Exploring reading profiles of rural school students

Johny Daniel; Amy Barth

doi:10.1007/s11881-022-00276-y

Exploring reading profiles of rural school students

Daniel, Johny; Barth, Amy 2023-07-01 00:00:00 This study investigates the reading profiles of rural Grade 5 and 6 students (N = 262), a sample with a high proportion of English language learners. We administered a battery of reading and cognitive assessments to classify students’ reading profiles and evaluate if performance on cognitive measures predicted membership in particular profiles. Data were analyzed using latent profile analysis. Latent profile analysis showed four distinct reading profiles in our sample: students with severe reading disabilities (< 2%), students at high risk of reading disability (14%), students at some-risk of reading disability (46%), and stu- dents who are typical readers (38%). Lower performance on cognitive measures was asso- ciated with group membership in the severe reading profile group compared to the group of students at some-risk of reading failure. In contrast, higher performance on cognitive measures was associated with group membership in the typical reader group compared to students at some-risk of reading failure. In keeping with the findings from past studies doc- umenting reader profiles, we found heterogeneity in the reading profiles of rural upper-ele- mentary grade students. We discuss the need for multicomponent interventions that target all areas of reading with some flexibility in the dosage of each reading component depend- ent on the reader profiles established prior to intervention. Keywords Cognition · Latent profile · Reading disabilities · Reading profile · Rural Compelling evidence links reading comprehension with improved educational outcomes, access to and appropriate use of health care resources, and greater short- and long-term employment opportunities (Aro et al., 2019; Berkman et al, 2011; Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). A large body of evidence also suggests that reading comprehension represents a factor that mitigates intractable health disparities among marginalized and minoritized sub- groups of children and adults in the USA (Paasche-Orlow & Wolf, 2007). Despite the well- intentioned efforts of reading researchers to improve reading outcomes for at-risk student populations such as students with reading difficulties and English language learners’ (ELs), results of reading interventions for students in the upper elementary and secondary grades largely indicate small to moderate effects (Hall et al., 2017; Scammacca et al., 2016). * Johny Daniel Johny.r.daniel@durham.ac.uk School of Education, Durham University, Leazes Rd, Durham DH1 1TA, UK William Jewell College, Liberty, MO, USA 1 3 Vol.:(0123456789) J. Daniel, A. Barth These findings suggest that although current interventions lead to practical and meaningful improvements in reading skills, they do not close the large performance gap that struggling readers must overcome to adequately comprehend grade-level texts (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008). To better understand students’ modest response to reading interventions, several researchers have conducted extant data analyses using intervention data. The analyses have demonstrated that pretest reading skills across different reading-related domains signifi- cantly influence response to treatment (e.g., Clemens et al., 2019; Daniel et al., 2021). For instance, Daniel et al. (2021) reported that in a sample of students with reading difficulties, individuals who started the intervention with lower word reading scores relative to peers demonstrated lower levels of growth on reading comprehension measures at the end of a year-long multicomponent reading intervention. This finding is consistent across multiple studies that report lower response to reading interventions for struggling readers who begin intervention with comparatively lower reading comprehension (Wanzek et al., 2016), word reading (Daniel et al., 2021), reading fluency (Clemens et al., 2019), and listening compre- hension (Vaughn et al., 2019) skills. In short, these extant data analyses demonstrate that pre-intervention status is highly predictive of post-intervention response. Thus, reading interventions might be more effective at closing the performance gap if the instruction was more closely aligned to the specific strengths and weaknesses struggling readers present (i.e., reader profiles) at the initiation of treatment (see Connor et al., 2007, 2011). Need for research on reading profiles of rural students A further concern is the general absence of research conducted with students attending rural school districts. That is, while several past studies have explored the profiles of stu- dents at-risk of reading failure, almost all analyses have used samples of students receiving educational services in urban or suburban settings (e.g., Capin et al., 2021). This gap in the literature is noteworthy because approximately one in six of the total population of American students receives educational services in rural settings (McHenry- Sorber 2019). Past reports on reading proficiency in elementary and middle schools have shown that rural students’ reading performance is close to 1/3rd of a standard deviation lower when compared to their suburban peers (Graham & Teague, 2011). Furthermore, rural students do not close this achievement gap with their non-rural peers in later grades. For instance, in Grades 3 to 8, students from non-rural schools continue to outperform their peers in rural schools on reading-related tasks (Johnson et al., 2018). In the past, research- ers have attributed rural students’ lower attainment to less credentialed teachers compared to non-rural schools (McHenry-Sorber, 2019), longer commutes that can lead to fatigue (Arnold et al., 2005), and lack of academic resources (Roscigno & Crowley, 2001). Other factors that can influence student academic performance in rural schools are the growing number of ELs and a greater percentage of students from economically disadvantaged and minority backgrounds compared to a decade earlier (Johnson et al., 2018). Given that students in rural areas are a changing demographic and represent a significant proportion of the student population, it is important to understand their reading profiles to better inform research and practice in rural schools. The need for this paper arises from a scarcity of research literature involving rural schools; thus, we aim to better understand the reading profiles of a unique population of students in a rural school comprising a growing majority of ELs. To guide this work, we first present a theoretical framework. Next, we 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students discuss important reading and cognitive skills to be considered prior to the initiation of treatment for ELs who read below grade-level benchmarks. Finally, we review the extant literature on reader profile analyses and how this might guide future interventions for ELs. Theoretical framework: components associated with reading comprehension Theories guiding this study include the simple view of reading (SVR; Gough & Tum- ner, 1986) and the verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985). The SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) emphasizes the importance of foundational component skills, such as word read- ing and linguistic comprehension, for comprehension of written texts. Both of these skills are multidimensional in nature and encompass clusters of subskills. For instance, success- ful word reading requires students to establish phonological awareness, build awareness of the alphabetic principle, and develop knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences. Alternately, developing linguistic comprehension involves building background knowl- edge, developing vocabulary knowledge, cultivating awareness of language structures, and enhancing verbal reasoning skills. Failure to develop one or more of these subskills can be detrimental to proficiency in reading comprehension and can hinder independent learning from text (e.g., Daniel et al., 2021; Wanzek et al., 2016). Below, these reading component skills, which can be dissociated to determine whether students present weaknesses in word reading, linguistic comprehension, or both are reviewed. Word reading It is well-established that word reading ability plays an influential role in comprehending text. In a meta-analysis, García and Cain, (2014) reported a strong correlation between word-reading ability and performance on reading comprehension measures (r = .74) for readers across age groups and reading levels. The association remained strong when data were disaggregated for poor word readers across different age groups (r = .64). Addition- ally, findings from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies provide evidence that word- reading ability in early-elementary grades is highly predictive of students’ reading com- prehension outcomes in later grades (e.g., Shankweiler et al., 1999; Tighe et al., 2015). For instance, Tighe and colleagues (2015) reported that word-reading ability explained a significant proportion of variance in reading comprehension scores for all ability read- ers in third, seventh, and tenth grades. However, the proportion of variance explained was greater in third grade (56%) compared to seventh (34%) and tenth (24%) grades. These results indicate that word reading continues to play an important role in students’ ability to comprehend text and can be the leading cause of reading comprehension difficulties among students in the upper-elementary grade-levels. Past studies that assessed the validity of the SVR generally reported that word reading plays a relatively important role in early-elementary grades, with linguistic comprehension making a larger contribution to reading comprehension in later grades (e.g., Tilstra et al., 2009). However, there are exceptions to this trend. For instance, students who are below- average readers continue to demonstrate word-reading deficits that account for variance in their reading comprehension in upper elementary and later grades (Cirino et al., 2012). For ELs, studies generally report word-reading abilities similar to non-EL peers (e.g., Lesaux et al., 2007; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). In a longitudinal study of read- ing development, Lesaux et al. (2007) reported that although Spanish-speaking ELs per- formed slightly below their monolingual peers on some kindergarten academic measures, 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth there were no significant differences between the two groups on word-reading measures in Grade 4. Similarly, in another longitudinal study, Mancilla-Martinez and Lesaux (2011) reported that growth rates, of 4- to 11-year-old English and Spanish-speaking students, on word-reading measures were similar to national norms. The similarity in growth on word- reading measures between ELs and non-ELs is generally attributed to cross-language trans- fers and overlap between phonology and orthography of English and ELs’ first language (Verhoeven, 2017). Thus, there is compelling evidence that word-reading ability develops similarly in Spanish-speaking ELs and their non-EL peers. Linguistic comprehension The construct of linguistic comprehension encompasses multiple components such as vocabulary knowledge (both word and world) and listening comprehension. Several stud- ies have demonstrated that linguistic comprehension, in addition to word reading, accounts for a significant proportion of the variance in reading comprehension (e.g., Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018; Lonigan et al., 2018). Results from past stud- ies have also demonstrated that poor performance on listening-comprehension measures parallels difficulties with reading comprehension (Barnes et al., 1996; Keenan et al., 2006). Similarly, vocabulary knowledge has also been shown to account for the largest proportion of variance in reading comprehension (Ahmed et al., 2016; Cromley & Azevado, 2007). There is strong evidence that vocabulary knowledge predicts reading comprehension in elementary (Simmons & Kameenui, 1998), middle (Beck et al., 1982), and high school (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997) grades. Thus, both vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension are interconnected with readers’ background knowledge, and reading com- prehension can be significantly impaired when the meaning of words in a text is unknown to the reader. It is noteworthy that while word reading explains a greater proportion of variance in early-elementary grades, linguistic comprehension has been shown to exert a greater influence on reading comprehension in upper elementary and later grade-levels (e.g., Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012; Tilstra et al., 2009). Literature on reading comprehension difficulties for ELs generally demonstrates greater deficits in areas of linguistic comprehension such as vocabulary knowledge compared to non-EL peers. In a recent study, Cho and colleagues (2019) utilized the SVR framework to investigate the mechanisms of reading comprehension for ELs and non-ELs. Using a sample of 440 below-average fourth-grade readers, authors reported that word reading was a major source of reading comprehension difficulties for non-ELs. In contrast, linguistic comprehension skills were identified as a major source of reading comprehension difficul- ties for ELs with significantly lower factor scores on vocabulary and oral comprehension measures compared to non-EL peers (Cho et al., 2019). Similar findings have also been reported for second-language learners in transparent orthographies (e.g., Verhoeven, 2000). Thus, research on second-language learners’ reading skills demonstrates that while word- reading ability develops at a similar pace compared to their monolingual peers, ELs’ devel- opment in linguistic comprehension skills such as vocabulary and oral comprehension lags behind their non-EL peers. Cognitive components Process models and theories of reading comprehension, such as the verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985), help to explain reading and reading-related skills by which readers may be 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students differentiated from one another (i.e., individual and developmental differences). Similar to the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), process models and theories emphasize the importance of word-reading skills and linguistic comprehension to reading comprehension. Of impor- tance to this study, process models and theories also recognize that cognitive processes, such as working memory and non-verbal reasoning, play an important role in the read- ing and understanding written text (Peng et al., 2022). For example, the verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985) posits that when word reading is slow and labored, greater cogni- tive resources are allocated to decoding the text, leaving fewer cognitive resources avail- able for comprehending the text. Furthermore, once the text has been decoded, students must “reason” with the text forming both text-to-text connections and text-to-knowledge connections. Working memory Studies that have assessed working memory in students have gener- ally reported that students’ performance on working-memory tasks is associated with their word-reading and reading comprehension skills (Peng et al., 2018; Swanson et al., 2006). Limitations in working memory are considered to create a bottleneck that limits the read- er’s capacity to retain recently processed knowledge to make connections to recent inputs. For instance, in the lexical-retrieval process, readers need to code text, store coded infor- mation, and accurately retrieve information from memory to make reliable connections between speech sounds and written text. During the lexical-retrieval process, it is theo- rized that readers visually recognize a sequence of letters as formulating a word and, there- after, retrieve its phonological and semantic information from memory. Past researchers have utilized different methods to understand the lexical-retrieval process by either meas- uring students’ working memory (requiring students to store and process/manipulate the information) or measuring their short-term working memory (involving passive storage of information). An example of working memory is presenting students with a list of words and having them repeat the words in reverse order. In contrast, short-term working-mem- ory tasks may involve students repeating the words in the order they were presented. Poor performance on both memory tasks has been associated with poor performance on reading measures (Swanson et al., 2006). However, it is important to note that interventions focusing on improving students’ cog- nitive abilities, such as working memory, have not reported improved performance on aca- demic outcomes. For instance, the results of a meta-analysis (Kearns & Fuchs, 2013) meas- uring the impact of cognitive-focused interventions on academic performance reported that there is not enough empirical data to support the use of cognitive-focused instruction for low-achieving students. Non‑verbal reasoning Vital to the process of comprehension is readers’ ability to make connections between the information presented and their own prior knowledge relating to the content. The process of making such connections is referred to as the inferential pro- cess or inference making. To accurately infer, readers monitor their understanding of the content, relate the information presented to the material presented earlier in the text or their own knowledge base, and establish semantic associations supported by the text to generate accurate inferences. In other words, inference making requires readers to not only extract and construct meaning from the content being read but also to make connections within texts or between the text and their background knowledge (Barth et al., 2021; Kendou et al., 2008; Silva & Cain, 2015). Similarly, non-verbal reasoning tasks that require students to 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth tap into their own knowledge to accurately respond to pictorial-inference tasks have also been associated with reading comprehension. Researchers have reported that non-verbal reasoning tasks significantly predict reading comprehension in typically developing ele- mentary (Asbell et al., 2010), middle, and high school students (Tighe & Schatschneider, 2013). Researchers have also reported significant differences on non-verbal reasoning tasks between typical and struggling readers (Nation et al., 2002) supporting the notion that rea- soning skills are vital to accurately infer from text and improve reading comprehension. In this study, we focus on understanding the reading profiles of rural students with a large proportion of ELs. We create reading profiles utilizing students’ reading comprehen- sion, word reading, vocabulary, and listening comprehension proficiency scores. Moreover, we test to ascertain whether cognitive measures such as working memory and non-verbal reasoning predict group membership. Past research on the profile of students with reading difficulties Over the last two decades, researchers have used several statistical methods to better under- stand the various profiles of students struggling to comprehend grade-level texts (e.g., Buly & Valencia, 2002; Capin et al., 2021; Cirino et al., 2012; Clemens et al., 2019; Leach et al., 2003). One of the most consistent findings of these studies has been that students with read- ing difficulties comprise a heterogenous population with deficits in different areas of read- ing. While some students exhibit phonological deficits manifested in the form of labored and error-prone reading of the written language, others demonstrate deficits in extracting and constructing meaning from text, leading to poor comprehension of the content. Still, others may demonstrate deficits in both word reading and comprehension of grade-level texts. Several studies have reported that students with reading difficulties in upper elemen- tary and later grades display below-average skills in comprehension, word reading, read- ing fluency, or vocabulary knowledge, with deficits in comprehension and an additional reading domain being the most common (e.g., Cirino et al., 2012; Leach et al., 2003). Buly and Valencia (2002) analyzed the reading-skill profiles of 108 fourth graders identified as below-basic readers based on state-administered reading assessment scores. Using cluster analysis to create similar pairs of cases to identify reader profiles, authors reported that approximately 44% had deficits in reading comprehension and word reading/fluency. Addi- tionally, 82% performed poorly on measures of decoding and/or reading fluency, while 58% performed poorly on measures of reading comprehension and vocabulary. Thus, a lit- tle over half of the sample demonstrated deficits in comprehension and vocabulary, while much of the sample exhibited deficits in word reading only. More recently, Capin et al. (2021) investigated the reading profiles of Grade 4 students with reading difficulties; all students in the sample scored < 85 on a standardized reading comprehension measure. The authors (Capin et al., 2021) reported that most of the participants comprising the at- risk reader sample (91%) scored approximately one standard deviation below the mean on measures of word reading and listening comprehension. A smaller proportion of the sam- ple demonstrated either severe deficits in word reading (5%) or listening comprehension (4%). Researchers have also explored reading-skill profiles of students with reading difficul- ties at the middle and high-school levels and reported reader profiles similar to those of third and fourth graders with reading difficulties. For instance, Cirino et al. (2012) used 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students confirmatory factor analysis to study the reading profiles of 846 students with reading dif- ficulties in Grades 6–8; participants were identified as students with reading difficulties when they failed to meet state reading comprehension proficiency-test benchmarks and scored below the 25th percentile on at least one standardized-reading measure. Reading- skill profiles of students with reading difficulties showed difficulties in decoding (47%), reading fluency (45%), and reading comprehension (84%). Additionally, 78% of the sample demonstrated difficulties in both fluency and comprehension. Similar reading profiles of ELs have also been reported in the literature. For instance, in a sample of 87 Spanish-speaking students from upper-elementary grades, Lesaux et al. (2010) reported that participants demonstrated average word-reading skills but below-aver- age oral-language skills. In their models, they illustrated that oral-language skills had a greater influence on ELs’ reading comprehension compared to word-reading skills (Lesaux et al., 2010). Similarly, in a longitudinal analysis of 150 elementary-grade ELs and non- ELs, Kieffer and Vukovic (2012) reported that among a subset of the sample with poor reading comprehension, 80% performed poorly on vocabulary and oral-language com- prehension measures. While these studies provide evidence that linguistic comprehension accounts for a larger source of variability in reading comprehension for ELs, these find- ings are not consistent. In another longitudinal study of elementary-grade ELs, authors reported that, in Grade 5, word reading accounted for a larger proportion of variance in reading comprehension compared to vocabulary knowledge (Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010). In the Capin et al. (2021) study, the authors were able to disaggregate the results for ELs with reading difficulties in their profile analysis. Their results demonstrated that while ELs were more likely to be in the listening-comprehension difficulties profile, they still accounted for a considerable proportion of the severe word-reading difficulties and the moderate reading/language difficulties profiles. Together, these studies provide information on the heterogeneity of reading-skill profiles among students with reading difficulties. However, several studies comprising this body of literature used samples from either urban or suburban school districts to guide research and develop reading interventions for at-risk readers. Another challenge in interpreting the results of many past reading-profile studies concerns the use of a single reading-related measure to dichotomize the sample of students who were at-risk and not at-risk of reading failure. Past research does not empirically support using individual measures of reading to identify students with reading disabilities as single measures are imperfect indicators of underlying constructs (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2019; Miciak et al., 2015). A pertinent implica- tion of identifying students with a single reading measure is the possibility of inaccurate inferences concerning profiles of struggling readers. Using different reading assessments across different studies can lead to different sets of students being identified with reading difficulties resulting from the manner in which tests operationalize the construct of reading (see, Miciak et al., 2015). Study purpose The primary aim of this study is to understand the reading profiles of rural upper-elemen- tary grade students with a high proportion of ELs. Results from this study can inform assessment, direct evaluation, and guide intervention development for at-risk students in rural areas, especially ELs. We also aim to overcome past methodological challenges involving the use of a particular measure to identify students who are at-risk or not at- risk of reading failure. To overcome this issue, we use the entire sample of students on 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth a continuum of reading abilities to better represent the current diverse rural-student population. Hypotheses and research questions No previous study has examined the reading profiles of rural Grade 5 and 6 students. We aimed to use an exploratory statistical method to investigate the various reading profiles of students in one rural school. Given that past studies have reported a range of reading profiles in their samples, we did not have any prior hypotheses on the number of reading profiles we would uncover in our sample. We did, however, expect to find students with generally low scores on vocabulary and listening comprehension due to the large propor- tion of ELs in our sample. Additionally, based on past studies’ findings (e.g., Capin et al., 2021), we hypothesized that students in the lower reading-performance profiles will also demonstrate lower performances on cognitive measures. We investigate the following research questions: What are the reading profiles of upper- elementary grade students in a rural school district with a high proportion of ELs? Does performance on cognitive measures predict group membership? Method School The school from which this study’s sample was derived is situated in a rural geographic location. The location of the school meets the definition of the term rural as any location that is not in an urban area (US Census Bureau). The county the school is located in is also categorized as a rural area (code 10) according to the rural–urban commuting area codes. The upper-elementary school this sample was derived from has a total enrollment of 789 students with 51% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 15% White, 6% Black, and other races (11%). Approximately, 64% of the student population identify as English language learners, and 75% qualify for free and reduced meals. Student participants Data for this study were taken from pretests administered during a larger randomized con- trolled trial that included students in Grades 5 and 6 (Barth et al., 2021). Data were col- lected over two academic years from one school in a rural midwestern school district. In the first year, data were collected for Grade 5 and 6 students not at-risk of reading fail- ure (considered typical readers). In the second year, data were collected for Grades 5 and 6 students considered at-risk of reading failure. Students’ reading-risk levels were deter- mined using their district-administered FastBridge Adaptive Reading (aReading) scores (Christ, 2015). According to the FastBridge aReading benchmarks, students are considered at some-risk of reading failure when their composite scores are less than 513 and 517 in Grades 5 and 6, respectively. 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Measures Trained undergraduate research assistants administered the measures except the Fast- bridge aReading measure (Christ, 2015). The school administered the measure and pro- vided the scores to the research team. To ensure fidelity of implementation, all under - graduate research assistants were required to administer all assessments with 100% accuracy to the primary investigator prior to beginning assessment with study partici- pants. The primary investigator and project coordinator were also present in the school to answer questions during administration and to provide ongoing support as needed to ensure successful delivery of the group and individual assessment battery. All assess- ments were rescored twice by two different research assistants to ensure accuracy in scoring. To ensure fidelity of assessment for the Fastbridge aReading measure, which was administered by classroom teachers, the school district’s reading coach delivered training sessions to all teachers prior to administration and provided ongoing support during assessment delivery. Reading‑related measures FastBridge aReading (Christ, 2015). FastBridge Adaptive Reading (aReading) is a com- puter-administered assessment. The aReading test measures students’ proficiency in vari- ous reading-related domains such as concepts of print, vocabulary, and comprehension of literary and informational text. The test requires students to answer questions related to the main idea and structure of the text. It also requires students to make inferences by integrat- ing knowledge and ideas presented in the text. Students answer approximately 30 questions and receive a composite score based on their performance. The content, construct, and pre- dictive validity of aReading were assessed by comparing results to other reading meas- ures such as the Gates-MacGinitie reading comprehension test (MacGinitie et al., 2000) (median r = 0.78) and Measure of Academic Progress (MAP; Northwest Evaluation Asso- ciation, 2016) (median r = 0.77). The reported alternate form reliability is 0.95, the internal consistency is 0.95, and the test–retest reliability ranges from 0.71 to 0.86. Woodcock–Johnson Oral Comprehension (WJ; Woodcock et al., 2001). The WJ oral comprehension subtest requires students to listen to orally presented sentences and short passages. Students then complete a sentence or short passage by orally providing the miss- ing word that makes sense in the context. For example, given the verbal prompt, “A fish ______,” a student might say “swims” to accurately complete the sentence. The reported median test reliability for this subtest is 0.85. Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2; Torgesen et al., 2012). The TOWRE-2 sight word efficiency (SWE) subtest is a standardized, individually administered, timed test that requires students to read a list of printed words in 45 s. The test measures an individual’s ability to decode real words fluently. The phonemic decoding efficiency (PDE) subtest is also an individually administered timed test that gives students 45 s to read a list of pseudo words (e.g., ip, sline). The PDE subtest measures students’ ability to phonetically decode words fluently. The test–retest reliability is 0.90 for a sample of third- and fifth-graders, while alternative-form reliability exceeds 0.90. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test‑2 Verbal Reasoning (KBIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). The KBIT verbal reasoning measures students’ receptive and expressive vocab- ulary calculated using students’ scores on two subtests (i.e., verbal knowledge and rid- dles). In the verbal knowledge subtest, students are presented with an oral question and required to choose from one of six illustrations that best answers the question. In the rid- dles’ subtest, students are orally presented with a riddle and required to point to a picture or say a word that answers the riddle (e.g., point to something crunchy that elephants eat). Both subtests are discontinued when students provide four consecutive incorrect answers. Raw scores from both subtests are used to calculate a verbal reasoning standard score. The internal consistency for the test ranges from 0.90 to 0.93, and the test–retest reli- ability ranges from 0.85 to 0.88 for the age range of the sample in this study. The concur- rent validity of the KBIT-2 verbal reasoning test and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence’s vocabulary subtest (WASI; Wechsler, 1999) is 0.84 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Cognitive measures Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test‑2 Non‑Verbal Reasoning (KBIT-2; Kaufman & Kauf- man, 2004). The KBIT-2 non-verbal reasoning subtest measures examinees’ fluid-reason- ing and visual-processing abilities. Students are presented with a visual stimulus and have to decide which of the five pictures best match the stimulus picture. The number of pictures students choose from goes up to six as the test progresses. The matrices subtest is discon- tinued when a ceiling is reached (i.e., students provide four consecutive incorrect answers). Raw scores from the matrices’ subtests are used to calculate a non-verbal reasoning stand- ard score. The internal consistency for this test ranges from 0.81 to 0.87, and the test–retest reliability ranges from 0.69 to 0.76 for the age range of our study sample. The concurrent validity of the KBIT-2 non-verbal reasoning test and the WASI matrix reasoning subtest (Wechsler, 1999) is 0.81 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ; Schrank et al., 2001). We admin- istered the WJ numbers reversed and the WJ memory for words subtest from the Test of Cognitive Abilities test battery. The WJ numbers reversed and the WJ memory for words have a median test reliability of 0.87 and 0.80, respectively. Both subtests are auditory tests that require the tester to read out a list of numbers or words and elicit oral responses from the test takers. In the numbers reversed subtest, the tester reads out a list of numbers (e.g., 3–8-6), and the test taker must reverse the sequence and repeat the numbers (e.g., 6–8-3). This subtest requires students to mentally manipulate numbers, which tests their cognitive flexibility and working memory. In the memory for words subtest, the tester reads out a list of unrelated words (e.g., mother, chair) and expects the test taker to repeat those words in the order they were presented. This subtest measures individuals’ short-term memory and attention. Data analysis Latent profile analysis (LPA) was employed using covariance matrices of individuals to uncover latent groups of students’ reading profiles (Bauer & Curran, 2004). LPA allows researchers to investigate the different reader profiles using continuous indica- tors and analyze the predicted value of average scores on various continuous variables 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students for members of individual profile groups. LPA analysis maximizes homogeneity within each profile as well as heterogeneity between subgroups. Importantly, these individual- profile subgroups are latent and not observed because membership is determined by investigating patterns of means and associations between indicator variables. In other words, the goal of LPA is to uncover latent subgroups of profiles (k ) of individuals (i) who have similar patterns of responses or scores on indicator measures (j) (Ferguson et al., 2020; Sterba, 2013). Similar to structural equation modeling (SEM), there are multiple steps involved in LPA analysis. The first step is to analyze a series of iterative models to determine the num- ber of profiles to retain. We used the TOWRE SWE and PDE (word reading), FastBridge aReading (reading comprehension), WJ Oral Comprehension (language comprehension), and KBIT-Verbal Knowledge (vocabulary) to determine and index the underlying read- ing profiles of rural students in upper-elementary grades. We used standard scores for all measures except the FastBridge aReading. The FastBridge aReading data were available in an extended scale format, and using the measure in the reported format could confound findings because of the different at-risk of reading cutoff points for students in Grades 5 and 6. To overcome this issue, we first created a subset of our data for Grades 5 and 6 stu- dents and then converted the FastBridge aReading scores into z-scores, separately for each grade-level, prior to our analysis. Next, model retention decisions, to determine the number of rural upper-elementary grade reader profiles, were done by examining various indices. As recommended in the literature, we used log likelihood value, Bayesian information criterion (BIC), sample- adjusted Bayesian information criterion (SABIC), and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) (Ferguson et al., 2020). Across these four fit indices (i.e., log likelihood, BIC, SABIC, AIC), lower values indicate better fit. We also used entropy as a measure of profile classification certainty with higher values indicating a better fit of participant profile for a given dataset. Some researchers have iden- tified values of 0.80 or greater as a benchmark that indicates minimal uncertainty in the model (Tein et al., 2013). Finally, we also evaluated the model using the Bootstrap Likeli- hood Ratio Test (BLRT) and Lo–Mendell–Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test (LMRT). Both the BLRT and LMRT are utilized to measure the differences between k-1 and k class models. Additionally, a p-value allows to test the difference between the two models with p-values < 0.05 indicating k class models as a significantly better fit compared to the k-1 class model. Most importantly, we relied on reading theories and prior work in this area to evaluate the reasonableness of the models. Following the LPA analysis, and the determination of the optimal number of profiles to retain, we conducted the analysis to explore the differences between latent groups on covariate measures. It is important to note that covariate analysis has no impact on the creation of the profiles especially because this analysis is conducted after the optimal num- ber of profiles has been determined (Marsh et al., 2009). To conduct the covariate analysis, latent classes were regressed on cognitive measures such as WJ working memory of words, WJ working memory of numbers, and KBIT non-verbal reasoning. We used a three-step process referred to as the Bolck–Croon–Hagenaars approach (BCH; Bolck et al., 2004). In the BCH approach, the first step is to determine the optimal number of latent profiles rep- resented in the data without including the covariates. Next, students’ individual class prob- abilities are utilized to indicate their probability of membership into each latent reading profile. The third step is to conduct a multinomial logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between cognitive predictors (i.e., working memory, non-verbal reasoning) and the likelihood of dummy-coded profile membership. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth One of the key assumptions of LPA is local independence. MPlus automatically imposes local independence across latent profiles by constraining indicators to be uncorrelated for each latent class. Given this default mode, if the model fits well, then it can be inferred that the assumption was met. We used the maximum likelihood estimation with robust stand- ard errors estimator (MLR) for the analyses. All analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2017). We ran the LPA and covariate analyses using the Mplus syn- tax presented by Ferguson and colleagues (2020). Finally, all students in our sample were tested across measures at pretest, and there were no missing data. Results Table 1 presents demographic data for the sample. Table 2 presents correlation data between reading and cognitive measures. Additionally, Table 2 presents the mean scores for each variable for the study sample. LPA model We selected a four-profile model solution because it was the only model with a signifi- cant LMRT when comparing k and k-1 models (see Table 3). Additionally, the four-pro- file solution also demonstrated the highest entropy (0.869). Table 4 and Fig. 1 present the estimated means for each reading-related measure for each of the four reader pro- files. Results suggest that within our sample of Grade 5 and 6 rural-school students, there appears to be a small sample (n = 4; 1.5% of the sample) of students who have the most Table 1 Demographic table Demographics n Proportion Grade Five 155 .59 Six 107 .41 Sex Female 142 .46 Male 120 .54 English language learner Yes 152 .58 No 110 .42 Ethnicity Asian 49 .19 Black 15 .06 Hispanic/Latino 135 .52 White 43 .16 Other 20 .07 Home language English 81 .31 Not English 178 .68 Not reported 3 .01 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Table 2 Correlation and descriptive statistics for measures Variables (constructs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. WJ oral comprehension (LC) 2. FastBridge aReading (RC) .65 3. TOWRE sight word efficiency (WR) .41 .65 4. TOWRE phonemic decoding efficiency .32 .57 .79 (WR) 5. WJ working memory – words (WM) .23 .30 .30 .32 6. WJ working memory – numbers (WM) .28 .44 .49 .51 .45 7. KBIT non-verbal reasoning (IA) .42 .52 .33 .26 .12 .32 8. KBIT verbal reasoning (Vocab) .73 .76 .51 .40 .24 .33 .52 N 262 Mean 95.71 0.00 99.22 99.13 97.74 99.64 101.74 90.37 SD 16.91 0.99 15.80 15.74 19.35 17.87 16.05 16.44 Note: LC, listening comprehension; RC, reading comprehension; WR, word reading; WM, working memory; IA, intellectual ability; Vocab, vocabulary; WJ, Woodcock Johnson; TOWRE, Test of Word Reading Effi- ciency; KBIT, Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test Bolded correlation coefficients are significant at p < .01 Table 3 Latent profile analysis model fit summary Model Log likelihood AIC BIC SABIC Entropy Class count LMRT p-value BLRT p-value 1 − 4775 9571 9607 9575 - - - - 2 − 4587 9206 9264 9213 .803 91, 171 .093 < .001 3 − 4496 9037 9115 9046 .857 21, 127, 114 .469 < .001 4 − 4457 8970 9070 8982 .869 4, 37, 121, 100 .040 < .001 5 − 4416 8901 9022 8914 .846 112, 5, 36, 58, .179 < .001 AIC, Akaike’s information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; SABIC, sample-adjusted BIC; LMRT, Lo-Mendell Ruben test; BLRT, Bootstrap likelihood ratio test Note: The BLRT and LMR test compare the current model to a model with k − 1 profiles severe reading disabilities and perform approximately three standard deviations below the mean on all reading-related measures. The second profile (n = 37; 14% of the sample) includes students who scored approximately one standard deviation below the mean on word-reading measures such as TOWRE SWE (M = 82.73) and PDE (M = 84.08) and the reading comprehension measure (M = − 1.28). On listening comprehension (M = 73.34) and vocabulary knowledge (M = 68.11), the second profile-cluster scored approximately two standard deviations below the mean. The third profile (n = 121; 46.5% of the sample) encompassed approximately half the sample of students in our study. This profile includes students who performed just below the mean on word-reading measures such as TOWRE SWE (M = 93.58) and PDE (M = 94.99), listening comprehension (M = 95.71), and reading comprehension (M = − 0.10). However, this cluster of students seems to be at some-risk of reading failure due to their lower vocabulary mean estimate (M = 88.51). Finally, the fourth profile (n = 100; 38% of the sample) includes students who performed above average on all reading measures and can be considered typically developing readers. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Table 4 Four-profile model results Variable Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Severe reading At high risk of read- At some risk of Typical readers disability (n = 4) ing disability (n = 37) reading disability (n = 100) (n = 121) Word reading - TOWRE SW 56.77 (2.04) 82.73 (1.86) 93.58 (2.01) 113.84 (1.42) - TOWRE PD 61.39 (2.20) 84.08 (2.86) 94.99 (1.84) 111.21(1.16) Vocabulary - KBIT – VK 54.06 (5.10) 68.11 (2.65) 88.51 (1.33) 102.24 (2.34) Listening comprehen- sion - WJ 57.36 (5.46) 73.34 (3.08) 95.71 (1.39) 105.45 (1.96) Reading comprehen- sion - FB − 3.84 (0.74) − 1.28 (0.16) − 0.10 (0.06) 0.75 (0.10) FB, FastBridge aReading; WJ, Woodcock–Johnson Oral Comprehension; TOWRE, Test of Word Reading Efficiency; SW, Sight Word Efficiency; PD, phonemic decoding efficiency; KBIT-VK, Kaufman Brief Intel- ligence Test Verbal Knowledge Note: FB extended scale score converted to z-score by grade-level Typical readers (n = 100) At-some risk (n = 121) At-high risk (n = 37) Severe RD (n = 4) -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Word ReadingPhonemic Vocabulary Listening CompReading Comp Decoding Note: All scores were converted to z-scores for this plot to compare measures with different value range. RD, reading disability Fig. 1 Line plot of average scores on reading measures for the four latent profiles Cognitive predictors of profile membership As shown in Table 5, based on the analysis, some covariates demonstrated a significant difference between profile 3 and the other three profiles. Results suggest that WJ working 1 3 Z-score Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Table 5 Cognitive covariate analyses results for the four-profile model Profile 3 (n = 121) vs Cognitive predictors Profile 1 (n = 4) Profile 2 (n = 37) Profile 4 (n = 100) WJ working memory words Estimate (SE) − 0.65** (0.15) − 0.50 (0.35) 0.17** (0.04) Odds ratio (SE) 0.52** (0.16) 0.60 (0.21) 1.18** (0.04) Effect size − 0.38 − 0.11 0.28 WJ working memory numbers Estimate (SE) − 0.04 (0.08) − 0.08 (0.06) 0.01 (0.01) Odds ratio (SE) 0.96 (0.07) 0.92 (0.06) 1.01 (0.01) Effect size − 0.04 − 0.10 0.07 KBIT non-verbal reasoning Estimate (SE) − 0.15* (0.05) − 0.03 (0.04) 0.06** (0.02) Odds ratio (SE) 0.85* (0.06) 0.96 (0.04) 1.06** (0.01) Effect size − 0.27 − 0.06 0.20 Note: WJ, Woodcock Johnson; KBIT, Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test p < .05; **p < .01 memory of numbers did not demonstrate any significant differences across the four reader profiles. In contrast, students with lower WJ working memory of words and lower KBIT non-verbal reasoning were more likely to be in the severe reading-disability profile (i.e., profile 1; n = 4) compared with students at some-risk of reading failure (i.e., profile 3). The reverse is true when comparing students at some-risk of reading failure (i.e., profile 3) to typical readers (i.e., profile 4); that is, higher scores on WJ working memory of words and higher KBIT non-verbal reasoning scores were more likely to be in the typical-reader profile compared to the at some-risk of reading failure profile. Finally, there were no dif- ferences on any cognitive measures between students at high risk of reading disability (i.e., profile 2) compared to students at some-risk of reading disability (i.e., profile 3). Discussion Using the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985) as a framework, the primary aim of this study was to understand the reading profiles of rural upper-elementary grade students with a high proportion of ELs. We also aimed to address past methodological limitations surrounding the use of single indicator models to identify students who are at-risk or not at-risk of reading failure and student samples that exclude diverse rural populations. To overcome both methodological challenges, this study utilizes multiple indicators, the full continuum of reading abilities, and was inclusive of the cur- rent diversity represented in rural US school districts. We examined the following research questions: What are the reading profiles of upper-elementary grade students in a rural school district with a high proportion of ELs? Does performance on cognitive measures predict group membership? Both questions are discussed below. Reading profiles of rural upper‑elementary grade students In general, the results of this study suggest that rural upper-elementary grade students largely fall into four distinct groups, with each group presenting a unique reader profile. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth We found that a small proportion of the sample (i.e., 1.5%) had a severe reading disability (i.e., profile 1). Profile 1 students performed three standard deviations below the mean on measures of word reading, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and reading comprehen- sion. This flat and pervasively low profile is indicative of severe reading disabilities, pos- sibly comorbid with oral-language weaknesses (Kornilov & Grigorenko, 2018). It is highly likely that students in profile 1 have limited grade-level academic vocabulary, restricted world knowledge, and constrained word knowledge thus capping their ability to make the types of inferences needed to understand the grade-level text. Also, because profile 1 stu- dents have limited word-reading skills, they may likely struggle to decode familiar words both accurately and quickly. Similarly, their poor phonemic-decoding skills suggest that they may struggle to decode unfamiliar words in isolation and in text. As a result, profile 1 students may struggle to read connected text accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression. Students presenting profile 1 may benefit from intensive reading intervention, spanning multiple years, targeting the component skills of word reading (accuracy and fluency) and linguistic comprehension to meet grade-level reading benchmarks (Roberts et al., 2015). Results suggest that approximately 14% of the sample was at “high-risk” for reading failure (i.e., profile 2). Profile 2 students performed approximately one standard deviation below the mean on measures of word reading and passage comprehension and two stand- ard deviations below the mean on measures of listening comprehension and vocabulary. Profile 2 students are not as severely impaired as profile 1 students; however, the gap sepa- rating this group from their typically developing peers (i.e., profile 4) is relatively large. Their significant linguistic-comprehension (i.e., vocabulary and listening comprehension) difficulties suggest that they struggle with the acquisition, retention, and use of academic language while reading and listening. Academic language is an essential component of content area disciplines in the upper-elementary grades. From understanding a class lec- ture, to engaging in large-, small-, or peer-group discussions, to reading for understanding, academic language is a central feature of instruction, linguistic comprehension, and inde- pendent learning (Proctor et al., 2019). Because the language of upper-elementary grade instructional texts is increasingly complex, profile 2 students may benefit from an interven- tion that targets their language-related reading difficulties while also bolstering their lower- than-average word-reading skills. Almost half the sample (i.e., 46.5%) demonstrated “some-risk” of reading failure (i.e., profile 3). Profile 3 students performed slightly lower than typically developing students in profile 4, scoring approximately ¼ standard deviation below the mean on measures of word reading, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension. Of concern, profile 3 students scored approximately ¾ standard deviation below the mean on vocabulary. It is not surprising to see that ELs as well as monolingual English-speaking students with reading difficulties struggle with vocabulary and academic language of the classroom since it represents “a constellation of high-utility language skills that correspond to linguistic features that are prevalent in academic discourse across school content areas and infrequent in colloquial conversation” (Uccelli et al., 2015, p. 338). For this reason, profile 3 students may benefit from intervention that emphasizes vocabulary and comprehension as well as broader dimensions of language. Finally, results suggest that approximately 38% of students in our sample were typi- cally developing (i.e., profile 4). Profile 4 students performed above the mean on all meas- ures. Interestingly, we were unable to detect a smaller subgroup of advanced readers that has been historically reported in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading reports. Results may indicate generally lower-proficiency peaks among students 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students who are educated in rural school districts. The lack of an advanced-reader profile may also be due to the higher proportion of ELs in this sample, who have historically demonstrated lower levels of reading proficiency relative to their typically developing monolingual peers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). It is also the case that the absence of an advanced-reader profile is unique to this sample and replication is required to improve the generalizability of findings. Predictive nature of cognitive abilities The second question addressed in this study was the extent to which performance on cog- nitive measures predicted group membership. While profile analyses yielded four distinct reading profiles, cognitive abilities significantly differentiated students in profile 1. Spe- cifically, students with the most severe reading disabilities (profile 1) performed poorly on cognitive tasks such as working memory for words and inferential processing compared to students at some-risk of reading failure (profile 3). Cognitive abilities also significantly differentiated students in profile 3 from typically developing students in profile 4. Students in profile 3 performed slightly but significantly lower than students in profile 4 on working memory for words and inferential processing. Our findings of struggling readers’ poor performance on cognitive measures raise important questions about how students’ performance on cognitive measures can guide research and practice. Past research on the effects of cognitive-focused interventions on academic outcomes for at-risk student populations has been inconclusive (Kearns & Fuchs, 2013). There is little support to warrant implementing working memory interventions in classrooms to positively impact students’ reading-related outcomes. Elliott and Grigorenko, (2015) recommend that classroom instructors be sensitized to students’ working-memory shortcomings and provide modifications/accommodations to students. One method that has shown some success is to explicitly teach metacognitive strategies to help students struc- ture their reading-related tasks (e.g., García-Madruga et al., 2013). Thus, it may be more beneficial to focus intervention efforts on more malleable aspects such as explicitly teach- ing metacognitive strategies as part of reading instruction to overcome working memory shortcomings. Connections to theory and past research Both the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985) pro- vide useful heuristics for guiding research and practice. A theme that emerges from these two theoretical perspectives is that word-level knowledge and discourse-level knowledge have consequences for the meaning-making processes that support comprehension. Spe- cifically, meaning-making is strongly influenced by knowledge components: knowledge about words (i.e., grammatical forms, spelling, and pronunciations) and their multiple meanings (Perfetti, 2007). Reading experience provides opportunities to integrate meaning extracted from information located within and between sentences with meaning retrieved from our general knowledge stored in long-term memory. These meaning-making and con- necting processes operate during reading to create a mental representation of the situa- tion described by the text (Kintsch, 1988). The resulting mental representation or situation model includes content from the text that is integrated with the reader’s specific topical knowledge to provide an evolving understanding of what has been read. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Individual differences in comprehension are not only the result of the size of one’s store of general knowledge. Another source is the stability of the knowledge that the reader has about word forms and meanings and their capacity to efficiently retrieve and integrate this knowledge to construct coherent representations of the text (Barth et al., 2021; Perfetti, 2007). Less stable knowledge or the lack of knowledge will impose constraints on one’s ability to generate inferences while reading, maintain both local and global textual coher- ence, and independently learn from the text (Barnes et al., 1996, 2015; Barth et al., 2021). Working memory, which is utilized to efficiently integrate information within and between sentences with general knowledge, also represents a reader characteristic that can impose constraints on comprehension (van den Broek et al., 2005). Given the high proportion of ELs in this sample and three reader profiles suggesting deficits in verbal knowledge, what do we know? First, longitudinal studies examining the relationship between verbal knowledge and reading comprehension show that early word knowledge predicts later comprehension among elementary-age children (de Jong & van der Leij, 2002; Oakhill & Cain, 2012; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Among secondary- grade students, a cross-sectional study demonstrates the direct and substantial effects of word and world knowledge on reading comprehension (Ahmed et al., 2016). Second, in studies of struggling comprehenders with intact word-reading skills, difficulties with vocabulary extend beyond simply knowing the meaning of words. Even when these readers have learned the meaning of new words, they may continue to experience difficulties effi- ciently accessing its meaning to form inferences while reading (Cain et al., 2001). Third, research related to ELs consistently shows that vocabulary and linguistic comprehension are significant sources of difficulty (Cho et al., 2019). As a result, ELs require additional practice trials to learn new words, and once new vocabulary is mastered, they do not con- sistently use this knowledge to form inferences while reading to maintain coherence (Barth et al., 2021). Finally, according to Paris (2005), word and world knowledge represents an unconstrained skill. This means that our knowledge base starts to develop before we learn how to read words and continues to grow during as well as after learning how to read for understanding. However, many ELs develop English language proficiency while also learn- ing how to read in English (Klinger et al., 2006). As such, their limited English word and world knowledge is often compounded by difficulties in efficient access to this knowledge in working memory thereby reducing their ability to both establish and maintain under- standing while listening or reading (Perfetti, 2007). Implications for future research There is considerable evidence that students who are at-risk of reading failure form a het- erogenous population that have deficits in multiple reading-related domains (e.g., Capin et al., 2021). These findings seem to remain consistent with urban (e.g., Cirino et al., 2012; Leach et al., 2003), suburban (e.g., Clemens et al., 2019), and now rural samples. The het- erogeneity in reading profiles also seems to be consistent regardless of the language sta- tus of the reader (i.e., EL or non-EL) (O’Connor et al., 2018). Thus, interventions that target students with reading deficits must align instruction to meet the needs of students’ pre-intervention reading profiles and be multicomponent in nature. These suggestions align with recent findings of moderation analyses of experimental studies that have tested the effects of multicomponent reading interventions on reading-related outcomes for at- risk student populations. Extant data analyses of empirical data have consistently shown that intervention effects vary dependent on pretest performance on key reading-related 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students measures such as word reading, listening comprehension, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (e.g., Clemens et al., 2019; Daniel et al., 2021; Vaughn et al., 2019). Furthermore, there is also some evidence from intervention research that dem- onstrates, when intervention is aligned with individual students’ needs there are greater effects of the intervention on students’ reading outcomes (Connor et al., 2007, 2011). For instance, Connor and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that students who were assigned to treatment groups that individualized instruction to their reading needs performed signifi- cantly better at posttest than their peers who received a standardized reading intervention. Given the diverse student reading profiles we uncovered in one school, it is important to develop and test the efficacy of multicomponent reading interventions (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2021) that are customizable to suit the needs of this heterogenous population depending on pre-intervention reading profiles. That is, there is a need to develop multicomponent inter - ventions that can be tailored to meet the needs of different reader profiles. While stand- ardized interventions may help teachers implement the program with fidelity, adaptable interventions that meet the evolving needs of students may prove to be effective (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2015). Our findings also align with past research demonstrating that students in upper-elemen- tary grades continue to struggle with word-reading proficiency (Cirino et al., 2012), and there is a great need to develop word-reading interventions for this population. Addition- ally, more research is needed in addressing the needs of students with the most severe read- ing disabilities. The drastically low scores of this small sample of students should chal- lenge reading interventionists to explore and design reading programs and curricula that are embedded in theoretical frameworks and innovative in design and application. Finally, descriptive statistics (see Table 4) illustrates that all four reader profiles on aver - age scored lowest on the vocabulary measure compared to other reading-related measures. Given the high proportions of ELs in our sample and the historically low performance of ELs on vocabulary measures (Cho et al., 2019; Kieffer & Vukovic, 2012), it is vital for classroom instruction to focus on providing regular explicit instruction in academic lan- guage that includes vocabulary and morphology instruction. Instruction should focus both on knowledge acquisition as well as how to use new knowledge productively while read- ing. This two-pronged approach to instruction will help struggling readers to close the gap between “knowing” and strategically integrating knowledge to form inferences while read- ing, using the knowledge to monitor comprehension, and drawing on the knowledge to fix breaks in understanding. Thus, future research should continue to develop a critical mass of language-focused curricula that promotes deeper engagement with academic vocabulary to improve at-risk students’ lexical representations. Limitations A limitation of the current study is that the sample was derived from one school in a rural school district. Although our findings are mostly consistent with past profile studies, rep- lication studies with other linguistically diverse rural samples are needed to generalize these findings. Furthermore, data for our analyses were collected from one cohort of typi- cal readers and one cohort of at-risk readers across 2 years and combined for our analyses. However, descriptive statistics for the combined cohorts showed normally distributed data with skewness and kurtosis in the acceptable range for all cognitive and reading-related measures. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Additionally, we were unable to administer and did not have access to students’ scores on multiple measures of each construct to create latent variables for our analyses. We also did not have access to measures of certain important reading-related constructs such as phonological awareness, spelling, and reading fluency to provide a more comprehensive view of each reading profile. Furthermore, although a majority of our sample was ELs (58%), we did not have enough power to run latent profile analysis for this subsample of students. Finally, to answer our primary research question, we used an exploratory statisti- cal technique (i.e., LPA), and future research should cross-validate these rural upper-ele- mentary grade reader profiles with larger multi-site samples. Conclusions In summary, like past studies, we found heterogeneity in the profiles of rural upper-elemen- tary grade readers. Profile 1 (severely disabled) emphasized the need for multi-year, inten- sive interventions focused both on word reading and linguistic comprehension. Cognitive skills such as inferential processing and working memory for words also suggested limited capacity which is required for successful and efficient integration of information within and between sentences while reading and listening for understanding. Profile 2 (moderate-risk) and profile 3 (some-risk) highlight the need for improved general education instruction and intense interventions for students educated in the rural setting, particularly ELs. Fine- grained differentiation was observed with linguistic comprehension included in the latent profiling especially with the inclusion of vocabulary. Interestingly, the profiles missing are the classic dyslexic profile wherein students have well-developed linguistic-comprehension skills but are below-average on code-related skills and an advanced-proficient profile dem- onstrating superior mastery of basic reading and language skills associated with reading comprehension. Given the variation in students’ reading skills, it may be that standard- ized and homogenous reading programs may be less effective in meeting the needs of a heterogenous population of readers. Thus, we suggest designing and implementing multi- component reading interventions that vary the dosage of reading components dependent on individual reader profile needs, vary the size of the instructional group, and the duration of the intervention. Funding This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (grant number 1R15HD092922-01A1). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the NICHD. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from one of the co- authors. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Con- temporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2016. 02. 002 Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural edu- cation research: Setting a difference for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20, 1–25. Aro, T., Eklund, K., Eloranta, A. K., Närhi, V., Korhonen, E., & Ahonen, T. (2019). Associations between childhood learning disabilities and adult-age mental health problems, lack of education, and unemployment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(1), 71–83. Asbell, S., Donders, J., Van Tubbergen, M., & Warschausky, S. (2010). Predictors of reading compre- hension in children with cerebral palsy and typically developing children. Child Neuropsychology, 16(4), 313–325. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09297 04100 37335 88 Barnes, M. A., Ahmed, Y., Barth, A., & Francis, D. J. (2015). The relation of knowledge-text integration th th processes and reading comprehension in 7 -to 12 -grade students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(4), 253–272. Barnes, M. A., Dennis, M., & Haefele-Kalvaitis, J. (1996). The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61(3), 216–241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jecp. 1996. 0015 Barth, A. E., Daniel, J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Barnes, M. A., Ankrum, E., & Kincaid, H. (2021). The role of knowledge availability in forming inferences with rural middle grade English learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 88, 102006. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lindif. 2021. 102006 Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2004). The integration of continuous and discrete latent variable models: Potential problems and promising opportunities. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 3. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 74.4. 506 Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J., & Crotty, K. (2011). Low health lit- eracy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(2), 97–107. Bolck, A., Croon, M., & Hagenaars, J. (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12, 3–27. Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assess- ments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219–239. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ bf031 96414 Capin, P., Cho, E., Miciak, J., Roberts, G., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Examining the reading and cognitive profiles of students with significant reading comprehension difficulties. Advance online publication. Cho, E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Roberts, G. J., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 982–1000. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ edu00 00332 Christ, T.J. (2015). Formative assessment system for teachers: Technical manual version2.0, Minneapo- lis, MN: Author and FastBridge Learning (www. fastb ridge. org). Accessed 01 May 2020 Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., Barth, A. E., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059–1086. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11145- 012- 9406-3 Clemens, N. H., Oslund, E., Kwok, O., Fogarty, M., Simmons, D., & Davis, J. L. (2019). Skill modera- tors of the effects of a reading comprehension intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 197–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00144 02918 787339 Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). Algorithm- guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464–465. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S., Bayraktar, A., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics× instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Read- ing Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189–221. Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities, 25, 2–45. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0012- 1649. 33.6. 934 Daniel, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Grills, A. (2021). The importance of baseline word reading skills in examining student response to a multicomponent reading intervention. Journal of Learning Disabili- ties, 55(4), 259–271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19421 10103 49 de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(1), 51–77. Elliott, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2015). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge University Press. Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Deshler, D. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 5826. 2008. 00265.x Ferguson, S. L., Moore, E. W. G., & Hull, D. M. (2020). Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers. International Journal of Behavioral Devel- opment, 44(5), 458. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54313 499616 García‐Madruga, J. A., Elosúa, M. R., Gil, L., Gómez‐Veiga, I., Vila, J. Ó., Orjales, I., … & Duque, G. (2013). Reading comprehension and working memory’s executive processes: An intervention study in primary school students. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 155-174. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07419 32586 00700 104 Graham, S., & Teague, C. (2011). Reading levels of rural and urban third graders lag behind their subur- ban peers. https:// doi. org/ 10. 34051/p/ 2020. 136 Hall, C., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., McCulley, L. V., Carroll, M., & Vaughn, S. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 763–794. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10648- 016- 9372-4 Johnson, J., Ohlson, M. A., & Shope, S. (2018). Demographic changes in rural America and the implica- tions for special education programming: A descriptive and comparative analysis. Rural Special Edu- cation Quarterly, 37(3), 140–149. Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). AGS Publishing. Kearns, D. M., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Does cognitively focused instruction improve the academic perfor- mance of low-achieving students? Exceptional Children, 79(3), 263–290. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and envi- ronmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(1), 75–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9817. 2006. 00293.x Kendou, P., Bohn-Getter, C., White, M. J., & Van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(3), 259–272. Kershaw, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 433–464. Kieffer, M. J., & Vukovic, R. K. (2012). Components and context. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 433–452. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19411 432683 Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163. Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with read- ing: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19406 03900 20101 Kornilov, S. A., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2018). What reading disability? Evidence for multiple latent profiles of struggling readers in a large Russian sibpair sample with at least one sibling at risk for reading dif- ficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(5), 434–443. 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Chiu, Y. D. (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 289–303. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07419 32518 762055 Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 95(2), 211–224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 95.2. 211 Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Develop- mental Psychology, 31(6), 475–483. Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse lin- guistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 821–834. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 99.4. 821 Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07419 32518 764833 MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dreyer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2000). Gates– MacGinitie Reading Tests (4th ed.). Riverside. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling read- ers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0019 135 Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of aca- demic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person-and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 191–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 51090 27510 10 McHenry-Sorber, E. (2019). Why rural matters 2018-2019: The time is now: Interview with authors Jerry Johnson, Daniel Showalter, and Sara Hartman. The Rural Educator, 40(3), 62–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 35608/ rural ed. v40i3. 930 Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). Accuracy and validity of methods for identifying learning disabilities in a RTI service delivery framework. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of mul- titiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 421–440). Springer. Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide, 8th ed). Muthén & Muthén. Nation, K., Clarke, P., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). General cognitive ability in children with reading com- prehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 549–560. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 00070 99026 03776 04 National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Digest of educational statistics. Retrieved from: https:// nces. ed. gov/ progr ams/ digest/. Accessed 01 Aug 2021 Northwest Evaluation Association. (2016). Linking the Kentucky K-PREP assessments to NWEA MAP tests. Northwest Evaluation Association. Retrieved from https:// www. nwea. org/ about/ Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121. O’Connor, M., Geva, E., & Koh, P. W. (2018). Examining reading comprehension profiles of grade 5 monolinguals and English language learners through the lexical quality hypothesis lens. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 232–246. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19418 815646 Paasche-Orlow, M. K., & Wolf, M. S. (2007). The causal pathways linking health literacy to health out- comes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(1), 19–26. Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202. Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C. C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 48–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ bul00 00124 Peng, P., Zhang, Z., Wang, W., Lee, K., Wang, T., Wang, C., Luo, J., & Lin, J. (2022). A meta-analytic review of cognition and reading difficulties: Individual differences, moderation, and language medi- ation mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 148(3–4), 227–272. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ bul00 00361 Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., Jones, R. L., & Hartranft, A. M. (2019). Teaching bilin- gual learners: Effects of a language-based reading intervention on academic language and reading 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 95–122. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ rrq. 258 Roberts, G., Rane, S., Fall, A. M., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2015). The impact of intensive reading intervention on level of attention in middle school students. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 942–953. Roscigno, V. J., & Crowle, M. L. (2001). Rurality, institutional disadvantage, and achievement/attain- ment*. Rural Sociology, 66(2), 268–292. Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86, 756–800. Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Assessment service bulletin number 2: WJ III technical abstract. Riverside. Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., ... & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Sci- entific Studies of Reading, 3(1), 69–94. Silva, M., & Cain, K. (2015). The relations between lower and higher level comprehension skills and their role in prediction of early reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 321– 331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0037 769 Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Erlbaum. Sterba, S. K. (2013). Understanding linkages among mixture models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 775–815. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00273 171. 2013. 827564 Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934. Swanson, H., Howard, C. B., & Saez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie dif- ferent subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19406 03900 30501 Tein, J. Y., Coxe, S., & Cham, H. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 640–657. Tighe, E. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2013). A dominance analysis approach to determining predictor impor- tance in third, seventh, and tenth grade reading comprehension skills. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 101–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11145- 013- 9435-6 Tighe, E. L., Wagner, R. K., & Schatschneider, C. (2015). Applying a multiple group causal indicator mod- eling framework to the reading comprehension skills of third, seventh, and tenth grade students. Read- ing and Writing, 28(4), 439–466. Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Com- ponents of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383–401. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency:(TOWRE-2). Pearson Clinical Assessment. Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Explor- ing cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. Van Den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist pro- cesses in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 299–316. Vaughn, S., Grills, A. E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Fall, A.-M., & Daniel, J. (2021). Examining the effects of integrating anxiety management instruction within a reading intervention for upper elementary stu- dents with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19421 10532 25 Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Miciak, J., Cho, E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2019). How initial word read- ing and language skills affect reading comprehension outcomes for students with reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 180–196. Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 313–330. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 799xs sr0404_4 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Verhoeven, L. (2017). Learning to read in a second language. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parilla (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 215–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Otaiba, S. A., Kent, S. C., Schatschneider, C., Haynes, M., . . . Jones, F. G. (2016). Examining the average and local effects of a standardized treatment for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(Sup1), 45-66.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19345 747. 2015. 11160 32 Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. Psychological Corporation. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III. Riverside. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Annals of Dyslexia Springer Journals http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/exploring-reading-profiles-of-rural-school-students-MWlcQpoGVr

Loading next page...

References (110)

J. Cromley, R. Azevedo (2007)
Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99
(2016)
Linking the Kentucky K-PREP assessments to NWEA MAP tests. Northwest Evaluation Association
C. Connor, F. Morrison, Barry Fishman, C. Schatschneider, Phyllis Underwood (2007)
Algorithm-Guided Individualized Reading Instruction
Science, 315
MA Barnes (2015)
253
Scientific Studies of Reading, 19
G. Roberts, S. Rane, Anna-Mária Fall, Carolyn Denton, J. Fletcher, S. Vaughn (2015)
The Impact of Intensive Reading Intervention on Level of Attention in Middle School Students
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44
D. Shankweiler, Eric Lundquist, L. Katz, K. Stuebing, J. Fletcher, S. Brady, Anne Fowler, Lois Dreyer, K. Marchione, S. Shaywitz, B. Shaywitz (1999)
Comprehension and Decoding: Patterns of Association in Children With Reading Difficulties
Scientific Studies of Reading, 3
S. Sterba (2013)
Understanding Linkages Among Mixture Models
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48
Sarah Ferguson, E. Moore, Darrell Hull (2020)
Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44
J. Oakhill, K. Cain (2012)
The Precursors of Reading Ability in Young Readers: Evidence From a Four-Year Longitudinal Study
Scientific Studies of Reading, 16
T Aro (2019)
71
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52
Nancy Scammacca, Garrett Roberts, Eunsoo Cho, K. Williams, G. Roberts, S. Vaughn, Megan Carroll (2016)
A Century of Progress
Review of Educational Research, 86
Peng Peng, M. Barnes, Cuicui Wang, Wei Wang, Shanghua Li, H. Swanson, William Dardick, Sha Tao (2018)
A Meta-Analysis on the Relation Between Reading and Working Memory
Psychological Bulletin, 144
Eunsoo Cho, Philip Capin, G. Roberts, Garrett Roberts, S. Vaughn (2019)
Examining Sources and Mechanisms of Reading Comprehension Difficulties: Comparing English Learners and Non-English Learners within the Simple View of Reading.
Journal of educational psychology, 111 6
Nonie Lesaux, A. Rupp, L. Siegel (2007)
Growth in reading skills of children from diverse linguistic backgrounds : Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99
Stacey Storch, G. Whitehurst (2002)
Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: evidence from a longitudinal structural model.
Developmental psychology, 38 6
A Bolck (2004)
3
Political Analysis, 12
J. Keenan, Rebecca Betjemann, S. Wadsworth, J. Defries, R. Olson (2006)
Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension
Journal of Research in Reading, 29
K. Simon, W. Grant, C. Lind (1966)
Digest of educational statistics
M. Paasche-Orlow, M. Wolf (2007)
The causal pathways linking health literacy to health outcomes.
American journal of health behavior, 31 Suppl 1
P. Jong, A. Leij (2002)
Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 6
(2019)
Test of Word Reading Efficiency -2[TOWRE-2)
T. Aro, K. Eklund, Anna-Kaija Eloranta, V. Närhi, E. Korhonen, T. Ahonen (2019)
Associations Between Childhood Learning Disabilities and Adult-Age Mental Health Problems, Lack of Education, and Unemployment
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52
N. Berkman, Stacey Sheridan, Katrina Donahue, David Halpern, Karen Crotty (2011)
Low Health Literacy and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review
Annals of Internal Medicine, 155
Jennifer Leach, H. Scarborough, L. Rescorla (2003)
Late-emerging reading disabilities.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95
K Cain (2001)
850
Memory & Cognition, 29
AE Barth (2021)
102006
Learning and Individual Differences, 88
A. Bolck, M. Croon, J. Hagenaars (2004)
Estimating Latent Structure Models with Categorical Variables: One-Step Versus Three-Step Estimators
Political Analysis, 12
(2014)
The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues
C. Connor, F. Morrison, Barry Fishman, Sarah Giuliani, Melissa Luck, Phyllis Underwood, A. Bayraktar, E. Crowe, C. Schatschneider (2011)
Testing the Impact of Child Characteristics × Instruction Interactions on Third Graders' Reading Comprehension by Differentiating Literacy Instruction.
Reading research quarterly, 46 3
JK Klingner, AJ Artiles, LM Barletta (2006)
English language learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39
Jeanne Wanzek, Y. Petscher, Stephanie Otaiba, Shawn Kent, C. Schatschneider, Martha Haynes, Brenna Rivas, Francesca Jones (2016)
Examining the Average and Local Effects of a Standardized Treatment for Fourth Graders With Reading Difficulties
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9
Y Ahmed (2016)
68
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44–45
S. Kornilov, E. Grigorenko (2018)
What Reading Disability? Evidence for Multiple Latent Profiles of Struggling Readers in a Large Russian Sibpair Sample With at Least One Sibling at Risk for Reading Difficulties
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51
H. Swanson, Crystal Howard, Leilani Sáez (2006)
Do Different Components of Working Memory Underlie Different Subgroups of Reading Disabilities?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39
P. Uccelli, E. Galloway, C. Barr, A. Meneses, C. Dobbs (2015)
Beyond Vocabulary: Exploring Cross-Disciplinary Academic-Language Proficiency and Its Association With Reading Comprehension
Reading Research Quarterly, 50
J. Wyman, Miriam Wendle
What is reading ability
Journal of Educational Psychology, 12
S. Vaughn, Amie Grills, Philip Capin, G. Roberts, Anna-Mária Fall, Johny Daniel (2021)
Examining the Effects of Integrating Anxiety Management Instruction Within a Reading Intervention for Upper Elementary Students With Reading Difficulties
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55
Jeannette Mancilla‐Martinez, Nonie Lesaux (2011)
The gap between Spanish speakers' word reading and word knowledge: a longitudinal study.
Child development, 82 5
W. Kintsch (1988)
The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model.
Psychological review, 95 2
J. Tein, Stefany Coxe, Heining Cham (2013)
Statistical Power to Detect the Correct Number of Classes in Latent Profile Analysis
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20
Elizabeth Tighe, R. Wagner, C. Schatschneider (2015)
Applying a multiple group causal indicator modeling framework to the reading comprehension skills of third, seventh, and tenth grade students
Reading and Writing, 28
Y. Ahmed, D. Francis, Mary York, J. Fletcher, M. Barnes, Paulina Kulesz (2016)
Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44
Macarena Silva, K. Cain (2014)
The relations between lower and higher level comprehension skills and their role in prediction of early reading comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 107
J. Elliott, E. Grigorenko (2014)
The Dyslexia Debate
Formative assessment system for teachers: Technical manual version2.0, Minneapolis, MN: Author and FastBridge Learning (www. fastb ridge. org)
Colby Hall, Garrett Roberts, Eunsoo Cho, Lisa McCulley, Megan Carroll, S. Vaughn (2016)
Reading Instruction for English Learners in the Middle Grades: a Meta-Analysis
Educational Psychology Review, 29
Johny Daniel, S. Vaughn, G. Roberts, Amie Grills (2021)
The Importance of Baseline Word Reading Skills in Examining Student Response to a Multicomponent Reading Intervention
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55
Nathan Clemens, Eric Oslund, Oi-man Kwok, Melissa Fogarty, Deborah Simmons, John Davis (2018)
Skill Moderators of the Effects of a Reading Comprehension Intervention
Exceptional Children, 85
J. García-Madruga, M. Elosúa, Laura Gil, I. Gómez-Veiga, J. Vila, I. Orjales, Antonio Contreras, Raquel Rodríguez, M. Melero, G. Duque (2013)
Reading Comprehension and Working Memory's Executive Processes: An Intervention Study in Primary School Students
Reading Research Quarterly, 48
P. Cirino, Melissa Romain, Amy Barth, Tammy Tolar, J. Fletcher, S. Vaughn (2012)
Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers
Reading and Writing, 26
S. Paris (2005)
Reinterpreting the development of reading skills
Reading Research Quarterly, 40
Devin Kearns, D. Fuchs (2013)
Does Cognitively Focused Instruction Improve the Academic Performance of Low-Achieving Students?
Exceptional Children, 79
Michael Arnold, John Newman, B. Gaddy, Ceri Dean (2005)
A Look at the Condition of Rural Education Research: Setting a Direction for Future Research
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20
L. Verhoeven (2000)
Components in Early Second Language Reading and Spelling
Scientific Studies of Reading, 4
P. Broek, D. Rapp, Panayiota Kendeou (2005)
Integrating Memory-Based and Constructionist Processes in Accounts of Reading Comprehension
Discourse Processes, 39
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
S. Vaughn, G. Roberts, Philip Capin, Jeremy Miciak, Eunsoo Cho, J. Fletcher (2018)
How Initial Word Reading and Language Skills Affect Reading Comprehension Outcomes for Students With Reading Difficulties
Exceptional Children, 85
Deborah Simmons, E. Kameenui (1998)
What Reading Research Tells Us about Children with Diverse Learning Needs: Bases and Basics. The LEA Series on Special Education and Disability.
J. Fletcher (2006)
Learning Disabilities : From Identification to Intervention
MR Buly (2002)
219
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24
C. Perfetti (2007)
Reading Ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension
Scientific Studies of Reading, 11
DJ Bauer (2004)
3
Psychological Methods, 9
C. Proctor, R. Silverman, Jeffrey Harring, Renata Jones, Anna Hartranft (2019)
Teaching Bilingual Learners: Effects of a Language‐Based Reading Intervention on Academic Language and Reading Comprehension in Grades 4 and 5
Reading Research Quarterly
K. Nation, Paula Clarke, M. Snowling (2002)
General cognitive ability in children with reading comprehension difficulties.
The British journal of educational psychology, 72 Pt 4
ML Arnold (2005)
1
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20
Philip Capin, Eunsoo Cho, Jeremy Miciak, G. Roberts, S. Vaughn (2021)
Examining the Reading and Cognitive Profiles of Students With Significant Reading Comprehension Difficulties
Learning Disability Quarterly, 44
Jerry Johnson, M. Ohlson, S. Shope (2018)
Demographic Changes in Rural America and the Implications for Special Education Programming: A Descriptive and Comparative Analysis
Rural Special Education Quarterly, 37
Barth 1 3 comprehension in grades 4 and 5
Michael Faggella-Luby, D. Deshler (2008)
Reading Comprehension in Adolescents with LD: What We Know; What We Need to Learn
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23
M. Barnes, M. Dennis, Jennifer Haefele-Kalvaitis (1996)
The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age.
Journal of experimental child psychology, 61 3
Amy Barth, Johny Daniel, G. Roberts, S. Vaughn, M. Barnes, Ethan Ankrum, Heather Kincaid (2021)
The Role of Knowledge Availability in Forming Inferences with Rural Middle Grade English Learners.
Learning and individual differences, 88
Jeannette Mancilla‐Martinez, Nonie Lesaux (2010)
Predictors of Reading Comprehension for Struggling Readers: The Case of Spanish-speaking Language Minority Learners.
Journal of educational psychology, 102 3
Panayiota Kendeou, Catherine Bohn-Gettler, M. White, P. Broek (2008)
Children's inference generation across different media
Journal of Research in Reading, 31
B. Wawire, B. Piper, Xinya Liang (2021)
Examining the simple view of reading in Kiswahili: Longitudinal evidence from Kenya
Learning and Individual Differences
Suzanne Graham, Christine Teague (2011)
Reading Levels of Rural and Urban Third Graders Lag behind Their Suburban Peers. Issue Brief Number 28.
(2001)
Assessment service bulletin number 2: WJ III technical abstract. Riverside
MA Barnes (1996)
216
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61
Y. Chiu (2018)
The Simple View of Reading Across Development: Prediction of Grade 3 Reading Comprehension From Prekindergarten Skills
Remedial and Special Education, 39
Michael Kieffer, R. Vukovic (2012)
Components and Context
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45
Nonie Lesaux, Amy Crosson, Michael Kieffer, M. Pierce (2010)
Uneven Profiles: Language Minority Learners' Word Reading, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension Skills.
Journal of applied developmental psychology, 31 6
(2015)
Accuracy and validity of methods for identifying learning disabilities in a RTI service delivery framework
Linda Guebert (1984)
Learning to Read in a Second Language.
, 15
Elizabeth Tighe, C. Schatschneider (2014)
A dominance analysis approach to determining predictor importance in third, seventh, and tenth grade reading comprehension skills
Reading and Writing, 27
R. Dumont, John Willis, Kathleen Veizel, Jamie Zibulsky (2014)
Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
J. Tilstra, Kristen McMaster, P. Broek, Panayiota Kendeou, D. Rapp (2009)
Simple but complex: components of the simple view of reading across grade levels
Journal of Research in Reading, 32
Marsha Buly, Sheila Valencia (2002)
Below the Bar: Profiles of Students who Fail State Reading Assessments
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24
Sarah Kershaw, C. Schatschneider (2012)
A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading
Reading and Writing, 25
Shana Asbell, J. Donders, Marie Tubbergen, S. Warschausky (2010)
Predictors of Reading Comprehension in Children with Cerebral Palsy and Typically Developing Children
Child Neuropsychology, 16
J. García, K. Cain (2014)
Decoding and Reading Comprehension
Review of Educational Research, 84
Daniel Bauer, P. Curran (2004)
The integration of continuous and discrete latent variable models: potential problems and promising opportunities.
Psychological methods, 9 1
IL Beck (1982)
506
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74
Philip Gough, W. Tunmer (1986)
Decoding, Reading, and Reading Disability
Remedial and Special Education, 7
Peng Peng, Zheng Zhang, W. Wang, Kejin Lee, Tengfei Wang, Cuicui Wang, Jie Luo, Jiang Lin (2022)
A meta-analytic review of cognition and reading difficulties: Individual differences, moderation, and language mediation mechanisms.
Psychological Bulletin
Erin McHenry-Sorber (2019)
Why Rural Matters 2018-2019: The Time is Now: Interview with Authors Jerry Johnson, Daniel Showalter, and Sara Hartman
The rural educator, 40
ND Berkman (2011)
97
Annals of Internal Medicine, 155
(2017)
Mplus user's guide, 8th ed)
Isabel Beck, C. Perfetti, Margaret McKeown (1982)
Effects of Long-Term Vocabulary Instruction on Lexical Access and Reading Comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74
M. O’Connor, E. Geva, P. Koh (2018)
Examining Reading Comprehension Profiles of Grade 5 Monolinguals and English Language Learners Through the Lexical Quality Hypothesis Lens
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52
NK Scammacca, GJ Roberts, E Cho, KJ Williams, G Roberts, SR Vaughn, M Carroll (2016)
A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4?12, 1914?2014
Review of Educational Research, 86
D. Fuerst (2008)
Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention
Child Neuropsychology, 14
M. Barnes, Y. Ahmed, Amy Barth, D. Francis (2015)
The Relation of Knowledge-Text Integration Processes and Reading Comprehension in 7th- to 12th-Grade Students
Scientific Studies of Reading, 19
Vincent Roscigno, Martha Crowle (2009)
Rurality, Institutional Disadvantage, and Achievement/Attainment*
Rural Sociology, 66
P Kendou, C Bohn-Getter, MJ White, P Van den Broek (2008)
Children?s inference generation across media
Journal of Research in Reading, 31
K. Cain, J. Oakhill, M. Barnes, P. Bryant (2001)
Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge
Memory & Cognition, 29
(2020)
Author and FastBridge Learning (www. fastb ridge
H. Marsh, O. Lüdtke, U. Trautwein, Alexandre Morin (2009)
Classical Latent Profile Analysis of Academic Self-Concept Dimensions: Synergy of Person- and Variable-Centered Approaches to Theoretical Models of Self-Concept
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16
A. Cunningham, K. Stanovich (1997)
Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later.
Developmental psychology, 33 6
J. Klingner, Alfredo Artiles, Laura Barletta (2006)
English Language Learners Who Struggle With Reading
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39
S Asbell (2010)
313
Child Neuropsychology, 16
C. Lonigan, Stephen Burgess, C. Schatschneider (2018)
Examining the Simple View of Reading With Elementary School Children: Still Simple After All These Years
Remedial and Special Education, 39

Publisher: Springer Journals
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
ISSN: 0736-9387
eISSN: 1934-7243
DOI: 10.1007/s11881-022-00276-y
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study investigates the reading profiles of rural Grade 5 and 6 students (N = 262), a sample with a high proportion of English language learners. We administered a battery of reading and cognitive assessments to classify students’ reading profiles and evaluate if performance on cognitive measures predicted membership in particular profiles. Data were analyzed using latent profile analysis. Latent profile analysis showed four distinct reading profiles in our sample: students with severe reading disabilities (< 2%), students at high risk of reading disability (14%), students at some-risk of reading disability (46%), and stu- dents who are typical readers (38%). Lower performance on cognitive measures was asso- ciated with group membership in the severe reading profile group compared to the group of students at some-risk of reading failure. In contrast, higher performance on cognitive measures was associated with group membership in the typical reader group compared to students at some-risk of reading failure. In keeping with the findings from past studies doc- umenting reader profiles, we found heterogeneity in the reading profiles of rural upper-ele- mentary grade students. We discuss the need for multicomponent interventions that target all areas of reading with some flexibility in the dosage of each reading component depend- ent on the reader profiles established prior to intervention. Keywords Cognition · Latent profile · Reading disabilities · Reading profile · Rural Compelling evidence links reading comprehension with improved educational outcomes, access to and appropriate use of health care resources, and greater short- and long-term employment opportunities (Aro et al., 2019; Berkman et al, 2011; Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). A large body of evidence also suggests that reading comprehension represents a factor that mitigates intractable health disparities among marginalized and minoritized sub- groups of children and adults in the USA (Paasche-Orlow & Wolf, 2007). Despite the well- intentioned efforts of reading researchers to improve reading outcomes for at-risk student populations such as students with reading difficulties and English language learners’ (ELs), results of reading interventions for students in the upper elementary and secondary grades largely indicate small to moderate effects (Hall et al., 2017; Scammacca et al., 2016). * Johny Daniel Johny.r.daniel@durham.ac.uk School of Education, Durham University, Leazes Rd, Durham DH1 1TA, UK William Jewell College, Liberty, MO, USA 1 3 Vol.:(0123456789) J. Daniel, A. Barth These findings suggest that although current interventions lead to practical and meaningful improvements in reading skills, they do not close the large performance gap that struggling readers must overcome to adequately comprehend grade-level texts (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014; Faggella-Luby & Deshler, 2008). To better understand students’ modest response to reading interventions, several researchers have conducted extant data analyses using intervention data. The analyses have demonstrated that pretest reading skills across different reading-related domains signifi- cantly influence response to treatment (e.g., Clemens et al., 2019; Daniel et al., 2021). For instance, Daniel et al. (2021) reported that in a sample of students with reading difficulties, individuals who started the intervention with lower word reading scores relative to peers demonstrated lower levels of growth on reading comprehension measures at the end of a year-long multicomponent reading intervention. This finding is consistent across multiple studies that report lower response to reading interventions for struggling readers who begin intervention with comparatively lower reading comprehension (Wanzek et al., 2016), word reading (Daniel et al., 2021), reading fluency (Clemens et al., 2019), and listening compre- hension (Vaughn et al., 2019) skills. In short, these extant data analyses demonstrate that pre-intervention status is highly predictive of post-intervention response. Thus, reading interventions might be more effective at closing the performance gap if the instruction was more closely aligned to the specific strengths and weaknesses struggling readers present (i.e., reader profiles) at the initiation of treatment (see Connor et al., 2007, 2011). Need for research on reading profiles of rural students A further concern is the general absence of research conducted with students attending rural school districts. That is, while several past studies have explored the profiles of stu- dents at-risk of reading failure, almost all analyses have used samples of students receiving educational services in urban or suburban settings (e.g., Capin et al., 2021). This gap in the literature is noteworthy because approximately one in six of the total population of American students receives educational services in rural settings (McHenry- Sorber 2019). Past reports on reading proficiency in elementary and middle schools have shown that rural students’ reading performance is close to 1/3rd of a standard deviation lower when compared to their suburban peers (Graham & Teague, 2011). Furthermore, rural students do not close this achievement gap with their non-rural peers in later grades. For instance, in Grades 3 to 8, students from non-rural schools continue to outperform their peers in rural schools on reading-related tasks (Johnson et al., 2018). In the past, research- ers have attributed rural students’ lower attainment to less credentialed teachers compared to non-rural schools (McHenry-Sorber, 2019), longer commutes that can lead to fatigue (Arnold et al., 2005), and lack of academic resources (Roscigno & Crowley, 2001). Other factors that can influence student academic performance in rural schools are the growing number of ELs and a greater percentage of students from economically disadvantaged and minority backgrounds compared to a decade earlier (Johnson et al., 2018). Given that students in rural areas are a changing demographic and represent a significant proportion of the student population, it is important to understand their reading profiles to better inform research and practice in rural schools. The need for this paper arises from a scarcity of research literature involving rural schools; thus, we aim to better understand the reading profiles of a unique population of students in a rural school comprising a growing majority of ELs. To guide this work, we first present a theoretical framework. Next, we 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students discuss important reading and cognitive skills to be considered prior to the initiation of treatment for ELs who read below grade-level benchmarks. Finally, we review the extant literature on reader profile analyses and how this might guide future interventions for ELs. Theoretical framework: components associated with reading comprehension Theories guiding this study include the simple view of reading (SVR; Gough & Tum- ner, 1986) and the verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985). The SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) emphasizes the importance of foundational component skills, such as word read- ing and linguistic comprehension, for comprehension of written texts. Both of these skills are multidimensional in nature and encompass clusters of subskills. For instance, success- ful word reading requires students to establish phonological awareness, build awareness of the alphabetic principle, and develop knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences. Alternately, developing linguistic comprehension involves building background knowl- edge, developing vocabulary knowledge, cultivating awareness of language structures, and enhancing verbal reasoning skills. Failure to develop one or more of these subskills can be detrimental to proficiency in reading comprehension and can hinder independent learning from text (e.g., Daniel et al., 2021; Wanzek et al., 2016). Below, these reading component skills, which can be dissociated to determine whether students present weaknesses in word reading, linguistic comprehension, or both are reviewed. Word reading It is well-established that word reading ability plays an influential role in comprehending text. In a meta-analysis, García and Cain, (2014) reported a strong correlation between word-reading ability and performance on reading comprehension measures (r = .74) for readers across age groups and reading levels. The association remained strong when data were disaggregated for poor word readers across different age groups (r = .64). Addition- ally, findings from longitudinal and cross-sectional studies provide evidence that word- reading ability in early-elementary grades is highly predictive of students’ reading com- prehension outcomes in later grades (e.g., Shankweiler et al., 1999; Tighe et al., 2015). For instance, Tighe and colleagues (2015) reported that word-reading ability explained a significant proportion of variance in reading comprehension scores for all ability read- ers in third, seventh, and tenth grades. However, the proportion of variance explained was greater in third grade (56%) compared to seventh (34%) and tenth (24%) grades. These results indicate that word reading continues to play an important role in students’ ability to comprehend text and can be the leading cause of reading comprehension difficulties among students in the upper-elementary grade-levels. Past studies that assessed the validity of the SVR generally reported that word reading plays a relatively important role in early-elementary grades, with linguistic comprehension making a larger contribution to reading comprehension in later grades (e.g., Tilstra et al., 2009). However, there are exceptions to this trend. For instance, students who are below- average readers continue to demonstrate word-reading deficits that account for variance in their reading comprehension in upper elementary and later grades (Cirino et al., 2012). For ELs, studies generally report word-reading abilities similar to non-EL peers (e.g., Lesaux et al., 2007; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2011). In a longitudinal study of read- ing development, Lesaux et al. (2007) reported that although Spanish-speaking ELs per- formed slightly below their monolingual peers on some kindergarten academic measures, 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth there were no significant differences between the two groups on word-reading measures in Grade 4. Similarly, in another longitudinal study, Mancilla-Martinez and Lesaux (2011) reported that growth rates, of 4- to 11-year-old English and Spanish-speaking students, on word-reading measures were similar to national norms. The similarity in growth on word- reading measures between ELs and non-ELs is generally attributed to cross-language trans- fers and overlap between phonology and orthography of English and ELs’ first language (Verhoeven, 2017). Thus, there is compelling evidence that word-reading ability develops similarly in Spanish-speaking ELs and their non-EL peers. Linguistic comprehension The construct of linguistic comprehension encompasses multiple components such as vocabulary knowledge (both word and world) and listening comprehension. Several stud- ies have demonstrated that linguistic comprehension, in addition to word reading, accounts for a significant proportion of the variance in reading comprehension (e.g., Language and Reading Research Consortium & Chiu, 2018; Lonigan et al., 2018). Results from past stud- ies have also demonstrated that poor performance on listening-comprehension measures parallels difficulties with reading comprehension (Barnes et al., 1996; Keenan et al., 2006). Similarly, vocabulary knowledge has also been shown to account for the largest proportion of variance in reading comprehension (Ahmed et al., 2016; Cromley & Azevado, 2007). There is strong evidence that vocabulary knowledge predicts reading comprehension in elementary (Simmons & Kameenui, 1998), middle (Beck et al., 1982), and high school (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997) grades. Thus, both vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension are interconnected with readers’ background knowledge, and reading com- prehension can be significantly impaired when the meaning of words in a text is unknown to the reader. It is noteworthy that while word reading explains a greater proportion of variance in early-elementary grades, linguistic comprehension has been shown to exert a greater influence on reading comprehension in upper elementary and later grade-levels (e.g., Kershaw & Schatschneider, 2012; Tilstra et al., 2009). Literature on reading comprehension difficulties for ELs generally demonstrates greater deficits in areas of linguistic comprehension such as vocabulary knowledge compared to non-EL peers. In a recent study, Cho and colleagues (2019) utilized the SVR framework to investigate the mechanisms of reading comprehension for ELs and non-ELs. Using a sample of 440 below-average fourth-grade readers, authors reported that word reading was a major source of reading comprehension difficulties for non-ELs. In contrast, linguistic comprehension skills were identified as a major source of reading comprehension difficul- ties for ELs with significantly lower factor scores on vocabulary and oral comprehension measures compared to non-EL peers (Cho et al., 2019). Similar findings have also been reported for second-language learners in transparent orthographies (e.g., Verhoeven, 2000). Thus, research on second-language learners’ reading skills demonstrates that while word- reading ability develops at a similar pace compared to their monolingual peers, ELs’ devel- opment in linguistic comprehension skills such as vocabulary and oral comprehension lags behind their non-EL peers. Cognitive components Process models and theories of reading comprehension, such as the verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985), help to explain reading and reading-related skills by which readers may be 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students differentiated from one another (i.e., individual and developmental differences). Similar to the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), process models and theories emphasize the importance of word-reading skills and linguistic comprehension to reading comprehension. Of impor- tance to this study, process models and theories also recognize that cognitive processes, such as working memory and non-verbal reasoning, play an important role in the read- ing and understanding written text (Peng et al., 2022). For example, the verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985) posits that when word reading is slow and labored, greater cogni- tive resources are allocated to decoding the text, leaving fewer cognitive resources avail- able for comprehending the text. Furthermore, once the text has been decoded, students must “reason” with the text forming both text-to-text connections and text-to-knowledge connections. Working memory Studies that have assessed working memory in students have gener- ally reported that students’ performance on working-memory tasks is associated with their word-reading and reading comprehension skills (Peng et al., 2018; Swanson et al., 2006). Limitations in working memory are considered to create a bottleneck that limits the read- er’s capacity to retain recently processed knowledge to make connections to recent inputs. For instance, in the lexical-retrieval process, readers need to code text, store coded infor- mation, and accurately retrieve information from memory to make reliable connections between speech sounds and written text. During the lexical-retrieval process, it is theo- rized that readers visually recognize a sequence of letters as formulating a word and, there- after, retrieve its phonological and semantic information from memory. Past researchers have utilized different methods to understand the lexical-retrieval process by either meas- uring students’ working memory (requiring students to store and process/manipulate the information) or measuring their short-term working memory (involving passive storage of information). An example of working memory is presenting students with a list of words and having them repeat the words in reverse order. In contrast, short-term working-mem- ory tasks may involve students repeating the words in the order they were presented. Poor performance on both memory tasks has been associated with poor performance on reading measures (Swanson et al., 2006). However, it is important to note that interventions focusing on improving students’ cog- nitive abilities, such as working memory, have not reported improved performance on aca- demic outcomes. For instance, the results of a meta-analysis (Kearns & Fuchs, 2013) meas- uring the impact of cognitive-focused interventions on academic performance reported that there is not enough empirical data to support the use of cognitive-focused instruction for low-achieving students. Non‑verbal reasoning Vital to the process of comprehension is readers’ ability to make connections between the information presented and their own prior knowledge relating to the content. The process of making such connections is referred to as the inferential pro- cess or inference making. To accurately infer, readers monitor their understanding of the content, relate the information presented to the material presented earlier in the text or their own knowledge base, and establish semantic associations supported by the text to generate accurate inferences. In other words, inference making requires readers to not only extract and construct meaning from the content being read but also to make connections within texts or between the text and their background knowledge (Barth et al., 2021; Kendou et al., 2008; Silva & Cain, 2015). Similarly, non-verbal reasoning tasks that require students to 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth tap into their own knowledge to accurately respond to pictorial-inference tasks have also been associated with reading comprehension. Researchers have reported that non-verbal reasoning tasks significantly predict reading comprehension in typically developing ele- mentary (Asbell et al., 2010), middle, and high school students (Tighe & Schatschneider, 2013). Researchers have also reported significant differences on non-verbal reasoning tasks between typical and struggling readers (Nation et al., 2002) supporting the notion that rea- soning skills are vital to accurately infer from text and improve reading comprehension. In this study, we focus on understanding the reading profiles of rural students with a large proportion of ELs. We create reading profiles utilizing students’ reading comprehen- sion, word reading, vocabulary, and listening comprehension proficiency scores. Moreover, we test to ascertain whether cognitive measures such as working memory and non-verbal reasoning predict group membership. Past research on the profile of students with reading difficulties Over the last two decades, researchers have used several statistical methods to better under- stand the various profiles of students struggling to comprehend grade-level texts (e.g., Buly & Valencia, 2002; Capin et al., 2021; Cirino et al., 2012; Clemens et al., 2019; Leach et al., 2003). One of the most consistent findings of these studies has been that students with read- ing difficulties comprise a heterogenous population with deficits in different areas of read- ing. While some students exhibit phonological deficits manifested in the form of labored and error-prone reading of the written language, others demonstrate deficits in extracting and constructing meaning from text, leading to poor comprehension of the content. Still, others may demonstrate deficits in both word reading and comprehension of grade-level texts. Several studies have reported that students with reading difficulties in upper elemen- tary and later grades display below-average skills in comprehension, word reading, read- ing fluency, or vocabulary knowledge, with deficits in comprehension and an additional reading domain being the most common (e.g., Cirino et al., 2012; Leach et al., 2003). Buly and Valencia (2002) analyzed the reading-skill profiles of 108 fourth graders identified as below-basic readers based on state-administered reading assessment scores. Using cluster analysis to create similar pairs of cases to identify reader profiles, authors reported that approximately 44% had deficits in reading comprehension and word reading/fluency. Addi- tionally, 82% performed poorly on measures of decoding and/or reading fluency, while 58% performed poorly on measures of reading comprehension and vocabulary. Thus, a lit- tle over half of the sample demonstrated deficits in comprehension and vocabulary, while much of the sample exhibited deficits in word reading only. More recently, Capin et al. (2021) investigated the reading profiles of Grade 4 students with reading difficulties; all students in the sample scored < 85 on a standardized reading comprehension measure. The authors (Capin et al., 2021) reported that most of the participants comprising the at- risk reader sample (91%) scored approximately one standard deviation below the mean on measures of word reading and listening comprehension. A smaller proportion of the sam- ple demonstrated either severe deficits in word reading (5%) or listening comprehension (4%). Researchers have also explored reading-skill profiles of students with reading difficul- ties at the middle and high-school levels and reported reader profiles similar to those of third and fourth graders with reading difficulties. For instance, Cirino et al. (2012) used 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students confirmatory factor analysis to study the reading profiles of 846 students with reading dif- ficulties in Grades 6–8; participants were identified as students with reading difficulties when they failed to meet state reading comprehension proficiency-test benchmarks and scored below the 25th percentile on at least one standardized-reading measure. Reading- skill profiles of students with reading difficulties showed difficulties in decoding (47%), reading fluency (45%), and reading comprehension (84%). Additionally, 78% of the sample demonstrated difficulties in both fluency and comprehension. Similar reading profiles of ELs have also been reported in the literature. For instance, in a sample of 87 Spanish-speaking students from upper-elementary grades, Lesaux et al. (2010) reported that participants demonstrated average word-reading skills but below-aver- age oral-language skills. In their models, they illustrated that oral-language skills had a greater influence on ELs’ reading comprehension compared to word-reading skills (Lesaux et al., 2010). Similarly, in a longitudinal analysis of 150 elementary-grade ELs and non- ELs, Kieffer and Vukovic (2012) reported that among a subset of the sample with poor reading comprehension, 80% performed poorly on vocabulary and oral-language com- prehension measures. While these studies provide evidence that linguistic comprehension accounts for a larger source of variability in reading comprehension for ELs, these find- ings are not consistent. In another longitudinal study of elementary-grade ELs, authors reported that, in Grade 5, word reading accounted for a larger proportion of variance in reading comprehension compared to vocabulary knowledge (Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010). In the Capin et al. (2021) study, the authors were able to disaggregate the results for ELs with reading difficulties in their profile analysis. Their results demonstrated that while ELs were more likely to be in the listening-comprehension difficulties profile, they still accounted for a considerable proportion of the severe word-reading difficulties and the moderate reading/language difficulties profiles. Together, these studies provide information on the heterogeneity of reading-skill profiles among students with reading difficulties. However, several studies comprising this body of literature used samples from either urban or suburban school districts to guide research and develop reading interventions for at-risk readers. Another challenge in interpreting the results of many past reading-profile studies concerns the use of a single reading-related measure to dichotomize the sample of students who were at-risk and not at-risk of reading failure. Past research does not empirically support using individual measures of reading to identify students with reading disabilities as single measures are imperfect indicators of underlying constructs (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2019; Miciak et al., 2015). A pertinent implica- tion of identifying students with a single reading measure is the possibility of inaccurate inferences concerning profiles of struggling readers. Using different reading assessments across different studies can lead to different sets of students being identified with reading difficulties resulting from the manner in which tests operationalize the construct of reading (see, Miciak et al., 2015). Study purpose The primary aim of this study is to understand the reading profiles of rural upper-elemen- tary grade students with a high proportion of ELs. Results from this study can inform assessment, direct evaluation, and guide intervention development for at-risk students in rural areas, especially ELs. We also aim to overcome past methodological challenges involving the use of a particular measure to identify students who are at-risk or not at- risk of reading failure. To overcome this issue, we use the entire sample of students on 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth a continuum of reading abilities to better represent the current diverse rural-student population. Hypotheses and research questions No previous study has examined the reading profiles of rural Grade 5 and 6 students. We aimed to use an exploratory statistical method to investigate the various reading profiles of students in one rural school. Given that past studies have reported a range of reading profiles in their samples, we did not have any prior hypotheses on the number of reading profiles we would uncover in our sample. We did, however, expect to find students with generally low scores on vocabulary and listening comprehension due to the large propor- tion of ELs in our sample. Additionally, based on past studies’ findings (e.g., Capin et al., 2021), we hypothesized that students in the lower reading-performance profiles will also demonstrate lower performances on cognitive measures. We investigate the following research questions: What are the reading profiles of upper- elementary grade students in a rural school district with a high proportion of ELs? Does performance on cognitive measures predict group membership? Method School The school from which this study’s sample was derived is situated in a rural geographic location. The location of the school meets the definition of the term rural as any location that is not in an urban area (US Census Bureau). The county the school is located in is also categorized as a rural area (code 10) according to the rural–urban commuting area codes. The upper-elementary school this sample was derived from has a total enrollment of 789 students with 51% Hispanic, 17% Asian, 15% White, 6% Black, and other races (11%). Approximately, 64% of the student population identify as English language learners, and 75% qualify for free and reduced meals. Student participants Data for this study were taken from pretests administered during a larger randomized con- trolled trial that included students in Grades 5 and 6 (Barth et al., 2021). Data were col- lected over two academic years from one school in a rural midwestern school district. In the first year, data were collected for Grade 5 and 6 students not at-risk of reading fail- ure (considered typical readers). In the second year, data were collected for Grades 5 and 6 students considered at-risk of reading failure. Students’ reading-risk levels were deter- mined using their district-administered FastBridge Adaptive Reading (aReading) scores (Christ, 2015). According to the FastBridge aReading benchmarks, students are considered at some-risk of reading failure when their composite scores are less than 513 and 517 in Grades 5 and 6, respectively. 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Measures Trained undergraduate research assistants administered the measures except the Fast- bridge aReading measure (Christ, 2015). The school administered the measure and pro- vided the scores to the research team. To ensure fidelity of implementation, all under - graduate research assistants were required to administer all assessments with 100% accuracy to the primary investigator prior to beginning assessment with study partici- pants. The primary investigator and project coordinator were also present in the school to answer questions during administration and to provide ongoing support as needed to ensure successful delivery of the group and individual assessment battery. All assess- ments were rescored twice by two different research assistants to ensure accuracy in scoring. To ensure fidelity of assessment for the Fastbridge aReading measure, which was administered by classroom teachers, the school district’s reading coach delivered training sessions to all teachers prior to administration and provided ongoing support during assessment delivery. Reading‑related measures FastBridge aReading (Christ, 2015). FastBridge Adaptive Reading (aReading) is a com- puter-administered assessment. The aReading test measures students’ proficiency in vari- ous reading-related domains such as concepts of print, vocabulary, and comprehension of literary and informational text. The test requires students to answer questions related to the main idea and structure of the text. It also requires students to make inferences by integrat- ing knowledge and ideas presented in the text. Students answer approximately 30 questions and receive a composite score based on their performance. The content, construct, and pre- dictive validity of aReading were assessed by comparing results to other reading meas- ures such as the Gates-MacGinitie reading comprehension test (MacGinitie et al., 2000) (median r = 0.78) and Measure of Academic Progress (MAP; Northwest Evaluation Asso- ciation, 2016) (median r = 0.77). The reported alternate form reliability is 0.95, the internal consistency is 0.95, and the test–retest reliability ranges from 0.71 to 0.86. Woodcock–Johnson Oral Comprehension (WJ; Woodcock et al., 2001). The WJ oral comprehension subtest requires students to listen to orally presented sentences and short passages. Students then complete a sentence or short passage by orally providing the miss- ing word that makes sense in the context. For example, given the verbal prompt, “A fish ______,” a student might say “swims” to accurately complete the sentence. The reported median test reliability for this subtest is 0.85. Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2; Torgesen et al., 2012). The TOWRE-2 sight word efficiency (SWE) subtest is a standardized, individually administered, timed test that requires students to read a list of printed words in 45 s. The test measures an individual’s ability to decode real words fluently. The phonemic decoding efficiency (PDE) subtest is also an individually administered timed test that gives students 45 s to read a list of pseudo words (e.g., ip, sline). The PDE subtest measures students’ ability to phonetically decode words fluently. The test–retest reliability is 0.90 for a sample of third- and fifth-graders, while alternative-form reliability exceeds 0.90. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test‑2 Verbal Reasoning (KBIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). The KBIT verbal reasoning measures students’ receptive and expressive vocab- ulary calculated using students’ scores on two subtests (i.e., verbal knowledge and rid- dles). In the verbal knowledge subtest, students are presented with an oral question and required to choose from one of six illustrations that best answers the question. In the rid- dles’ subtest, students are orally presented with a riddle and required to point to a picture or say a word that answers the riddle (e.g., point to something crunchy that elephants eat). Both subtests are discontinued when students provide four consecutive incorrect answers. Raw scores from both subtests are used to calculate a verbal reasoning standard score. The internal consistency for the test ranges from 0.90 to 0.93, and the test–retest reli- ability ranges from 0.85 to 0.88 for the age range of the sample in this study. The concur- rent validity of the KBIT-2 verbal reasoning test and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence’s vocabulary subtest (WASI; Wechsler, 1999) is 0.84 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Cognitive measures Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test‑2 Non‑Verbal Reasoning (KBIT-2; Kaufman & Kauf- man, 2004). The KBIT-2 non-verbal reasoning subtest measures examinees’ fluid-reason- ing and visual-processing abilities. Students are presented with a visual stimulus and have to decide which of the five pictures best match the stimulus picture. The number of pictures students choose from goes up to six as the test progresses. The matrices subtest is discon- tinued when a ceiling is reached (i.e., students provide four consecutive incorrect answers). Raw scores from the matrices’ subtests are used to calculate a non-verbal reasoning stand- ard score. The internal consistency for this test ranges from 0.81 to 0.87, and the test–retest reliability ranges from 0.69 to 0.76 for the age range of our study sample. The concurrent validity of the KBIT-2 non-verbal reasoning test and the WASI matrix reasoning subtest (Wechsler, 1999) is 0.81 (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ; Schrank et al., 2001). We admin- istered the WJ numbers reversed and the WJ memory for words subtest from the Test of Cognitive Abilities test battery. The WJ numbers reversed and the WJ memory for words have a median test reliability of 0.87 and 0.80, respectively. Both subtests are auditory tests that require the tester to read out a list of numbers or words and elicit oral responses from the test takers. In the numbers reversed subtest, the tester reads out a list of numbers (e.g., 3–8-6), and the test taker must reverse the sequence and repeat the numbers (e.g., 6–8-3). This subtest requires students to mentally manipulate numbers, which tests their cognitive flexibility and working memory. In the memory for words subtest, the tester reads out a list of unrelated words (e.g., mother, chair) and expects the test taker to repeat those words in the order they were presented. This subtest measures individuals’ short-term memory and attention. Data analysis Latent profile analysis (LPA) was employed using covariance matrices of individuals to uncover latent groups of students’ reading profiles (Bauer & Curran, 2004). LPA allows researchers to investigate the different reader profiles using continuous indica- tors and analyze the predicted value of average scores on various continuous variables 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students for members of individual profile groups. LPA analysis maximizes homogeneity within each profile as well as heterogeneity between subgroups. Importantly, these individual- profile subgroups are latent and not observed because membership is determined by investigating patterns of means and associations between indicator variables. In other words, the goal of LPA is to uncover latent subgroups of profiles (k ) of individuals (i) who have similar patterns of responses or scores on indicator measures (j) (Ferguson et al., 2020; Sterba, 2013). Similar to structural equation modeling (SEM), there are multiple steps involved in LPA analysis. The first step is to analyze a series of iterative models to determine the num- ber of profiles to retain. We used the TOWRE SWE and PDE (word reading), FastBridge aReading (reading comprehension), WJ Oral Comprehension (language comprehension), and KBIT-Verbal Knowledge (vocabulary) to determine and index the underlying read- ing profiles of rural students in upper-elementary grades. We used standard scores for all measures except the FastBridge aReading. The FastBridge aReading data were available in an extended scale format, and using the measure in the reported format could confound findings because of the different at-risk of reading cutoff points for students in Grades 5 and 6. To overcome this issue, we first created a subset of our data for Grades 5 and 6 stu- dents and then converted the FastBridge aReading scores into z-scores, separately for each grade-level, prior to our analysis. Next, model retention decisions, to determine the number of rural upper-elementary grade reader profiles, were done by examining various indices. As recommended in the literature, we used log likelihood value, Bayesian information criterion (BIC), sample- adjusted Bayesian information criterion (SABIC), and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) (Ferguson et al., 2020). Across these four fit indices (i.e., log likelihood, BIC, SABIC, AIC), lower values indicate better fit. We also used entropy as a measure of profile classification certainty with higher values indicating a better fit of participant profile for a given dataset. Some researchers have iden- tified values of 0.80 or greater as a benchmark that indicates minimal uncertainty in the model (Tein et al., 2013). Finally, we also evaluated the model using the Bootstrap Likeli- hood Ratio Test (BLRT) and Lo–Mendell–Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test (LMRT). Both the BLRT and LMRT are utilized to measure the differences between k-1 and k class models. Additionally, a p-value allows to test the difference between the two models with p-values < 0.05 indicating k class models as a significantly better fit compared to the k-1 class model. Most importantly, we relied on reading theories and prior work in this area to evaluate the reasonableness of the models. Following the LPA analysis, and the determination of the optimal number of profiles to retain, we conducted the analysis to explore the differences between latent groups on covariate measures. It is important to note that covariate analysis has no impact on the creation of the profiles especially because this analysis is conducted after the optimal num- ber of profiles has been determined (Marsh et al., 2009). To conduct the covariate analysis, latent classes were regressed on cognitive measures such as WJ working memory of words, WJ working memory of numbers, and KBIT non-verbal reasoning. We used a three-step process referred to as the Bolck–Croon–Hagenaars approach (BCH; Bolck et al., 2004). In the BCH approach, the first step is to determine the optimal number of latent profiles rep- resented in the data without including the covariates. Next, students’ individual class prob- abilities are utilized to indicate their probability of membership into each latent reading profile. The third step is to conduct a multinomial logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between cognitive predictors (i.e., working memory, non-verbal reasoning) and the likelihood of dummy-coded profile membership. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth One of the key assumptions of LPA is local independence. MPlus automatically imposes local independence across latent profiles by constraining indicators to be uncorrelated for each latent class. Given this default mode, if the model fits well, then it can be inferred that the assumption was met. We used the maximum likelihood estimation with robust stand- ard errors estimator (MLR) for the analyses. All analyses were conducted using Mplus 8.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 2017). We ran the LPA and covariate analyses using the Mplus syn- tax presented by Ferguson and colleagues (2020). Finally, all students in our sample were tested across measures at pretest, and there were no missing data. Results Table 1 presents demographic data for the sample. Table 2 presents correlation data between reading and cognitive measures. Additionally, Table 2 presents the mean scores for each variable for the study sample. LPA model We selected a four-profile model solution because it was the only model with a signifi- cant LMRT when comparing k and k-1 models (see Table 3). Additionally, the four-pro- file solution also demonstrated the highest entropy (0.869). Table 4 and Fig. 1 present the estimated means for each reading-related measure for each of the four reader pro- files. Results suggest that within our sample of Grade 5 and 6 rural-school students, there appears to be a small sample (n = 4; 1.5% of the sample) of students who have the most Table 1 Demographic table Demographics n Proportion Grade Five 155 .59 Six 107 .41 Sex Female 142 .46 Male 120 .54 English language learner Yes 152 .58 No 110 .42 Ethnicity Asian 49 .19 Black 15 .06 Hispanic/Latino 135 .52 White 43 .16 Other 20 .07 Home language English 81 .31 Not English 178 .68 Not reported 3 .01 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Table 2 Correlation and descriptive statistics for measures Variables (constructs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. WJ oral comprehension (LC) 2. FastBridge aReading (RC) .65 3. TOWRE sight word efficiency (WR) .41 .65 4. TOWRE phonemic decoding efficiency .32 .57 .79 (WR) 5. WJ working memory – words (WM) .23 .30 .30 .32 6. WJ working memory – numbers (WM) .28 .44 .49 .51 .45 7. KBIT non-verbal reasoning (IA) .42 .52 .33 .26 .12 .32 8. KBIT verbal reasoning (Vocab) .73 .76 .51 .40 .24 .33 .52 N 262 Mean 95.71 0.00 99.22 99.13 97.74 99.64 101.74 90.37 SD 16.91 0.99 15.80 15.74 19.35 17.87 16.05 16.44 Note: LC, listening comprehension; RC, reading comprehension; WR, word reading; WM, working memory; IA, intellectual ability; Vocab, vocabulary; WJ, Woodcock Johnson; TOWRE, Test of Word Reading Effi- ciency; KBIT, Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test Bolded correlation coefficients are significant at p < .01 Table 3 Latent profile analysis model fit summary Model Log likelihood AIC BIC SABIC Entropy Class count LMRT p-value BLRT p-value 1 − 4775 9571 9607 9575 - - - - 2 − 4587 9206 9264 9213 .803 91, 171 .093 < .001 3 − 4496 9037 9115 9046 .857 21, 127, 114 .469 < .001 4 − 4457 8970 9070 8982 .869 4, 37, 121, 100 .040 < .001 5 − 4416 8901 9022 8914 .846 112, 5, 36, 58, .179 < .001 AIC, Akaike’s information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion; SABIC, sample-adjusted BIC; LMRT, Lo-Mendell Ruben test; BLRT, Bootstrap likelihood ratio test Note: The BLRT and LMR test compare the current model to a model with k − 1 profiles severe reading disabilities and perform approximately three standard deviations below the mean on all reading-related measures. The second profile (n = 37; 14% of the sample) includes students who scored approximately one standard deviation below the mean on word-reading measures such as TOWRE SWE (M = 82.73) and PDE (M = 84.08) and the reading comprehension measure (M = − 1.28). On listening comprehension (M = 73.34) and vocabulary knowledge (M = 68.11), the second profile-cluster scored approximately two standard deviations below the mean. The third profile (n = 121; 46.5% of the sample) encompassed approximately half the sample of students in our study. This profile includes students who performed just below the mean on word-reading measures such as TOWRE SWE (M = 93.58) and PDE (M = 94.99), listening comprehension (M = 95.71), and reading comprehension (M = − 0.10). However, this cluster of students seems to be at some-risk of reading failure due to their lower vocabulary mean estimate (M = 88.51). Finally, the fourth profile (n = 100; 38% of the sample) includes students who performed above average on all reading measures and can be considered typically developing readers. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Table 4 Four-profile model results Variable Profile 1 Profile 2 Profile 3 Profile 4 Severe reading At high risk of read- At some risk of Typical readers disability (n = 4) ing disability (n = 37) reading disability (n = 100) (n = 121) Word reading - TOWRE SW 56.77 (2.04) 82.73 (1.86) 93.58 (2.01) 113.84 (1.42) - TOWRE PD 61.39 (2.20) 84.08 (2.86) 94.99 (1.84) 111.21(1.16) Vocabulary - KBIT – VK 54.06 (5.10) 68.11 (2.65) 88.51 (1.33) 102.24 (2.34) Listening comprehen- sion - WJ 57.36 (5.46) 73.34 (3.08) 95.71 (1.39) 105.45 (1.96) Reading comprehen- sion - FB − 3.84 (0.74) − 1.28 (0.16) − 0.10 (0.06) 0.75 (0.10) FB, FastBridge aReading; WJ, Woodcock–Johnson Oral Comprehension; TOWRE, Test of Word Reading Efficiency; SW, Sight Word Efficiency; PD, phonemic decoding efficiency; KBIT-VK, Kaufman Brief Intel- ligence Test Verbal Knowledge Note: FB extended scale score converted to z-score by grade-level Typical readers (n = 100) At-some risk (n = 121) At-high risk (n = 37) Severe RD (n = 4) -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Word ReadingPhonemic Vocabulary Listening CompReading Comp Decoding Note: All scores were converted to z-scores for this plot to compare measures with different value range. RD, reading disability Fig. 1 Line plot of average scores on reading measures for the four latent profiles Cognitive predictors of profile membership As shown in Table 5, based on the analysis, some covariates demonstrated a significant difference between profile 3 and the other three profiles. Results suggest that WJ working 1 3 Z-score Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Table 5 Cognitive covariate analyses results for the four-profile model Profile 3 (n = 121) vs Cognitive predictors Profile 1 (n = 4) Profile 2 (n = 37) Profile 4 (n = 100) WJ working memory words Estimate (SE) − 0.65** (0.15) − 0.50 (0.35) 0.17** (0.04) Odds ratio (SE) 0.52** (0.16) 0.60 (0.21) 1.18** (0.04) Effect size − 0.38 − 0.11 0.28 WJ working memory numbers Estimate (SE) − 0.04 (0.08) − 0.08 (0.06) 0.01 (0.01) Odds ratio (SE) 0.96 (0.07) 0.92 (0.06) 1.01 (0.01) Effect size − 0.04 − 0.10 0.07 KBIT non-verbal reasoning Estimate (SE) − 0.15* (0.05) − 0.03 (0.04) 0.06** (0.02) Odds ratio (SE) 0.85* (0.06) 0.96 (0.04) 1.06** (0.01) Effect size − 0.27 − 0.06 0.20 Note: WJ, Woodcock Johnson; KBIT, Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test p < .05; **p < .01 memory of numbers did not demonstrate any significant differences across the four reader profiles. In contrast, students with lower WJ working memory of words and lower KBIT non-verbal reasoning were more likely to be in the severe reading-disability profile (i.e., profile 1; n = 4) compared with students at some-risk of reading failure (i.e., profile 3). The reverse is true when comparing students at some-risk of reading failure (i.e., profile 3) to typical readers (i.e., profile 4); that is, higher scores on WJ working memory of words and higher KBIT non-verbal reasoning scores were more likely to be in the typical-reader profile compared to the at some-risk of reading failure profile. Finally, there were no dif- ferences on any cognitive measures between students at high risk of reading disability (i.e., profile 2) compared to students at some-risk of reading disability (i.e., profile 3). Discussion Using the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985) as a framework, the primary aim of this study was to understand the reading profiles of rural upper-elementary grade students with a high proportion of ELs. We also aimed to address past methodological limitations surrounding the use of single indicator models to identify students who are at-risk or not at-risk of reading failure and student samples that exclude diverse rural populations. To overcome both methodological challenges, this study utilizes multiple indicators, the full continuum of reading abilities, and was inclusive of the cur- rent diversity represented in rural US school districts. We examined the following research questions: What are the reading profiles of upper-elementary grade students in a rural school district with a high proportion of ELs? Does performance on cognitive measures predict group membership? Both questions are discussed below. Reading profiles of rural upper‑elementary grade students In general, the results of this study suggest that rural upper-elementary grade students largely fall into four distinct groups, with each group presenting a unique reader profile. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth We found that a small proportion of the sample (i.e., 1.5%) had a severe reading disability (i.e., profile 1). Profile 1 students performed three standard deviations below the mean on measures of word reading, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and reading comprehen- sion. This flat and pervasively low profile is indicative of severe reading disabilities, pos- sibly comorbid with oral-language weaknesses (Kornilov & Grigorenko, 2018). It is highly likely that students in profile 1 have limited grade-level academic vocabulary, restricted world knowledge, and constrained word knowledge thus capping their ability to make the types of inferences needed to understand the grade-level text. Also, because profile 1 stu- dents have limited word-reading skills, they may likely struggle to decode familiar words both accurately and quickly. Similarly, their poor phonemic-decoding skills suggest that they may struggle to decode unfamiliar words in isolation and in text. As a result, profile 1 students may struggle to read connected text accurately, quickly, and with appropriate expression. Students presenting profile 1 may benefit from intensive reading intervention, spanning multiple years, targeting the component skills of word reading (accuracy and fluency) and linguistic comprehension to meet grade-level reading benchmarks (Roberts et al., 2015). Results suggest that approximately 14% of the sample was at “high-risk” for reading failure (i.e., profile 2). Profile 2 students performed approximately one standard deviation below the mean on measures of word reading and passage comprehension and two stand- ard deviations below the mean on measures of listening comprehension and vocabulary. Profile 2 students are not as severely impaired as profile 1 students; however, the gap sepa- rating this group from their typically developing peers (i.e., profile 4) is relatively large. Their significant linguistic-comprehension (i.e., vocabulary and listening comprehension) difficulties suggest that they struggle with the acquisition, retention, and use of academic language while reading and listening. Academic language is an essential component of content area disciplines in the upper-elementary grades. From understanding a class lec- ture, to engaging in large-, small-, or peer-group discussions, to reading for understanding, academic language is a central feature of instruction, linguistic comprehension, and inde- pendent learning (Proctor et al., 2019). Because the language of upper-elementary grade instructional texts is increasingly complex, profile 2 students may benefit from an interven- tion that targets their language-related reading difficulties while also bolstering their lower- than-average word-reading skills. Almost half the sample (i.e., 46.5%) demonstrated “some-risk” of reading failure (i.e., profile 3). Profile 3 students performed slightly lower than typically developing students in profile 4, scoring approximately ¼ standard deviation below the mean on measures of word reading, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension. Of concern, profile 3 students scored approximately ¾ standard deviation below the mean on vocabulary. It is not surprising to see that ELs as well as monolingual English-speaking students with reading difficulties struggle with vocabulary and academic language of the classroom since it represents “a constellation of high-utility language skills that correspond to linguistic features that are prevalent in academic discourse across school content areas and infrequent in colloquial conversation” (Uccelli et al., 2015, p. 338). For this reason, profile 3 students may benefit from intervention that emphasizes vocabulary and comprehension as well as broader dimensions of language. Finally, results suggest that approximately 38% of students in our sample were typi- cally developing (i.e., profile 4). Profile 4 students performed above the mean on all meas- ures. Interestingly, we were unable to detect a smaller subgroup of advanced readers that has been historically reported in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading reports. Results may indicate generally lower-proficiency peaks among students 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students who are educated in rural school districts. The lack of an advanced-reader profile may also be due to the higher proportion of ELs in this sample, who have historically demonstrated lower levels of reading proficiency relative to their typically developing monolingual peers (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). It is also the case that the absence of an advanced-reader profile is unique to this sample and replication is required to improve the generalizability of findings. Predictive nature of cognitive abilities The second question addressed in this study was the extent to which performance on cog- nitive measures predicted group membership. While profile analyses yielded four distinct reading profiles, cognitive abilities significantly differentiated students in profile 1. Spe- cifically, students with the most severe reading disabilities (profile 1) performed poorly on cognitive tasks such as working memory for words and inferential processing compared to students at some-risk of reading failure (profile 3). Cognitive abilities also significantly differentiated students in profile 3 from typically developing students in profile 4. Students in profile 3 performed slightly but significantly lower than students in profile 4 on working memory for words and inferential processing. Our findings of struggling readers’ poor performance on cognitive measures raise important questions about how students’ performance on cognitive measures can guide research and practice. Past research on the effects of cognitive-focused interventions on academic outcomes for at-risk student populations has been inconclusive (Kearns & Fuchs, 2013). There is little support to warrant implementing working memory interventions in classrooms to positively impact students’ reading-related outcomes. Elliott and Grigorenko, (2015) recommend that classroom instructors be sensitized to students’ working-memory shortcomings and provide modifications/accommodations to students. One method that has shown some success is to explicitly teach metacognitive strategies to help students struc- ture their reading-related tasks (e.g., García-Madruga et al., 2013). Thus, it may be more beneficial to focus intervention efforts on more malleable aspects such as explicitly teach- ing metacognitive strategies as part of reading instruction to overcome working memory shortcomings. Connections to theory and past research Both the SVR (Gough & Tunmer, 1986) and verbal efficiency theory (Perfetti, 1985) pro- vide useful heuristics for guiding research and practice. A theme that emerges from these two theoretical perspectives is that word-level knowledge and discourse-level knowledge have consequences for the meaning-making processes that support comprehension. Spe- cifically, meaning-making is strongly influenced by knowledge components: knowledge about words (i.e., grammatical forms, spelling, and pronunciations) and their multiple meanings (Perfetti, 2007). Reading experience provides opportunities to integrate meaning extracted from information located within and between sentences with meaning retrieved from our general knowledge stored in long-term memory. These meaning-making and con- necting processes operate during reading to create a mental representation of the situa- tion described by the text (Kintsch, 1988). The resulting mental representation or situation model includes content from the text that is integrated with the reader’s specific topical knowledge to provide an evolving understanding of what has been read. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Individual differences in comprehension are not only the result of the size of one’s store of general knowledge. Another source is the stability of the knowledge that the reader has about word forms and meanings and their capacity to efficiently retrieve and integrate this knowledge to construct coherent representations of the text (Barth et al., 2021; Perfetti, 2007). Less stable knowledge or the lack of knowledge will impose constraints on one’s ability to generate inferences while reading, maintain both local and global textual coher- ence, and independently learn from the text (Barnes et al., 1996, 2015; Barth et al., 2021). Working memory, which is utilized to efficiently integrate information within and between sentences with general knowledge, also represents a reader characteristic that can impose constraints on comprehension (van den Broek et al., 2005). Given the high proportion of ELs in this sample and three reader profiles suggesting deficits in verbal knowledge, what do we know? First, longitudinal studies examining the relationship between verbal knowledge and reading comprehension show that early word knowledge predicts later comprehension among elementary-age children (de Jong & van der Leij, 2002; Oakhill & Cain, 2012; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Among secondary- grade students, a cross-sectional study demonstrates the direct and substantial effects of word and world knowledge on reading comprehension (Ahmed et al., 2016). Second, in studies of struggling comprehenders with intact word-reading skills, difficulties with vocabulary extend beyond simply knowing the meaning of words. Even when these readers have learned the meaning of new words, they may continue to experience difficulties effi- ciently accessing its meaning to form inferences while reading (Cain et al., 2001). Third, research related to ELs consistently shows that vocabulary and linguistic comprehension are significant sources of difficulty (Cho et al., 2019). As a result, ELs require additional practice trials to learn new words, and once new vocabulary is mastered, they do not con- sistently use this knowledge to form inferences while reading to maintain coherence (Barth et al., 2021). Finally, according to Paris (2005), word and world knowledge represents an unconstrained skill. This means that our knowledge base starts to develop before we learn how to read words and continues to grow during as well as after learning how to read for understanding. However, many ELs develop English language proficiency while also learn- ing how to read in English (Klinger et al., 2006). As such, their limited English word and world knowledge is often compounded by difficulties in efficient access to this knowledge in working memory thereby reducing their ability to both establish and maintain under- standing while listening or reading (Perfetti, 2007). Implications for future research There is considerable evidence that students who are at-risk of reading failure form a het- erogenous population that have deficits in multiple reading-related domains (e.g., Capin et al., 2021). These findings seem to remain consistent with urban (e.g., Cirino et al., 2012; Leach et al., 2003), suburban (e.g., Clemens et al., 2019), and now rural samples. The het- erogeneity in reading profiles also seems to be consistent regardless of the language sta- tus of the reader (i.e., EL or non-EL) (O’Connor et al., 2018). Thus, interventions that target students with reading deficits must align instruction to meet the needs of students’ pre-intervention reading profiles and be multicomponent in nature. These suggestions align with recent findings of moderation analyses of experimental studies that have tested the effects of multicomponent reading interventions on reading-related outcomes for at- risk student populations. Extant data analyses of empirical data have consistently shown that intervention effects vary dependent on pretest performance on key reading-related 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students measures such as word reading, listening comprehension, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (e.g., Clemens et al., 2019; Daniel et al., 2021; Vaughn et al., 2019). Furthermore, there is also some evidence from intervention research that dem- onstrates, when intervention is aligned with individual students’ needs there are greater effects of the intervention on students’ reading outcomes (Connor et al., 2007, 2011). For instance, Connor and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that students who were assigned to treatment groups that individualized instruction to their reading needs performed signifi- cantly better at posttest than their peers who received a standardized reading intervention. Given the diverse student reading profiles we uncovered in one school, it is important to develop and test the efficacy of multicomponent reading interventions (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2021) that are customizable to suit the needs of this heterogenous population depending on pre-intervention reading profiles. That is, there is a need to develop multicomponent inter - ventions that can be tailored to meet the needs of different reader profiles. While stand- ardized interventions may help teachers implement the program with fidelity, adaptable interventions that meet the evolving needs of students may prove to be effective (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2015). Our findings also align with past research demonstrating that students in upper-elemen- tary grades continue to struggle with word-reading proficiency (Cirino et al., 2012), and there is a great need to develop word-reading interventions for this population. Addition- ally, more research is needed in addressing the needs of students with the most severe read- ing disabilities. The drastically low scores of this small sample of students should chal- lenge reading interventionists to explore and design reading programs and curricula that are embedded in theoretical frameworks and innovative in design and application. Finally, descriptive statistics (see Table 4) illustrates that all four reader profiles on aver - age scored lowest on the vocabulary measure compared to other reading-related measures. Given the high proportions of ELs in our sample and the historically low performance of ELs on vocabulary measures (Cho et al., 2019; Kieffer & Vukovic, 2012), it is vital for classroom instruction to focus on providing regular explicit instruction in academic lan- guage that includes vocabulary and morphology instruction. Instruction should focus both on knowledge acquisition as well as how to use new knowledge productively while read- ing. This two-pronged approach to instruction will help struggling readers to close the gap between “knowing” and strategically integrating knowledge to form inferences while read- ing, using the knowledge to monitor comprehension, and drawing on the knowledge to fix breaks in understanding. Thus, future research should continue to develop a critical mass of language-focused curricula that promotes deeper engagement with academic vocabulary to improve at-risk students’ lexical representations. Limitations A limitation of the current study is that the sample was derived from one school in a rural school district. Although our findings are mostly consistent with past profile studies, rep- lication studies with other linguistically diverse rural samples are needed to generalize these findings. Furthermore, data for our analyses were collected from one cohort of typi- cal readers and one cohort of at-risk readers across 2 years and combined for our analyses. However, descriptive statistics for the combined cohorts showed normally distributed data with skewness and kurtosis in the acceptable range for all cognitive and reading-related measures. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Additionally, we were unable to administer and did not have access to students’ scores on multiple measures of each construct to create latent variables for our analyses. We also did not have access to measures of certain important reading-related constructs such as phonological awareness, spelling, and reading fluency to provide a more comprehensive view of each reading profile. Furthermore, although a majority of our sample was ELs (58%), we did not have enough power to run latent profile analysis for this subsample of students. Finally, to answer our primary research question, we used an exploratory statisti- cal technique (i.e., LPA), and future research should cross-validate these rural upper-ele- mentary grade reader profiles with larger multi-site samples. Conclusions In summary, like past studies, we found heterogeneity in the profiles of rural upper-elemen- tary grade readers. Profile 1 (severely disabled) emphasized the need for multi-year, inten- sive interventions focused both on word reading and linguistic comprehension. Cognitive skills such as inferential processing and working memory for words also suggested limited capacity which is required for successful and efficient integration of information within and between sentences while reading and listening for understanding. Profile 2 (moderate-risk) and profile 3 (some-risk) highlight the need for improved general education instruction and intense interventions for students educated in the rural setting, particularly ELs. Fine- grained differentiation was observed with linguistic comprehension included in the latent profiling especially with the inclusion of vocabulary. Interestingly, the profiles missing are the classic dyslexic profile wherein students have well-developed linguistic-comprehension skills but are below-average on code-related skills and an advanced-proficient profile dem- onstrating superior mastery of basic reading and language skills associated with reading comprehension. Given the variation in students’ reading skills, it may be that standard- ized and homogenous reading programs may be less effective in meeting the needs of a heterogenous population of readers. Thus, we suggest designing and implementing multi- component reading interventions that vary the dosage of reading components dependent on individual reader profile needs, vary the size of the instructional group, and the duration of the intervention. Funding This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (grant number 1R15HD092922-01A1). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the NICHD. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from one of the co- authors. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Con- temporary Educational Psychology, 44–45, 68–82. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2016. 02. 002 Arnold, M. L., Newman, J. H., Gaddy, B. B., & Dean, C. B. (2005). A look at the condition of rural edu- cation research: Setting a difference for future research. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20, 1–25. Aro, T., Eklund, K., Eloranta, A. K., Närhi, V., Korhonen, E., & Ahonen, T. (2019). Associations between childhood learning disabilities and adult-age mental health problems, lack of education, and unemployment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(1), 71–83. Asbell, S., Donders, J., Van Tubbergen, M., & Warschausky, S. (2010). Predictors of reading compre- hension in children with cerebral palsy and typically developing children. Child Neuropsychology, 16(4), 313–325. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09297 04100 37335 88 Barnes, M. A., Ahmed, Y., Barth, A., & Francis, D. J. (2015). The relation of knowledge-text integration th th processes and reading comprehension in 7 -to 12 -grade students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(4), 253–272. Barnes, M. A., Dennis, M., & Haefele-Kalvaitis, J. (1996). The effects of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility on coherence and elaborative inferencing in children from six to fifteen years of age. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61(3), 216–241. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jecp. 1996. 0015 Barth, A. E., Daniel, J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Barnes, M. A., Ankrum, E., & Kincaid, H. (2021). The role of knowledge availability in forming inferences with rural middle grade English learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 88, 102006. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lindif. 2021. 102006 Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2004). The integration of continuous and discrete latent variable models: Potential problems and promising opportunities. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 3. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 74.4. 506 Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J., & Crotty, K. (2011). Low health lit- eracy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(2), 97–107. Bolck, A., Croon, M., & Hagenaars, J. (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12, 3–27. Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assess- ments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219–239. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., Barnes, M. A., & Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference-making ability, and their relation to knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 850–859. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ bf031 96414 Capin, P., Cho, E., Miciak, J., Roberts, G., & Vaughn, S. (2021). Examining the reading and cognitive profiles of students with significant reading comprehension difficulties. Advance online publication. Cho, E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Roberts, G. J., & Vaughn, S. (2019). Examining sources and mechanisms of reading comprehension difficulties: Comparing English learners and non-English learners within the simple view of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 982–1000. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ edu00 00332 Christ, T.J. (2015). Formative assessment system for teachers: Technical manual version2.0, Minneapo- lis, MN: Author and FastBridge Learning (www. fastb ridge. org). Accessed 01 May 2020 Cirino, P. T., Romain, M. A., Barth, A. E., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059–1086. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11145- 012- 9406-3 Clemens, N. H., Oslund, E., Kwok, O., Fogarty, M., Simmons, D., & Davis, J. L. (2019). Skill modera- tors of the effects of a reading comprehension intervention. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 197–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00144 02918 787339 Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & Underwood, P. (2007). Algorithm- guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464–465. 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S., Bayraktar, A., Crowe, E. C., & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics× instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Read- ing Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189–221. Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities, 25, 2–45. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0012- 1649. 33.6. 934 Daniel, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Grills, A. (2021). The importance of baseline word reading skills in examining student response to a multicomponent reading intervention. Journal of Learning Disabili- ties, 55(4), 259–271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19421 10103 49 de Jong, P. F., & van der Leij, A. (2002). Effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(1), 51–77. Elliott, J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2015). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge University Press. Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Deshler, D. D. (2008). Reading comprehension in adolescents with LD: What we know; what we need to learn. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 70–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 5826. 2008. 00265.x Ferguson, S. L., Moore, E. W. G., & Hull, D. M. (2020). Finding latent groups in observed data: A primer on latent profile analysis in Mplus for applied researchers. International Journal of Behavioral Devel- opment, 44(5), 458. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54313 499616 García‐Madruga, J. A., Elosúa, M. R., Gil, L., Gómez‐Veiga, I., Vila, J. Ó., Orjales, I., … & Duque, G. (2013). Reading comprehension and working memory’s executive processes: An intervention study in primary school students. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 155-174. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07419 32586 00700 104 Graham, S., & Teague, C. (2011). Reading levels of rural and urban third graders lag behind their subur- ban peers. https:// doi. org/ 10. 34051/p/ 2020. 136 Hall, C., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., McCulley, L. V., Carroll, M., & Vaughn, S. (2017). Reading instruction for English learners in the middle grades: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 763–794. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10648- 016- 9372-4 Johnson, J., Ohlson, M. A., & Shope, S. (2018). Demographic changes in rural America and the implica- tions for special education programming: A descriptive and comparative analysis. Rural Special Edu- cation Quarterly, 37(3), 140–149. Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). AGS Publishing. Kearns, D. M., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Does cognitively focused instruction improve the academic perfor- mance of low-achieving students? Exceptional Children, 79(3), 263–290. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C., & Olson, R. K. (2006). Genetic and envi- ronmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(1), 75–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9817. 2006. 00293.x Kendou, P., Bohn-Getter, C., White, M. J., & Van den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(3), 259–272. Kershaw, S., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). A latent variable approach to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 433–464. Kieffer, M. J., & Vukovic, R. K. (2012). Components and context. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 433–452. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19411 432683 Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163. Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language learners who struggle with read- ing: Language acquisition or LD? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 108–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19406 03900 20101 Kornilov, S. A., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2018). What reading disability? Evidence for multiple latent profiles of struggling readers in a large Russian sibpair sample with at least one sibling at risk for reading dif- ficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(5), 434–443. 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Chiu, Y. D. (2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 289–303. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07419 32518 762055 Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 95(2), 211–224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 95.2. 211 Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Develop- mental Psychology, 31(6), 475–483. Lesaux, N. K., Rupp, A. A., & Siegel, L. S. (2007). Growth in reading skills of children from diverse lin- guistic backgrounds: Findings from a 5-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 821–834. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 99.4. 821 Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07419 32518 764833 MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dreyer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2000). Gates– MacGinitie Reading Tests (4th ed.). Riverside. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2011). The gap between Spanish speakers’ word reading and word knowledge: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 82(5), 1544–1560. Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for struggling read- ers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701–711. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0019 135 Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of aca- demic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person-and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 191–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 51090 27510 10 McHenry-Sorber, E. (2019). Why rural matters 2018-2019: The time is now: Interview with authors Jerry Johnson, Daniel Showalter, and Sara Hartman. The Rural Educator, 40(3), 62–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 35608/ rural ed. v40i3. 930 Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., & Stuebing, K. K. (2015). Accuracy and validity of methods for identifying learning disabilities in a RTI service delivery framework. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of mul- titiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 421–440). Springer. Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide, 8th ed). Muthén & Muthén. Nation, K., Clarke, P., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). General cognitive ability in children with reading com- prehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 549–560. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1348/ 00070 99026 03776 04 National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Digest of educational statistics. Retrieved from: https:// nces. ed. gov/ progr ams/ digest/. Accessed 01 Aug 2021 Northwest Evaluation Association. (2016). Linking the Kentucky K-PREP assessments to NWEA MAP tests. Northwest Evaluation Association. Retrieved from https:// www. nwea. org/ about/ Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 91–121. O’Connor, M., Geva, E., & Koh, P. W. (2018). Examining reading comprehension profiles of grade 5 monolinguals and English language learners through the lexical quality hypothesis lens. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 232–246. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19418 815646 Paasche-Orlow, M. K., & Wolf, M. S. (2007). The causal pathways linking health literacy to health out- comes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31(1), 19–26. Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202. Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C. C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144(1), 48–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ bul00 00124 Peng, P., Zhang, Z., Wang, W., Lee, K., Wang, T., Wang, C., Luo, J., & Lin, J. (2022). A meta-analytic review of cognition and reading difficulties: Individual differences, moderation, and language medi- ation mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 148(3–4), 227–272. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ bul00 00361 Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. Proctor, C. P., Silverman, R. D., Harring, J. R., Jones, R. L., & Hartranft, A. M. (2019). Teaching bilin- gual learners: Effects of a language-based reading intervention on academic language and reading 1 3 J. Daniel, A. Barth comprehension in grades 4 and 5. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, 95–122. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ rrq. 258 Roberts, G., Rane, S., Fall, A. M., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2015). The impact of intensive reading intervention on level of attention in middle school students. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 942–953. Roscigno, V. J., & Crowle, M. L. (2001). Rurality, institutional disadvantage, and achievement/attain- ment*. Rural Sociology, 66(2), 268–292. Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86, 756–800. Schrank, F. A., McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Assessment service bulletin number 2: WJ III technical abstract. Riverside. Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., ... & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Sci- entific Studies of Reading, 3(1), 69–94. Silva, M., & Cain, K. (2015). The relations between lower and higher level comprehension skills and their role in prediction of early reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 321– 331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0037 769 Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics. Erlbaum. Sterba, S. K. (2013). Understanding linkages among mixture models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 775–815. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00273 171. 2013. 827564 Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 934. Swanson, H., Howard, C. B., & Saez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie dif- ferent subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252–269. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19406 03900 30501 Tein, J. Y., Coxe, S., & Cham, H. (2013). Statistical power to detect the correct number of classes in latent profile analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 20, 640–657. Tighe, E. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2013). A dominance analysis approach to determining predictor impor- tance in third, seventh, and tenth grade reading comprehension skills. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 101–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11145- 013- 9435-6 Tighe, E. L., Wagner, R. K., & Schatschneider, C. (2015). Applying a multiple group causal indicator mod- eling framework to the reading comprehension skills of third, seventh, and tenth grade students. Read- ing and Writing, 28(4), 439–466. Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Com- ponents of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383–401. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (2012). Test of word reading efficiency:(TOWRE-2). Pearson Clinical Assessment. Uccelli, P., Galloway, E. P., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Explor- ing cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(3), 337–356. Van Den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist pro- cesses in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2–3), 299–316. Vaughn, S., Grills, A. E., Capin, P., Roberts, G., Fall, A.-M., & Daniel, J. (2021). Examining the effects of integrating anxiety management instruction within a reading intervention for upper elementary stu- dents with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 19421 10532 25 Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., Capin, P., Miciak, J., Cho, E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2019). How initial word read- ing and language skills affect reading comprehension outcomes for students with reading difficulties. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 180–196. Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 313–330. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 799xs sr0404_4 1 3 Exploring reading profiles of rural school students Verhoeven, L. (2017). Learning to read in a second language. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, & R. K. Parilla (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 215–235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Otaiba, S. A., Kent, S. C., Schatschneider, C., Haynes, M., . . . Jones, F. G. (2016). Examining the average and local effects of a standardized treatment for fourth graders with reading difficulties. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(Sup1), 45-66.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19345 747. 2015. 11160 32 Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. Psychological Corporation. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III. Riverside. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3

Journal

Annals of Dyslexia – Springer Journals

Published: Jul 1, 2023

Keywords: Cognition; Latent profile; Reading disabilities; Reading profile; Rural

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Exploring reading profiles of rural school students

Exploring reading profiles of rural school students

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Exploring reading profiles of rural school students

Exploring reading profiles of rural school students

References (110)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies