What Reading-Level Match Design Reveals about Specific Reading Disability in a Transparent Orthography and How Much We Can Trust It

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To assess strengths and weaknesses of the reading level (RL) match approach and its potential to generate insights regarding the cognitive foundations of reading ability and disability.

Method

We applied RL-match design to a sample of 2^nd – 6^th graders reading a consistent orthography, Russian, using an “extreme phenotype” approach. Readers with suspected specific reading disability (sSRD, n = 538) and high-performing readers (HPR; n = 806) were matched via propensity Scores, using IQ and each of the alternatives: accuracy of word decoding, pseudoword decoding, word unitization, or paragraph reading fluency. In each case, two groups were compared on the remaining literacy tasks as well as phonological processing, orthographic processing, and rapid serial naming.

Results

When matched on word or pseudoword decoding (288 and 313 pairs, respectively), readers with sSRD and HPR differed on all remaining indicators. When matched on word unitization (173 pairs), the differences disappeared or had substantially diminished effect sizes. When matched on paragraph reading fluency (57 pairs), no significant differences remained. Thus, none of the componential skills appeared antecedent to the observed difficulties assessed via the number of correctly orally read words per minute. However, certain inherent limitations of RL-match design preclude us from considering this to be a definitive outcome.

Acknowledgments

Grantees undertaking such projects are encouraged to freely express their professional judgment. Therefore, this article does not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the agencies providing funding, and no official endorsement should be inferred. We are grateful to Mei Tan and Lauren Elderton for their editorial support.

Disclosure statement

The study conforms to recognized ethics standards, including the Declaration of Helsinki and the US Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. The legal guardians of all participants gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health Grant R21 HD070594 (E.L.G., Principal Investigator) and Sirius University of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation.