Latent profile analysis of German third graders' reading measures identifies four profiles consistent with the simple view of reading: poor decoders, poor comprehenders, poor readers, and good readers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In N = 517 third graders, latent profile analysis on decoding, syntactic comprehension, vocabulary, and pretest reading comprehension yielded a four-profile solution matching the SVR quadrants. → Tetzlaff 2023

Evidence¶

Tetzlaff 2023¶

Tetzlaff, L., Edelsbrunner, P., Schmitterer, A., Hartmann, U., & Brod, G. (2023). Modeling Interactions Between Multivariate Learner Characteristics and Interventions: a Person-Centered Approach. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09830-5

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Latent profile analysis of the whole sample (N = 517) on four indicator variables; the four-profile model was selected on fit indices (VLMR significant up to four profiles, p = .02). The article reports "The poor readers (n = 78)" among the four profiles, with good readers n = 88, poor comprehenders n = 195, poor decoders n = 156.

"The four identified profiles can be labeled in accordance with the SVR (see Fig. 2). The poor readers (n = 78) are mainly characterized by their low performance in the reading comprehension task, but they also score well below the mean on all the other indicator variables."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• An instructional focus on advanced reading abilities benefits poor comprehenders while good readers suffer under that focus — related
• A vocabulary instructional focus differentially benefits good readers at the expense of poor decoders and poor comprehenders over a school year — related
• Latent profiles moderated the effect of reading comprehension intervention: the Treatment by Profile interaction was statistically significant — related