covariance between the cognitive skills and reading-related skills was driven primarily by genetic influences. The cognitive skills also shared large amounts of genetic variance, as did the reading-related skills. The common cognitive genetic variance was highly correlated with the common reading genetic variance, suggesting that genetic influences involved in general cognitive processing are also important for reading ability. Skill-specific genetic variance in working memory and processing speed also predicted components of reading ability. Taken together, the present study supports a genetic association between children's cognitive ability and reading ability.

Longitudinal stability in reading comprehension is largely heritable from grades 1 to 6.

Reading comprehension is a foundational academic skill and significant attention has focused on reading development. This report is the first to examine the stability and change in genetic and environmental influences on reading comprehension across Grades 1 to 6. This developmental range is particularly important because it encompasses the timespan in which most children move from learning how to read to using reading for learning. Longitudinal simplex models were fitted separately for two independent twin samples (N = 706; N = 976). Results suggested that the shared environment contributed to variance in early but not later reading. Instead, stability in reading development was largely mediated by continuous genetic influences. Thus, although reading is clearly a learned skill and the environment remains important for reading development, individual differences in reading comprehension appear to be also influenced by a core of genetic stability that persists through the developmental course of reading.

A retrospective longitudinal study of cognitive and language skills in poor reading comprehension.

Fifty-six specific poor reading comprehenders (SPRC) were selected in Grade 4 and retrospectively compared to good comprehenders at preschool (age 5) and at the end of kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2. The results revealed deficits in vocabulary, grammar, verbal memory and early deficits in phonological awareness in most of the SPRC sample, beginning in preschool. The reading comprehension deficits in children with SPRC were not as marked in earlier assessments in Grade 1 and 2, probably because of the greater dependence on word decoding in reading comprehension in the early grades.

Genetic and environmental etiologies of the longitudinal relations between prereading skills and reading.

The present study explored the environmental and genetic etiologies of the longitudinal relations between prereading skills and reading and spelling. Twin pairs (n = 489) were assessed before kindergarten (M = 4.9 years), post-first grade (M = 7.4 years), and post-fourth grade (M = 10.4 years). Genetic influences on five prereading skills (print knowledge, rapid naming, phonological awareness, vocabulary, and verbal memory) were primarily responsible for relations with word reading and spelling. However, relations with post-fourth-grade reading comprehension were due to both genetic and shared environmental influences. Genetic and shared environmental influences that were common among the prereading variables covaried with reading and spelling, as did genetic influences unique to verbal memory (only post-fourth-grade comprehension), print knowledge, and rapid naming.

The Role of Text Memory in Inferencing and in Comprehension Deficits.

Comprehension tests often compare accuracy on inferential versus literal questions and find inferential harder than literal, and poor comprehenders performing worse than controls. Difficulties in integration are assumed to be the reason. This research explores another reason - differences in memory for the passage information underlying the questions. Thirty-nine poor comprehenders and 39 controls were given multiple-paragraph passages, which they retold before answering questions. Retellings permitted assessing question accuracy as a function of memory for the text underlying each question. Inferential accuracy was poorer than literal, and the expected group effect obtained. However, when text memory was perfect, group differences disappeared, indicating that poor comprehenders can generate inferences as well as controls, if they have the relevant information in memory. These findings show that text memory is crucial in distinguishing poor comprehension.

Why do Children Differ in Their Development of Reading and Related Skills?

Modern behavior-genetic studies of twins in the U.S., Australia, Scandinavia, and the U.K. show that genes account for most of the variance in children's reading ability by the end of the first year of formal reading instruction. Strong genetic influence continues across the grades, though the relevant genes vary for reading words and comprehending text, and some of the genetic influence comes through a gene - environment correlation. Strong genetic influences do not diminish the importance of the environment for reading development in the population and for helping struggling readers, but they question setting the same minimal performance criterion for all children.

The internal and external validity of sluggish cognitive tempo and its relation with DSM-IV ADHD.

Studies of subtypes of DSM-IV attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have provided inconsistent support for the discriminant validity of the combined type (ADHD-C) and predominantly inattentive type (ADHD-I). A large sample of children and adolescents with ADHD (N = 410) and a comparison group without ADHD (N = 311) were used to test the internal and external validity of sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT), a dimension characterized by low energy and sleepy and sluggish behavior. SCT scores were then incorporated in analyses of ADHD subtypes to test whether the discriminant validity of ADHD-C and ADHD-I could be improved by including SCT symptoms as part of the criteria for ADHD-I. Factor analyses of parent and teacher ratings indicated that six SCT items loaded on a factor separate from symptoms of ADHD and other psychopathology, providing important support for the internal validity of SCT. The external validity of SCT was supported by significant associations between SCT and measures of functional impairment and neuropsychological functioning when symptoms of ADHD and other psychopathology were controlled. However, contrary to initial predictions, high levels of SCT did not identify a subgroup of ADHD-I that was clearly distinct from ADHD-C. Instead, the current results suggest that DSM-IV inattention and SCT are separate but correlated symptom dimensions that are each independently associated with important aspects of functional impairment and neuropsychological functioning.

Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits.

The authors examined the implications of test differences for defining and diagnosing comprehension deficits using reading comprehension tests. They had 995 children complete the Gray Oral Reading Test-3, the Qualitative Reading Inventory-3, the Woodcock-Johnson Passage Comprehension-3, and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test and compared which children were identified by each test as being in the lowest 10%. Although a child who performs so poorly might be expected to do poorly on all tests, the authors found that the average overlap between tests in diagnosing comprehension difficulties was only 43%. Consistency in diagnosis was greater for younger children, when comprehension deficits are the result of weaker decoding skills, than for older children. Inconsistencies between tests were just as evident when identifying the top performers. The different children identified as having a comprehension deficit by each test were compared on four profile variables-word decoding skill, IQ, ADHD symptoms, and working memory skill-to understand the nature of the different deficits assessed by each test. Theoretical and practical implications of these test differences in defining and diagnosing comprehension deficits are discussed.

Issues in Identifying Poor Comprehenders.

Studies of poor comprehenders vary in the selection criteria and tests that they use to define poor comprehension. Could these differences play a role in determining findings about poor comprehension? This study assessed the extent to which differences in selection methods affect who gets identified as poor comprehenders, and examined how their cognitive profiles differ. Over 1,500 children, ages 8 - 19, took multiple tests of reading comprehension, listening comprehension, single word reading and nonword reading. Poor comprehension was defined by performing in the low-tail and by discrepancies either with word or nonword reading. Odds of any two selection methods identifying the same individuals were generally low, and depended on type of comprehension test more than modality, as well as selection criteria, and comprehender's age. Poor comprehenders selected by the different methods were found to vary in IQ, working memory, but not attention. The findings show that differences across studies in tests and selection criteria used to define poor comprehension are not insignificant and can have substantial consequences for what is meant by poor comprehension and its associated deficits.

The genetic and environmental etiologies of individual differences in early reading growth in Australia, the United States, and Scandinavia.

This first cross-country twin study of individual differences in reading growth from post-kindergarten to post-second grade analyzed data from 487 twin pairs from the United States, 267 twin pairs from Australia, and 280 twin pairs from Scandinavia. Data from two reading measures were fit to biometric latent growth models. Individual differences for the reading measures at post-kindergarten in the United States and Australia were due primarily to genetic influences and to both genetic and shared environmental influences in Scandinavia. In contrast, individual differences in growth generally had large genetic influences in all countries. These results suggest that genetic influences are largely responsible for individual differences in early reading development. In addition, the timing of the start of formal literacy instruction may affect the etiology of individual differences in early reading development but have only limited influence on the etiology of individual differences in growth.

Longitudinal stability and predictors of poor oral comprehenders and poor decoders.

Two groups of fourth-grade children were selected from a population sample (N=926) to be either poor oral comprehenders (poor oral comprehension but normal word decoding) or poor decoders (poor decoding but normal oral comprehension). By examining both groups in the same study with varied cognitive and literacy predictors, and examining them both retrospectively and prospectively, we could assess how distinctive and stable the predictors of each deficit are. Predictors were assessed retrospectively at preschool and at the end of kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2. Group effects were significant at all test occasions, including those for preschool vocabulary (worse in poor oral comprehenders) and rapid automatized naming (RAN) (worse in poor decoders). Preschool RAN and vocabulary prospectively predicted Grade 4 group membership (77-79% correct classification) within the selected samples. Reselection in preschool of "at-risk" poor decoder and poor oral comprehender subgroups based on these variables led to significant but relatively weak prediction of subtype membership at Grade 4. Implications of the predictive stability of our results for identification and intervention of these important subgroups are discussed.

Modeling the Etiology of Individual Differences in Early Reading Development: Evidence for Strong Genetic Influences.

We explored the etiology of individual differences in reading development from post-kindergarten to post-4th grade by analyzing data from 487 twin pairs tested in Colorado. Data from three reading measures and one spelling measure were fit to biometric latent growth curve models, allowing us to extend previous behavioral genetic studies of the etiology of early reading development at specific time points. We found primarily genetic influences on individual differences at post-1st grade for all measures. Genetic influences on variance in growth rates were also found, with evidence of small, nonsignificant, shared environmental influences for two measures. We discuss our results, including their implications for educational policy.

Reading comprehension in children with ADHD: cognitive underpinnings of the centrality deficit.

We examined reading comprehension in children with ADHD by assessing their ability to build a coherent mental representation that allows them to recall central and peripheral information. We compared children with ADHD (mean age 9.78) to word reading-matched controls (mean age 9.89) on their ability to retell a passage. We found that even though children with ADHD recalled more central than peripheral information, they showed their greatest deficit, relative to controls, on central information-a centrality deficit (Miller and Keenan, Annals of Dyslexia 59:99-113, 2009). We explored the cognitive underpinnings of this deficit using regressions to compare how well cognitive factors (working memory, inhibition, processing speed, and IQ) predicted the ability to recall central information, after controlling for word reading ability, and whether these cognitive factors interacted with ADHD symptoms. Working memory accounted for the most unique variance. Although previous evidence for reading comprehension difficulties in children with ADHD have been mixed, this study suggests that even when word reading ability is controlled, children with ADHD have difficulty building a coherent mental representation, and this difficulty is likely related to deficits in working memory.

Genetic and environmental influences on writing and their relations to language and reading.

Identical and fraternal twins (N=540, age 8 to 18 years) were tested on three different measures of writing (Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement-Writing Samples and Writing Fluency; Handwriting Copy from the Group Diagnostic Reading and Aptitude Achievement Tests), three different language skills (phonological awareness, rapid naming, and vocabulary), and three different reading skills (word recognition, spelling, and reading comprehension). Substantial genetic influence was found on two of the writing measures, writing samples and handwriting copy, and all of the language and reading measures. Shared environment influences were generally not significant, except for Vocabulary. Non-shared environment estimates, including measurement error, were significant for all variables. Genetic influences among the writing measures were significantly correlated (highest between the speeded measures writing fluency and handwriting copy), but there were also significant independent genetic influences between copy and samples and between fluency and samples. Genetic influences on writing were significantly correlated with genetic influences on all of the language and reading skills, but significant independent genetic influences were also found for copy and samples, whose genetic correlations were significantly less than 1.0 with the reading and language skills. The genetic correlations varied significantly in strength depending on the overlap between the writing, language, and reading task demands. We discuss implications of our results for education, limitations of the study, and new directions for research on writing and its relations to language and reading.

Predicting word reading and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: a latent variable analysis.

The present study explored whether different executive control and speed measures (working memory, inhibition, processing speed, and naming speed) independently predict individual differences in word reading and reading comprehension. Although previous studies suggest these cognitive constructs are important for reading, the authors analyze the constructs simultaneously to test whether each is a unique predictor. Latent variables from 483 participants (ages 8-16 years) were used to portion each cognitive and reading construct into its unique and shared variance. In these models 2 specific issues are addressed: (a) Given that the wide age range may span the theoretical transition from "learning to read" to "reading to learn," the authors first test whether the relation between word reading and reading comprehension is stable across 2 age groups (ages 8-10 and 11-16); and (b) the main theoretical question of interest: whether what is shared and what is separable for word reading and reading comprehension are associated with individual differences in working memory, inhibition, and measures of processing and naming speed. The results indicated that (a) the relation between word reading and reading comprehension is largely invariant across the age groups, and (b) working memory and general processing speed, but not inhibition or the speeded naming of non-alphanumeric stimuli, are unique predictors of both word reading and comprehension, with working memory equally important for both reading abilities and processing speed more important for word reading. These results have implications for understanding why reading comprehension and word reading are highly correlated yet separable

Choice of Reading Comprehension Test Influences the Outcomes of Genetic Analyses.

Does the choice of test for assessing reading comprehension influence the outcome of genetic analyses? A twin design compared two types of reading comprehension tests classified as primarily associated with word decoding (RC-D) or listening comprehension (RC-LC). For both types of tests, the overall genetic influence is high and nearly identical. However, the tests differed significantly in how they covary with the genes associated with decoding and listening comprehension. Although Cholesky decomposition showed that both types of comprehension tests shared significant genetic influence with both decoding and listening comprehension, RC-D tests shared most genetic variance with decoding, and RC-LC tests shared most with listening comprehension. Thus, different tests used to measure the same construct may manifest very different patterns of genetic covariation. These results suggest that the apparent discrepancies among the findings of previous twin studies of reading comprehension could be due at least in part to test differences.

How Prior Knowledge Affects Word Identification and Comprehension.

While prior knowledge of a passage topic is known to facilitate comprehension, little is known about how it affects word identification. We examined oral reading errors in good and poor readers when reading a passage where they either had prior knowledge of the passage topic or did not. Children who had prior knowledge of the topic were matched on decoding skill to children who did not know the topic so that the groups differed only on knowledge of the passage topic. Prior knowledge of the passage topic was found to significantly increase fluency and reduce reading errors, especially errors based on graphic information, in poor readers. Two possible mechanisms of how prior knowledge might operate to facilitate word identification were evaluated using the pattern of error types, as was the relationship of errors to comprehension. Implications of knowledge effects for assessment and educational policy are discussed.

Understanding the centrality deficit: insight from foreign language learners.

This study replicated and extended a phenomenon in the text memory literature referred to as the centrality deficit Miller & Keenan (Annals of Dyslexia 59:99-113, 2009). It examined how reading in a foreign language (L2) affects one's text representation and ability to recall the most important information. Readers recalled a greater proportion of central than of peripheral ideas, regardless of whether reading in their native language (L1) or a foreign language (L2). Nonetheless, the greatest deficit in participants' L2 recalls, as compared with L1 recalls, was on the central, rather than the peripheral, information. This centrality deficit appears to stem from resources being diverted from comprehension when readers have to devote more cognitive resources to lower level processes (e.g., L2 word identification and syntactic processing), because the deficit was most evident among readers who had lower L2 proficiency. Prior knowledge (PK) of the passage topic helped compensate for the centrality deficit. Readers with less L2 proficiency who did not have PK of the topic displayed a centrality deficit, relative to their L1 recall, but this deficit dissipated when they did possess PK.