For students with a school-identified learning disability, there were no significant direct cross-lagged pathways between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-25 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? For students with an LD, models removing the cross-lagged pathways between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension did not fit significantly worse than the bidirectional model, so a no-coupling model was preferred. → Quinn 2020

Evidence¶

Quinn 2020¶

Quinn, Jamie M.; Wagner, Richard K.; Petscher, Yaacov; Roberts, Greg; Menzel, Andrew J.; Schatschneider, Christopher. (2020). Differential Co-Development of Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension for Students with and without Learning Disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000382

q2 · i? · associational · r3

Bivariate LCS modeling of n = 627 students school-identified with a learning disability (Grade 4 identification, 2006–2007). Removing vocabulary-to-reading pathways did not degrade fit (Δχ²(1) = 0.30, p = .583; Wald(1) = .713, p = .398), nor did removing the reverse pathway (Wald(1) = .231, p = .631), so Model 2D was preferred. No statistically significant difference; equivalence was not tested.

"For students with an LD, above and beyond the effect of the constant slope and proportional change parameters, there were no significant direct cross-lagged pathways between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Vocabulary — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• For typically developing students, vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension show bidirectional leading influences over time in kindergarten through fourth grade — related
• Vocabulary development was broadly similar for students with and without a learning disability, while reading comprehension gains decelerated for both groups yet the LD group started over a standard deviation lower — related