Comparing the Predictive Validity of First Grade Teacher Ratings and Reading-Related Tests on Third Grade Levels of Reading Skills in Young Children Exposed to Poverty

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative utility of teacher ratings versus several kinds of reading-related tests measured in the spring of first grade in predicting third grade levels of reading skills in a sample of predominantly ethnic minority children exposed to poverty (N= 170). The reading-related tests included measures of children's print and vocabulary knowledge and phonological awareness. Linear regression analyses indicated that, in general, teacher ratings predicted later individual differences in reading ability with similar accuracy to that of the reading-related tests. Children were next classified as either reading impaired or normally achieving based on their standardized reading scores in third grade. Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the first grade teacher ratings classified children into third grade reading groups with a high level of accuracy (at least 73% of the sample correctly identified) and comparable to classification based on reading-related te st performance. The results provide strong support for the utility of teacher ratings as a relatively efficient and cost effective method for early identification of disadvantaged children at high risk of developing reading failure. During the early elementary school years formal reading instruction is the object of beginning instruction; no other single activity occupies as much time in the school day in first, second, and third grade as formal reading instruction (Perfetti & Curtis, 1986). Not surprisingly, this is the time period when some children first fall behind in reading attainment (Stanovich, 1986). In particular, children from lower social class backgrounds are at increased risk for development of reading difficulties during the early school years and beyond when compared to children from more affluent homes (Bowey, 1995; Hecht, Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2000; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill, 1991). Although the relations between socioeconomic status and reading are often found to be substantial, they are far from perfect. In fact, correlations between socioeconomic status and individual differences in word reading skills typically range between .3 and .7 when social class is indexed in terms of parental income, occupation, or educational attainment (White, 1982; see also Hecht et al., 2000; Scarborough, 1998). Less than perfect findings between social background and reading reflect the fact that many children from families experiencing economic hardship succeed in academic skills such as reading (Pianta & Walsh, 1998). Obviously, it is not accurate for school psychologists to assume that all, or even most, children from poor social class backgrounds will develop reading impairments because many of these children succeed in reading. Meanwhile, children from families experiencing economic hardship are usually considered as a group to be at risk for developing a myriad of cognitive and behavioral problems, including reading failure (e.g., Bolger, Patterson, Thompson, & Kupersmidt, 1995; Pianta & Walsh, 1998). This has prompted entire schools to receive Chapter I services, without considering which students served by the school actually need those services. Many children served by Chapter I schools are good readers and do not need special services, at least for reading instruction. Inefficient allocation of limited resources for special services promises to be an increasing problem in the face of ever-growing numbers of children enrolled in school who are reared in poverty conditions (Pianta & Walsh, 1998; Reynolds, 1989; Reyn olds & Bezruczko, 1993). Thus, an important practical issue for school psychologists is to be able to employ the most efficient methods for predicting growth in reading skills during early elementary school in children raised in poverty (Archer & Edwards, 1982). Sensitive predictors of reading growth are needed so that intervention efforts can be directed toward those children who actually are in need of special services (Berninger, Thalberg, DeBruyn, & Smith, 1987; Blachman, 1997; Mann, 1993; Scarborough, 1998; Torgesen, Wagner, Bryant, & Pearson, 1992). …