Elementary students with reading difficulties constitute two distinct latent profiles: one with higher basic language and cognitive skills and lower attention, the other with stronger attention and lower basic language and cognitive skills¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Latent profile analysis of language, cognitive, and attention measures identified a two-profile solution as best fitting, revealing heterogeneity within students with RD. → Kulesz 2024 q2 i3 Profile 1 (Decoding/Cognitive) students scored higher on decoding, fluency-related, and working memory measures (e.g., decoding g = 0.81), while Profile 2 (Attention Control) students scored higher on attention measures (e.g., inattention g = 2.71). → Kulesz 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Kulesz 2024¶

Kulesz, P. A., Roberts, G. J., Francis, D. J., Cirino, P., Walczak, M., & Vaughn, S. (2024). Latent profiles as predictors of response to instruction for students with reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000832

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Latent profile analysis in Mplus 8.6 on 335 students (269 with RD, 57 typical readers) classified on letter fluency, category fluency, category switching, decoding, sight word efficiency, listening recall, attentional control/switching, inattention, and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The "two distinct profiles" solution was selected; the 3-profile solution was non-significant on LMR tests and included only 5 students in Profile 3.

"The results revealed heterogeneity within students with RD, namely that there were two distinct profiles, with the Profile 1 having higher basic language skills and lower attention skills, and the Profile 2 having stronger attention skills and lower basic language skills."

Kulesz 2024 (2)¶

Kulesz, P. A., Roberts, G. J., Francis, D. J., Cirino, P., Walczak, M., & Vaughn, S. (2024). Latent profiles as predictors of response to instruction for students with reading difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 116(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000832

q2 · i3 · causal · r2

Profile comparisons from the latent profile solution (Table 3 and Figure 1) show Profile 1 advantages with printed effect sizes including "reading decoding (g = 0.81)" and sight word efficiency (g = 0.79). Profile 2 scored higher on attentional control/switch (g = 0.63), inattention (g = 2.71), and hyperactivity/impulsivity (g = 2.33).

"Students in Profile 1 scored higher on measures assessing letter fluency (g = 0.52), category fluency (g = 0.20), category switching (g = 0.59), reading decoding (g = 0.81), sight word efficiency (g = 0.79), and listening recall (g = 0.57)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Students with reading difficulties were more likely assigned to the Attention Control profile, while typically developing students were more likely assigned to the Decoding/Cognitive profile — related
• Latent profile analysis of kindergarten pre-reading measures yields six distinct performance profiles, including PA risk, RAN risk, and double-deficit risk groups — related
• Elementary school children show distinct latent profiles of procedural metacognition combining monitoring accuracy, restudy effectiveness, and decision accuracy across tasks — related
• Four distinct action-control belief profiles (agentic, moderate, avoidant, and mixed) emerge among Finnish ninth graders — related