Language Predictors of Word-Problem Performance among Third-Grade Students with Mathematics Difficulty
Saved in:
| Title: | Language Predictors of Word-Problem Performance among Third-Grade Students with Mathematics Difficulty |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Danielle O. Lariviere (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2025 58(6):445-458. |
| Availability: | SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Institute of Education Sciences (ED) |
| Contract Number: | R324A150078 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Early Childhood Education Elementary Education Grade 3 Primary Education |
| Descriptors: | Language Skills, Word Problems (Mathematics), Grade 3, Elementary School Students, Predictor Variables, Learning Problems, Reading Comprehension, Vocabulary, Reading Skills, Accuracy, English Learners, Bilingual Students, Computation |
| Geographic Terms: | Texas |
| Assessment and Survey Identifiers: | Wide Range Achievement Test, Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) |
| DOI: | 10.1177/00222194241311979 |
| ISSN: | 0022-2194 1538-4780 |
| Abstract: | We examined how generalized and mathematics-specific language skills predicted the word-problem performance of students with mathematics difficulty. Participants were 325 third-grade students in the southwestern United States who performed at or below the 25th percentile on a word-problem measure. We assessed generalized language skills in word reading, passage comprehension, and vocabulary knowledge. In addition, we measured mathematics-specific vocabulary knowledge. To explore variation within the mathematics-difficulty population, we utilized unconditional quantile regression to determine how each of these skill sets predicted word-problem performance when controlling for computation and emergent bilingual status. Results revealed that mathematics-vocabulary knowledge significantly predicted word-problem performance at all but two quantiles (p < 0.001), with strongest predictive relations at the highest quantiles. Passage comprehension had an overall significant relation to word-problem performance (p < 0.05) that was also reflected in multiple quantiles. Neither word-reading accuracy nor generalized-vocabulary knowledge demonstrated a significant predictive relation to word-problem performance. Given the consistent relation between mathematics-vocabulary knowledge and word-problem performance across quantiles, researchers and practitioners should prioritize evidence-based mathematics-vocabulary instruction to support students' word-problem-solving skills. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| IES Funded: | Yes |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1488652 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF2NVG4hnnafPZ561ZxgDFlAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCsgDyBbTzdT_JhHTwIBEICBmnh9Dv0MFforNQeZCF1abxRaBx2uo4CWkAQMZR5v6mBWLW99TWMSaRPuuwsuD7keumD-OWyqGCq-qdHaEhgTm_-3R7fuwnnNo_SNbLtPE4ijKW_mGesizyWqKgTHr6Av3qhSoE4KLhecOz9YInN4fIIksVUIvRrwzNUbkUly1f6exCRpV3bWf_ceoosOTnXSuqxt6UvKW2yQ99E= Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0188670370;led01nov.25;2025Oct17.01:55;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188670370-1">Language Predictors of Word-Problem Performance Among Third-Grade Students With Mathematics Difficulty </title> <p>We examined how generalized and mathematics-specific language skills predicted the word-problem performance of students with mathematics difficulty. Participants were 325 third-grade students in the southwestern United States who performed at or below the 25th percentile on a word-problem measure. We assessed generalized language skills in word reading, passage comprehension, and vocabulary knowledge. In addition, we measured mathematics-specific vocabulary knowledge. To explore variation within the mathematics-difficulty population, we utilized unconditional quantile regression to determine how each of these skill sets predicted word-problem performance when controlling for computation and emergent bilingual status. Results revealed that mathematics-vocabulary knowledge significantly predicted word-problem performance at all but two quantiles (p &lt;.001), with strongest predictive relations at the highest quantiles. Passage comprehension had an overall significant relation to word-problem performance (p &lt;.05) that was also reflected in multiple quantiles. Neither word-reading accuracy nor generalized-vocabulary knowledge demonstrated a significant predictive relation to word-problem performance. Given the consistent relation between mathematics-vocabulary knowledge and word-problem performance across quantiles, researchers and practitioners should prioritize evidence-based mathematics-vocabulary instruction to support students' word-problem-solving skills.</p> <p>Keywords: mathematics; problem-solving; language</p> <p>Word-problem solving represents a major component of overall mathematics proficiency, and students are often asked to demonstrate their content knowledge through solving word problems on high-stakes assessments ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref1">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref2">47</reflink>]). Students not only rely on knowledge of mathematics content to solve word problems, but they also employ language-based skills to read, understand, and represent these problems ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref5">47</reflink>]). When students encounter challenges solving word problems, both mathematics and language-based barriers may, therefore, be responsible. In this study, we examined the roles of language-based skills in word-problem solving among students with mathematics difficulty (MD). By better understanding the relations between specific language skills and word-problem solving, researchers can design more targeted interventions for students who require word-problem support.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-2">Word-Problem Solving</hd> <p>Word-problem solving requires students to identify quantitative relationships within text, represent those relationships numerically, and solve for an unknown value ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]). Word-problem-solving is a core component of mathematics proficiency, reflected by its presence in national mathematics standards throughout the elementary grades ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref8">35</reflink>]). Students encounter increasingly complex word problems as they advance through the early elementary grades, building from one-step problems involving addition and subtraction to multistep problems requiring addition and subtraction as well as multiplication and division.</p> <p>Word-problem solving requires a combination of mathematics and language skill sets ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>] characterized students' word-problem process through an extension of the Construction-Integration Model ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]). Consider the following problem: <emph>Joe had four marbles. Joe also had two pencils. Samira had two fewer marbles than Joe. How many marbles did Samira have?</emph> This problem can be solved as 4 − 2 = 2 marbles. This translation of the word problem into a solvable number sentence involves a step-by-step process. First, if the problem is presented in written form, students must be able to decode the words within the problem. Next, students apply several comprehension-related skills, each of which relies on an understanding of word-problem vocabulary and syntax. These include (a) identifying needed information (i.e., about marbles), (b) ignoring irrelevant information (i.e., about pencils), and (c) determining quantitative relationships within the problem (i.e., finding the difference between Joe's four marbles and Samira's marbles; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref13">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref14">47</reflink>]). Finally, once students have an accurate representation of the problem, they can apply their knowledge of operations and the number system to compute a numerical answer to the problem. Word-problem solving is thus a complex process that taps not only mathematics skills but also language skills such as word reading, passage comprehension, and vocabulary knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-3">MD and Word-Problem Solving</hd> <p>Word-problem solving can be challenging for students due to its complexity, particularly for students with MD. We define students with MD as students whose mathematics performance falls below grade-level expectations ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref16">47</reflink>]). Difficulty with mathematics impacts a large proportion of students in the United States, as evidenced by only 36% of fourth-grade students demonstrating proficiency on the National Assessment of Educational Progress ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>]). Proficiency rates are even lower for many subgroups of fourth-grade students, including students eligible for the National School Lunch Program (20%), students with disabilities (16%), and emergent bilinguals (14%).</p> <p>Students who show limited mathematics proficiency experience varying degrees of MD ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). Some students have relatively mild MD, as evidenced by their positive response to less intensive (e.g., small group, Tier 2) intervention ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref19">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref20">43</reflink>]). Other students with MD have more significant challenges and require more intensive, individualized instruction. With this in mind, researchers regularly divide samples of children with MD into those with more and less severe difficulty (e.g., those performing below the 10th percentile versus those performing between the 10th and 25th percentiles; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref21">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref23">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are several reasons students with varying levels of MD experience challenges with word-problem solving. Students with limited fact and procedural fluency may struggle with fact and computation demands embedded in word-problem solving ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]). Students may also have difficulty developing problem representations and problem-solving plans due to language-based challenges ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref26">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]). For example, students may struggle to comprehend a problem's text structure, recognize the mathematics-specific meanings of vocabulary terms, distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, and determine the word-problem label (i.e., what the problem is asking about; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>]). Students with more significant MD may encounter substantial challenges with multiple of these component skills, while those with relatively mild MD may demonstrate proficiency with some word-problem skills but not others.</p> <p>Word-problem difficulty can also be especially prevalent among emergent bilingual students when participating in instruction in their second language. In this study, we defined emergent bilingual students as those still developing fluency in the English language, as identified by a state-administered English proficiency test. Emergent bilinguals tend to perform lower on language-heavy tasks than their monolingual-English speaking peers when measured in their second language ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref30">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref31">66</reflink>]). Relatedly, research indicates a relation between (a) English language development in listening, speaking, reading, and writing and (b) word-problem performance for emergent bilinguals with MD ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the myriad difficulties students experience with the language demands of word-problem solving, we focused this study on how language skill sets predict varying levels of word-problem performance. Specifically, we examined the predictive relations between word-reading accuracy, passage comprehension, generalized-vocabulary knowledge, and mathematics-vocabulary knowledge and word-problem performance. Within this study, we controlled for student status as emergent bilingual because of research indicating that language-heavy tasks in mathematics, such as word-problem solving, can be especially challenging for emergent bilinguals ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref34">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-4">Word-Problem-Solving Instruction</hd> <p>Evidence-based word-problem instruction can effectively support students with MD in the elementary grades ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]). Oftentimes, this support includes explicitly teaching a step-by-step problem solving process and incorporating schema instruction ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref37">41</reflink>]). Students with less substantial challenges in word-problem-solving may benefit from receiving evidence-based instruction in a small group (e.g., Tier-2 context), while those with significant word-problem difficulty may require more intensive, individualized intervention ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref38">43</reflink>]). Previous research also indicates emergent bilingual students with MD can benefit from evidence-based word-problem instruction in either their home language or second language ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref39">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref40">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref41">57</reflink>]). Cultural identity and backgrounds must also be addressed in word-problem solving instruction, such as incorporating problems referencing relatable situations and characters ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-5">Language Predictors</hd> <p>In this section, we discuss previous research on the relations between word-problem performance and each of our language variables of interest: word-reading accuracy, passage comprehension, generalized-vocabulary knowledge, and mathematics-vocabulary knowledge. We define language skills as an umbrella term that includes reading skill, listening comprehension, and vocabulary knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-6">Word-Reading Accuracy</hd> <p>To understand and solve a word problem, students must first be able to read the individual words within a given problem ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref43">64</reflink>]). We define word reading as a student's ability to accurately read individual words (e.g., through decoding or automatic recognition). Word reading is a primary avenue through which students access a word problem; even when problems are initially read aloud to students, word-reading skill provides students with continued access to the word-problem text ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]). This access allows students to refer to the text as they identify needed information, construct a problem representation, and solve the problem numerically ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref45">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref47">47</reflink>]). Word reading, therefore, serves as a prerequisite skill set to successful word-problem performance.</p> <p>Previous research has established a relation between word-reading difficulty and MD, such that co-occurrence of these two profiles is estimated to be several times more than by chance ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref49">63</reflink>]). Given this relation, as well as the foundational role of word reading in word-problem solving, one could expect that word-reading accuracy predicts word-problem performance. However, evidence of this relation is equivocal ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref51">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref52">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref53">64</reflink>]). In a study of 6- and 7-year-old children in the United Kingdom, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref54">4</reflink>] determined word-reading accuracy did not significantly predict word-problem performance. In a quantile analysis of second-grade students in the United States, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref55">15</reflink>] learned that word-reading accuracy significantly predicted word-problem performance for only certain quantiles of students. Specifically, word reading tended to have stronger predictive utility for students with higher and lower word-problem performance than for students with average word-problem performance. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>] reported that reading level for third-grade emergent bilinguals with MD correlated with word-problem performance. In this article, we add to the research base on word reading and word-problem solving by focusing our analysis on third-grade students with varying degrees of MD.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-7">Passage Comprehension</hd> <p>To solve word problems, students must be able to comprehend verbally presented problems containing quantitative information ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]). Particularly when word problems are presented in written form, students must read and understand the problem text to solve the problem. In this study, we refer to passage comprehension as one's ability to read and understand a written passage ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>]). Numerous researchers have examined the relation between students' passage comprehension skills and their mathematics word-problem performance ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref60">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref62">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref63">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref64">27</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>] posited that passage comprehension was necessary to build an accurate schematic representation of a word problem, thereby playing a foundational role in the word-problem solving process. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>] corroborated this notion in their study of second-grade students in which they administered several cognitive and academic measures to participants, including passage comprehension, word-problem-specific language comprehension, and word-problem solving. Fuchs et al. determined that word-problem solving is a form of passage comprehension that requires understanding of word-problem-specific language, which presents unique complexity that can cause difficulties for students with MD ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the passage comprehension demands embedded in word-problem solving, previous research does not conclusively indicate that passage comprehension significantly predicts word-problem performance. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref69">59</reflink>] reported a significant correlation between passage comprehension and word-problem solving for 9- to 10-year-old emergent bilinguals. Yet in a study with sixth-grade students in the Netherlands, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref70">5</reflink>] administered a passage comprehension measure and a word-problem measure in which problems were read aloud and presented in written form. They determined passage comprehension significantly predicted word-problem performance at the test level but not at the item level. Finally, in a meta-analysis of word-problem predictors for elementary school students, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref71">27</reflink>] determined that passage comprehension did not significantly predict word-problem outcomes. In this study, we extend the literature on this topic by examining the extent to which passage comprehension differentially predicts word-problem outcomes across varying levels of MD severity.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-8">Generalized Vocabulary</hd> <p>Students must understand the vocabulary within a word problem to solve the problem successfully, regardless of whether the word problem is read aloud or presented in written form ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref73">47</reflink>]). Word problems contain both generalized-vocabulary terms (e.g., <emph>car</emph>) and mathematics-vocabulary terms (e.g., <emph>perimeter</emph>; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref74">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]). In this article, we refer to generalized-vocabulary terms as terms that do not have a meaning specific to the context of mathematics. The word <emph>car</emph> is an example of a generalized-vocabulary term because it holds meaning in everyday language rather than specifically within mathematics. Although students encounter generalized-vocabulary terms outside of the context of mathematics, these terms also appear in word problems (e.g., There are 20 <emph>cars</emph> parked at the bookstore and 10 <emph>cars</emph> parked at the pharmacy. How many more <emph>cars</emph> are parked at the bookstore than at the pharmacy?).</p> <p>Some generalized-vocabulary terms have multiple meanings. In fact, many of these terms have mathematics-specific definitions that differ from their definitions in everyday language ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref76">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref77">53</reflink>]). For instance, consider the word <emph>foot</emph>, which refers to a body part in everyday language but a unit of measurement within mathematics ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref78">53</reflink>]). Because the word <emph>foot</emph> has both generalized and mathematics-specific meanings, we consider it to be both a generalized- and mathematics-vocabulary term. Students must understand both general and context-specific meanings of vocabulary terms to solve word problems, which can create challenges for students with MD ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref79">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although students must identify word meanings to solve word problems, previous research indicates mixed results regarding the relation between students' generalized-vocabulary knowledge and their word-problem performance ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref80">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref81">50</reflink>]). In some studies, researchers have identified significant correlations between vocabulary knowledge and various mathematics domains, including word-problem solving for both monolingual-English speaking students and emergent bilingual students ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref83">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref84">65</reflink>]). However, in other studies, researchers have determined a limited role of generalized-vocabulary knowledge in problem solving and mathematics in general ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref85">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref86">51</reflink>]). For instance, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref87">51</reflink>] highlighted that generalized vocabulary was not a significant predictor of early numeracy skills when mathematical language performance was also considered. In this study, we add to the literature by including both generalized and mathematics vocabulary in our examination of language-based predictors of word-problem outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-9">Mathematics Vocabulary</hd> <p>When solving word problems, students often encounter vocabulary terms with meanings that are unique to the context of mathematics ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref88">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref90">47</reflink>]). We consider these terms <emph>mathematics-vocabulary terms</emph>. Some mathematics-vocabulary terms, such as <emph>integer</emph> and <emph>quadrilateral</emph>, have only mathematics-specific meanings; in a model of mathematics-vocabulary categories, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref91">32</reflink>] label these terms <emph>technical vocabulary</emph> terms. Other mathematics-vocabulary terms are <emph>subtechnical vocabulary</emph> terms because they have multiple meanings that are context-dependent (e.g., <emph>foot</emph> as a unit of measurement vs. <emph>foot</emph> on a person's body, as previously discussed). Moreover, Monroe and Panchyshyn explain that mathematics vocabulary also includes <emph>symbolic vocabulary</emph>, such as exponent and fraction notation. Students must comprehend technical, subtechnical, and symbolic mathematics vocabulary to successfully solve word problems, regardless of whether problems are read aloud or presented in written form.</p> <p>Previous research indicates a consistent relation between mathematics vocabulary and word-problem performance ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref92">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref93">38</reflink>]). In a study of fourth-grade students in China, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref94">38</reflink>] determined that mathematics vocabulary contributed to word-problem performance after controlling for generalized vocabulary, working memory, processing speed, and IQ. In a meta-analysis of word-problem predictors, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref95">27</reflink>] further investigated the role of mathematics vocabulary and determined that it significantly predicted word-problem outcomes for students in third through fifth grades. Among third-grade emergent bilinguals with MD, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref96">42</reflink>] noted limited mathematics-vocabulary knowledge relative to monolingual-English speakers; this difficulty with mathematics vocabulary was especially pronounced among those who also exhibited challenges with word problems and equation solving. In this study, we build on the research base examining the relation between mathematics vocabulary and word-problem solving by focusing on how this relation manifests across third-grade students with varying degrees of MD.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-10">Purpose and Research Question</hd> <p>Given that students rely on language skills to solve word problems, we explored the extent to which four language skill sets predicted word-problem performance: word-reading accuracy, passage comprehension, generalized-vocabulary knowledge, and mathematics-vocabulary knowledge. To specifically gain insight into language-based barriers to word-problem solving, we included only students with demonstrated word-problem difficulties in our study. The sample of students in this study was from a randomized controlled trial measuring the efficacy of a word-problem intervention for third-grade students with MD ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref97">41</reflink>]). This study is a secondary analysis of data collected at pretest (i.e., prior to randomization) during the randomized controlled trial.</p> <p>We were especially interested in examining (a) if any significant heterogeneity of language skills existed within the spectrum of students with MD and (b) how such heterogeneity could contribute to differences in word-problem outcomes. This examination stemmed from research that has explored addressing student needs across varying degrees of MD ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref98">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref99">44</reflink>]). Given the role of language in word-problem solving, we sought to investigate how language variables could differentially predict word-problem performance of students with varying degrees of MD. Recognizing the potential for differential predictive relations dependent on the severity of students' MD, we assessed predictors using unconditional quantile regression (UQR). The following research question guided our investigation: Which language skills differentially predict the word-problem performance of students with varying degrees of MD?</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-11">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188670370-12">Context and Setting</hd> <p>Prior to administering measures to participants, we obtained approval from our university's Institutional Review Board and our school district partner to conduct research in public schools. The school district in which we worked was a large urban district in the southwestern United States with a population of more than 80,000 students. Among all students in the district, 55.5% were Hispanic or Latine, 29.6% were White, 7.1% were African American, and 7.7% belonged to other racial or ethnic categories. In addition, 52.4% of students in the district were economically disadvantaged, 27.1% were emergent bilingual students, and 12.1% received special education services. The district's graduation rate was 90.7%.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-13">Participants</hd> <p>We recruited two cohorts of third-grade students for participation in this project. Across these two cohorts, we administered initial screening assessments to students at 13 schools in 103 third-grade classrooms. In total, we screened 1,734 third-grade students for MD. We identified 325 students with MD, based on performance at or below the 25th percentile on the <emph>Single-Digit Word Problems</emph> measure ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref100">21</reflink>]). We chose the 25th percentile as our cutoff because it is commonly used in research about students with MD ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref101">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref102">36</reflink>]). Table 1 provides the demographics of the 325 students with MD.</p> <p>Table 1. Demographics of the 325 Third-Grade Participants.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;colgroup&gt;&lt;col align="left" /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;/colgroup&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Overall (%)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Demographic characteristic&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;(&lt;italic&gt;N&lt;/italic&gt; = 325)&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Gender (% female)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;53.8&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Race/ethnicity&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; African American&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;11.7&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Asian&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Hispanic/Latine&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;68.9&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; White&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;5.2&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Multiracial&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Other&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.5&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt; Missing&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;3.0&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Students in special education&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;12.3&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Emergent bilingual students&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;60.6&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188670370-14">Research Team</hd> <p>Project staff administered all measures discussed in this study. All project staff were pursuing or had already obtained master's or doctoral degrees in education-related fields. Across the two cohorts, 28 project staff members administered measures to participants. Of the project staff, 26 were female. Regarding project staff members' racial backgrounds, 17 identified as White, 6 as Hispanic, 2 as African American, 2 as Asian American, and 1 as American Indian. In August and September of each school year, all project staff participated in three pretesting training sessions that lasted 3 hr per session, for a total of 9 hr of training.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-15">Measures</hd> <p>To measure participants' language and word-problem skills, we administered a combination of researcher-developed and standardized tests. Each measure is described in detail within this section.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-16">Word-Reading Accuracy</hd> <p>To measure participants' word-reading accuracy, we administered the <emph>Wide Range Achievement Test</emph> (WRAT 4) <emph>Word Reading</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref103">62</reflink>]). This measure assessed letter identification and word recognition on 55 items. Participants' total scores reflected correct responses to both the letter identification items and word recognition items. Project staff terminated the test after a participant responded incorrectly to 10 consecutive items. Test-retest reliability of this measure was.86.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-17">Passage Comprehension</hd> <p>We measured participants' passage comprehension skills using the <emph>Woodcock Johnson-IV</emph> (WJ-IV) <emph>Passage Comprehension</emph> test ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref104">55</reflink>]). On this measure, participants read short passages and identified missing keywords using the context provided in each passage. Project staff terminated the test after a participant provided six consecutive incorrect responses. Participants' total scores reflected the number of correctly completed items. Test-retest reliability of this measure was.89.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-18">Generalized Vocabulary</hd> <p>We administered the <emph>Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence II</emph> (WASI-II) <emph>Vocabulary</emph> to evaluate participants' generalized-vocabulary knowledge ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref105">61</reflink>]). This measure included three picture-based items and 22 verbal items. For the picture-based items, participants named the object presented in a picture. For the verbal items, participants defined words presented orally and visually. Project staff terminated the test after a student provided five consecutive incorrect responses. Split-half reliability coefficient for this measure met or exceeded.90.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-19">Mathematics Vocabulary</hd> <p>We measured participants' mathematics-vocabulary knowledge using the <emph>Mathematics Vocabulary: Grade 3</emph> assessment ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref106">48</reflink>]). This assessment is a revised and condensed version of a measure that was developed for use across Grades 3, 4, and 5 ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref107">43</reflink>]). Note that the multigrade measure was created in 2014 but published in 2017. The multigrade measure includes mathematics-vocabulary terms introduced in Grades 3, 4, and 5 throughout commonly used curricula in the United States: <emph>enVisionMATH</emph>, <emph>Everyday Mathematics</emph>, and <emph>GO Math!</emph>. In total, 133 terms were included in the multigrade measure.</p> <p>When all terms introduced after Grade 3 were eliminated, 45 terms remained in the <emph>Mathematics Vocabulary: Grade</emph> 3 measure ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref108">48</reflink>]). All terms were included in Grade 3 glossaries, although some terms were introduced in prior grades (i.e., K, 1, or 2). Test questions included matching terms with pictures, drawing pictures to represent terms, and providing written responses. Participants had 12 min to answer as many questions as possible and received 1 point for each correct response. Cronbach's α of the <emph>Mathematics Vocabulary: Grade 3</emph> measure was.92. For additional information about this measure, see [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref109">42</reflink>].</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-20">Word-Problem Solving</hd> <p>Three measures were administered to assess our outcome variable of interest, word-problem performance: <emph>Word Problems Test-Brief</emph>, <emph>Word Problems Test-Part 1</emph>, and <emph>Word Problems Test-Part 2</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref110">40</reflink>]). Note that overlap was minimal between the researcher-developed mathematics-vocabulary measure and each of the word-problem measures. Word problems within all measures were intentionally designed to reflect a culturally inclusive set of situations and characters that could be relatable to students with a diverse range of backgrounds.</p> <p>The <emph>Word Problems Test-Brief</emph> measure consisted of eight double-digit word problems: one total problem, three difference problems, and four change problems. Project staff read the problems aloud and gave students approximately 1 min to complete each problem. Upon request, project staff reread problems up to one time. Participants earned points for correct numerical and label responses, for a total of 16 possible points. Cronbach's α for the <emph>Word Problems Test-Brief</emph> for the sample of students with MD was.83.</p> <p>On the <emph>Word Problems Test-Part 1</emph> measure ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref111">40</reflink>]), participants solved nine double-digit word problems: two total problems, one difference problem, four change problems, and two multischema problems. Two of these problems required interpretation of graphs. Participants earned points for correct numerical and label responses for a total of 18 possible points. Cronbach's α for students with MD was.84.</p> <p>The <emph>Word Problems Test-Part 2</emph> measure ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref112">40</reflink>]) included nine double-digit word problems: two total problems, two difference problems, three change problems, one equal groups problem, and one multischema problem. One problem included irrelevant information, and three problems required interpretation of graphs. The total number of possible points on this measure was 18. Cronbach's α for students with MD was.85.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-21">Mathematics Computation</hd> <p>Mathematics computation served as a control variable in this study due to its relation with word-problem performance ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref113">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref114">27</reflink>]). To measure mathematics computation, we administered the <emph>Math Computation</emph> subtest of the <emph>WRAT-4</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref115">62</reflink>]). This test consisted of 40 written computation problems that increased in difficulty. Students had 15 min to answer as many questions as possible and were awarded 1 point per correct answer. Students also received an additional 15 points for an oral arithmetic section; we did not administer this section to students because it was not necessary for our sample. The maximum possible score students could earn was thus 55. Cronbach's α was 0.76.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-22">Emergent Bilingual Status</hd> <p>In addition to mathematics computation, emergent bilingual status also served as a control variable in our analysis. To identify students as emergent bilinguals, we used teacher-provided data on students who completed the <emph>Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref116">49</reflink>]). This test is given annually to all students who are still developing fluency in the English language. The test measures listening, speaking, reading, and writing in English. Students who completed the test during the study were identified as emergent bilinguals in our analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-23">Fidelity of Assessment Implementation</hd> <p>Aside from the English proficiency test, all testing sessions were recorded. We randomly selected greater than 20% of recorded sessions, which were evenly distributed across test administrators (i.e., project staff members). We assessed implementation fidelity within recorded testing sessions using a checklist. Average fidelity across sessions was 98.5% (standard deviation [<emph>SD</emph>] = 0.024).</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-24">Scoring</hd> <p>Two project staff members independently entered student responses to all items on all measures into an electronic database. Original scoring reliability was 99.9% across measures. The two project staff members and the project manager met to resolve all discrepancies. All participant responses were then converted to either correct (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>) or incorrect (0) in the electronic database, ensuring full accuracy of scoring.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-25">Data Analysis</hd> <p>We used unconditional quantile regression (UQR; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref118">10</reflink>]) to explore whether the influence of mathematics language skills and generalized language skills on word-problem-solving performance varied for students with different levels of word-problem-solving ability when controlling for computation skill. Unconditional quantile regression is distinct from conditional quantile regression ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref119">25</reflink>]), where the effects are conditional on the distribution of covariates. In contrast, UQR models the influence of predictors on the unconditional (marginal) quantiles of the outcome variable. In UQR, quantiles are defined prior to regression; therefore, the model is not influenced by any of the covariates in the model ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref120">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unconditional quantile regression is particularly useful for investigating heterogeneous effects within a sample of students with MD. It provides a more comprehensive understanding of how predictor variables impact performance at various points along the achievement spectrum rather than solely focusing on mean outcomes even within a restricted range of word-problem-solving scores. This allows us to detect differential effects that might be obscured in traditional regression methods that focus on average relationships. Because more than 60% of our participants were identified as emergent bilingual, we also controlled for emergent bilingual status.</p> <p>To implement the UQR approach, we choose the two-step UQR method introduced by [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref121">10</reflink>] that consists of running a regression of a transformation—a (recentered) influence function—of the outcome variable on the explanatory variables. The first step was to create a binary variable relying on the recentered influence function (RIF) for each quantile of interest (here,.20,.30,.40,.50,.60,.70,.80,.90). We then fit ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models replacing the original dependent variable with the RIF-based binary variable. This two-step process estimates the relationship between predictor variables and word-problem-solving performance and, more importantly, tests whether effects differ across the unconditional distribution of the dependent variable ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref122">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>We evaluated three comparisons for each predictor: (a) the.20 versus.50 quantiles; (b) the.20 versus.80 quantiles; and (c) the.50 versus.80 quantiles. These percentile values were selected to represent the continuum of performance within our sample of students with MD. To ease interpretation, all variables were <emph>z</emph>-transformed prior to analysis. All analyses were conducted in Stata 15.1. The <emph>rifhdreg</emph> command ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref123">52</reflink>]) was used for creating RIFs of quantiles of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-26">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188670370-27">Heterogeneity of MD</hd> <p>We first examined heterogeneity of our sample of students with MD. Table 2 includes results of this examination. On word-reading accuracy, scores ranged from 55 to 137 (<emph>M =</emph> 90.48, <emph>SD</emph> = 14.47). Scores on the passage comprehension measure ranged from 11 to 33 (<emph>M</emph> = 20.75, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.68). Scores on general vocabulary ranged from 0 to 34 (<emph>M</emph> = 13.84, <emph>SD</emph> = 6.94), and scores on mathematics vocabulary ranged from 0 to 28 (<emph>M</emph> = 9.06, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.89). Computation scores ranged from 16 to 32 (<emph>M</emph> = 23.33, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.78). Finally, word-problem scores ranged from 0 to 25 (<emph>M</emph> = 6.51, <emph>SD</emph> = 4.96).</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;colgroup&gt;&lt;col align="left" /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;/colgroup&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;Variables&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;n&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;M&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" rowspan="2"&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SD&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" rowspan="2"&gt;Range&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" colspan="6"&gt;Correlations&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;1&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;2&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;3&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;4&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;5&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;6&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;1 Word problems&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;325&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.51&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.96&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0&amp;#8211;25&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;2 Word-reading accuracy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;324&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;90.48&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;14.47&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;55&amp;#8211;137&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.28&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;3 Passage comprehension&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;324&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;20.75&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.68&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;11&amp;#8211;33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.64&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;4 Generalized vocabulary&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;325&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;13.84&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;6.94&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0&amp;#8211;34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.55&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;5 Mathematics vocabulary&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;325&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;9.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;4.89&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0&amp;#8211;27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.40&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.43&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.46&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;6 Computation skill&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;325&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;23.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;2.78&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;16&amp;#8211;32&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.39&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.25&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.29&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188670370-28">Predictors of Word-Problem Performance</hd> <p>Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between the study variables are included in Table 2. Word-problem performance was moderately related to word-reading accuracy (<emph>r</emph> =.28), passage comprehension (<emph>r</emph> =.32), generalized vocabulary (<emph>r</emph> =.24), mathematics vocabulary (<emph>r</emph> =.40), and computation skill (<emph>r</emph> =.39). Passage comprehension proved to be strongly related to word-reading accuracy (<emph>r</emph> =.64) and generalized vocabulary (<emph>r</emph> =.55).</p> <p>Results of OLS and UQR regression predicting students' word-problem performance from generalized language skills and mathematics-vocabulary skill controlling for emergent bilingual status are presented in Table 3. Results of the OLS regression indicated passage comprehension (<emph>β</emph> = 0.19, standard error [<emph>SE</emph>] = 0.08, <emph>p</emph> =.02), mathematics vocabulary (<emph>β</emph> = 0.19, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.06, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001), and computational skill (<emph>β</emph> = 0.33, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.05, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001) were significant predictors of word-problem performance. The overall model accounted for 27% of the variance, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref124">6</reflink>, 307) = 19.40, <emph>p</emph> &lt;.001.</p> <p>Table 3. Unconditional Quantile Regression Results.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;colgroup&gt;&lt;col align="left" /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;/colgroup&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" rowspan="2"&gt;Predictor&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th /&gt;&lt;th align="center" rowspan="2"&gt;OLS&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" colspan="8"&gt;Word-problem quantile coefficients&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Analysis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.2&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.3&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.4&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.5&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.6&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.7&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.8&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;0.9&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Word-reading accuracy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.19&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.85&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.48&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.49&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.69&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.90&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.74&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.42&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Passage comprehension&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.19&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.15&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.62&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.25&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.02&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.64&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.43&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Generalized vocabulary&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.19&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.23&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.34&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.98&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.89&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.59&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Mathematics vocabulary&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.19&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.12&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.13&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.14&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.21&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.24&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.28&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.37&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Computation skill&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.33&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.24&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.35&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.36&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.35&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.41&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.44&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.39&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;bold&gt;0.47&lt;/bold&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Emergent bilingual status&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.15&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.04&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.19&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.25&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.38&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.19&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.21&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.72&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.84&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.82&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;1.00&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.61&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Bolded values are significant.</p> <p>Results from the UQR analyses indicated mathematics vocabulary and computation skill were significantly associated with word-problem solving when controlling for the effect of other variables. This association was significant for computational skill across all quantiles, whereas for mathematics vocabulary, it was significant across all quantiles except for the 40th (<emph>p</emph> =.07) and 90th quantiles (<emph>p</emph> =.08). The quantile-process plots in Figure 1 demonstrate that the unique predictive utility of mathematics vocabulary and computation skill for word-problem solving tends to increase from the 20th quantile (coefficient = 0.12 for mathematics vocabulary and 0.24 for computation skill) to the 90th quantile (coefficient = 0.37 for mathematics vocabulary and 0.47 for computation skill). Slope comparisons revealed no significant differences across quantiles for either computational skill or mathematics vocabulary (refer to Table 4). Furthermore, controlling for the effects of other variables, the predictive utility of passage comprehension was conditional on word-problem level. That is, passage comprehension was significantly related to word-problem solving at the.40 and.90 quantiles. Comparison between quantiles indicated passage comprehension's predictive utility did not differ statistically across values of word-problem solving. Last, controlling for the effects of other predictors, word-reading accuracy and generalized vocabulary were not related to word-problem solving at any quantile.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Unconditional Quantile Regression Coefficients for Predicting Word-Problem Performance.</p> <p>Table 4. Comparison of Coefficients Across Quantiles.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;colgroup&gt;&lt;col align="left" /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;col align="char" char="." /&gt;&lt;/colgroup&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Predictor&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Analysis&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;.50 vs..20&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;.80 vs..50&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;.80 vs..20&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Word-reading accuracy&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.01&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.35&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.62&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.95&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Passage comprehension&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.06&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.18&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.80&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.57&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.73&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Generalized vocabulary&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.09&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.57&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.33&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Mathematics vocabulary&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.03&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.13&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.08&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.14&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.74&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.26&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.24&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Computation skill&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.07&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.10&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.11&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.65&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.20&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Emergent bilingual status&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;Estimate&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.12&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.05&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;&amp;#8722;0.17&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;SE&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.16&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.22&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;0.27&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td /&gt;&lt;td&gt;&lt;italic&gt;p&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.44&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.83&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td&gt;.53&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188670370-29">Discussion</hd> <p>Solving word problems is a complex task that requires the successful integration of numeracy- and language-based skill sets ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref125">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref126">24</reflink>]). In this study, we investigated the extent to which language skills differentially predicted word-problem performance among third-grade students with MD when controlling for computation skill and emergent bilingual status.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-30">Language Predictors</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188670370-31">Word-Reading Accuracy</hd> <p>Our analysis indicated word-reading accuracy did not predict word-problem performance of third-grade students with MD within any quantile. The results complement the studies of both [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref127">4</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref128">64</reflink>], which indicated no significant relation between word reading and word-problem performance among typically achieving students. Our results also partially corroborate those of [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref129">15</reflink>], who determined an inconsistent relation between word reading and word-problem solving (i.e., at only specific quantiles of performance). Although word reading is a prerequisite skill needed to access word problems presented in written form, it is possible that students rely more heavily on other language skills (e.g., passage comprehension) when they schematically represent and solve word problems ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref130">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, it is possible word-reading ability may differentially relate to word-problem performance dependent on whether word problems are presented by reading aloud, in written form where students read independently, or both. In this study, problems were presented in written form and read aloud; this was also the case in [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref131">15</reflink>] study and [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref132">64</reflink>] study. More research is needed that isolates these format differences to provide insight into potential differential effects of word reading based on differences in test administration format, particularly for students with MD and emergent bilingual students.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-32">Passage Comprehension</hd> <p>Our analysis revealed a significant predictive relation between passage comprehension and word-problem performance (<emph>β</emph> = 0.19, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.08, <emph>p</emph> =.02). When examining these relations at individual quantiles, passage comprehension significantly predicted word-problem performance at the 0.40 and 0.90 quantiles. Interestingly, these were the two quantiles in which mathematics vocabulary did not significantly predict word-problem performance. That is, students at these particular quantiles did not follow the overall trends in our analysis and instead appeared to recruit generalized passage comprehension skills more so than mathematics-vocabulary skills to solve word problems. Our relatively small sample size may have contributed to this variation in results across quantiles.</p> <p>Moreover, the inconsistent predictive relation between passage comprehension and word-problem solving complements some previous research results. For instance, in [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref133">5</reflink>] study, passage comprehension was related to word-problem performance at the overall test level but not at the individual item level, and in [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref134">27</reflink>] meta-analysis of word-problem predictors among elementary-age students, passage comprehension did not significantly predict word-problem performance. Additional research can further investigate the nuanced relations between passage comprehension and word-problem solving, especially using different administration formats for word-problem measures (i.e., problems only read aloud, only presented in written form, or both) and larger sample sizes.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-33">Generalized Vocabulary</hd> <p>Generalized-vocabulary knowledge did not significantly predict word-problem performance at any quantile in our analysis. Initially, this result may seem surprising given the presence of generalized-vocabulary terms in word problems (e.g., words such as <emph>car</emph>, <emph>bookstore</emph>, and <emph>pharmacy</emph> in the following problem: "There are 20 <emph>cars</emph> parked at the <emph>bookstore</emph> and 10 <emph>cars</emph> parked at the <emph>pharmacy</emph>. How many more <emph>cars</emph> are parked at the <emph>bookstore</emph> than at the <emph>pharmacy</emph>?"). Moreover, researchers in some studies have determined significant relations between vocabulary knowledge and mathematics performance across domains, including word-problem-solving ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref135">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref136">60</reflink>]). However, several other studies indicated this relation is insignificant ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref137">6</reflink>]), especially when mathematics language is included in the model ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref138">51</reflink>]). The inclusion of a mathematics-vocabulary measure in our study may explain why generalized-vocabulary knowledge did not significantly predict word-problem performance in our analysis. Despite the presence of both generalized and mathematics-specific vocabulary in word problems, it is possible that only mathematics-vocabulary knowledge is significantly recruited in students' problem-solving process (i.e., in the translation of a text-based problem to a solvable number sentence; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref139">24</reflink>]). Future research should further investigate this pathway.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-34">Mathematics Vocabulary</hd> <p>Our results indicated a predictive relation between mathematics vocabulary and word-problem performance across all but two quantiles. The relation between mathematics vocabulary and mathematics performance across domains, including word-problem solving, is substantiated in several other studies ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref140">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref141">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref142">51</reflink>]). Moreover, within our analysis, the predictive utility of mathematics vocabulary tended to increase as students' word-problem performance improved. This increasing trend may suggest that as students demonstrate more success with word-problem solving, they more actively rely upon mathematics-vocabulary knowledge to support their problem-solving process. Finally, when contrasted with the lack of predictive relation between generalized vocabulary and word-problem performance, mathematics vocabulary appears to be a unique predictor of word-problem solving that is distinct from generalized vocabulary ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref143">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-35">Implications for Research</hd> <p>Because our sample represented one school district, future research is warranted with larger samples and across other districts and geographic areas. In addition, researchers should further investigate language predictors of word-problem performance across students at multiple grade levels, students without MD, students with and without identified reading difficulty, and emergent bilingual students. Particularly given the substantial and increasing number of emergent bilingual students in the United States, it is critical to understand the nuances of how generalized and content-specific language skills shape problem-solving performance for this population ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref144">42</reflink>]). Large-scale analyses of differential relations between word-problem performance and varying levels of English proficiency can provide insight into these nuances. These insights can lead to increased breadth and depth of research-validated practices to support word-problem development across diverse student populations.</p> <p>In addition to assessing the generalizability of our results, future research should focus on further development of mathematics-vocabulary measures. In particular, there is a need for standardized, grade-level-specific measures in this area. Given that researcher-developed measures have indicated relations between mathematics vocabulary and mathematics performance ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref145">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref146">38</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref147">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref148">51</reflink>]), it will be important to determine whether these results are substantiated across specific grade levels using standardized measures.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-36">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>Given the relation between mathematics vocabulary and word-problem performance, practitioners should consider prioritizing mathematics-vocabulary instruction. Those with more severe MD may benefit from explicit instruction on applying mathematics-vocabulary knowledge to word-problem solving so they can successfully develop and recruit this skill set. Consistent with findings from intervention research with students with severe MD, this instruction should be provided within the context of intensive intervention that emphasizes individualization and frequent opportunities for student engagement ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref149">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref150">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref151">44</reflink>]). Recommended practices in mathematics-vocabulary intervention include multiple exposures to vocabulary terms, use of visual and concrete representations, and schematic maps ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref152">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref153">56</reflink>]). Although research on mathematics-vocabulary instruction is relatively sparse, these practices are also validated in the more established research base on general-vocabulary instruction ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref154">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref155">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref156">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, practitioners should consider providing opportunities to build reading-comprehension skill within the context of mathematics word problems. Utilizing schema instruction and attack strategies (e.g., mnemonics that outline a problem-solving approach) can support students to comprehend the quantitative relationships within text-based problems ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref157">45</reflink>]). These tools can also help students distinguish relevant from irrelevant information in word problems ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref158">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref159">45</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-37">Limitations</hd> <p>This study has several limitations to consider, the first of which centers on measurement. Each language construct included in the study was represented by a single measure. Utilizing multiple measures to capture each language construct would have provided more robust conclusions. In addition, because our word-problem measure was both read aloud to students and presented in written form for students to read themselves, we were unable to ascertain the extent to which students relied on each presentation format in their problem-solving process. Moreover, both the mathematics-vocabulary and word-problem measures were researcher-developed. Because we determined a consistent predictive relation between these skill sets, it would be helpful to assess the generalizability of our results using standardized measures.</p> <p>In addition, the relatively small sample size of our study prevented feasibly conducting our analysis with attention to varying degrees of English proficiency among emergent bilingual students. As noted in the implications for research, future large-scale studies can investigate these variations. We accounted for this limitation in our study by controlling for emergent bilingual status.</p> <p>Finally, across all four language predictors measured, 27% of the variance was accounted for in word-problem performance among third-grade students with MD. The majority of variance was, therefore, unexplained by our investigation, which could perhaps be accounted for by a combination of cognitive, numeracy, and even other language skills. For instance, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref160">6</reflink>] determined that receptive syntax predicted mathematics performance among first- and second-grade students, which is a language skill we did not include in our model.</p> <hd id="AN0188670370-38">Conclusion</hd> <p>In this study, we determined mathematics vocabulary significantly predicts word-problem performance among third-grade students with MD at all but two quantiles. In addition, the predictive relation between mathematics vocabulary and word-problem performance tends to increase as students' word-problem performance improves. Although there was a limited predictive relation between passage comprehension and word-problem solving, neither word-reading accuracy nor generalized-vocabulary knowledge predicted word-problem performance at any quantile. These results underscore the importance of developing and utilizing evidence-based practices to provide mathematics-specific vocabulary instruction to students with MD.</p> <ref id="AN0188670370-39"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref42" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abdulrahim N. A., Orosco M. J. (2020). Culturally responsive mathematics teaching: A research synthesis. The Urban Review, 52(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00509-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref30" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alt M., Arizmendi G. D., Beal C. R. (2014). The relationship between mathematics and language: Academic implications for children with specific language impairment and English language learners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_lshss-13-0003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Andersson U. (2008). Mathematical competencies in children with different types of learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bjork I. M., Bowyer-Crane C. (2013). Cognitive skills used to solve mathematical word problems and numerical operations: A study of 6- to 7-year-old children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(4), 1345–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0169-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref60" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boonen A. J., van Wesel F., Jolles J., van der Schoot M. (2014). The role of visual representation type, spatial ability, and reading comprehension in word problem solving: An item-level analysis in elementary school children. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref80" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chow J. C., Ekholm E. (2019). Language domains differentially predict mathematics performance in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cowan R., Powell D. (2014). The contributions of domain general and numerical factors to third-grade arithmetic skills and mathematical learning disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref61" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Daroczy G., Wolska M., Meurers W. D., Nuerk H.-C. (2015). Word problems: A review of linguistic and numerical factors contributing to their difficulty. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref19" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dennis M. S. (2015). Effects of tier 2 and tier 3 mathematics interventions for second graders with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice, 30(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firpo S., Fortin N. M., Lemieux T. (2009). Unconditional quantile regressions. Econometrica, 77(3), 953–973. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6822</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Compton D. L., Hamlett C. L., Wang A. Y. (2015). Is word-problem solving a form of text comprehension? Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1005745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Compton D. L., Powell S. R., Seethaler P. M., Capizzi A. M., Schatschneider C., Fletcher J. M. (2006). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Malone A. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917703962</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs L. S., Gilbert J. K., Fuchs D., Seethaler P. M., Martin B. N. (2018). Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word-problem solving: Insights into word-problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs L. S., Powell S. R., Fall A.-M., Roberts G., Cirino P., Fuchs D., Gilbert J. K. (2020). Do the processes engaged during mathematical word-problem solving differ along the distribution of word-problem competence? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs L. S., Seethaler P. M., Sterba S. K., Craddock C., Fuchs D., Compton D. L., Geary D. C., Changas P. (2021). Closing the word-problem achievement gap in first grade: Schema-based word-problem intervention with embedded language comprehension instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geary D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370010201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geary D. C., Hoard M. K., Nugent L., Bailey D. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert J. K., Fuchs L. S. (2017). Bivariate developmental relations between calculations and word problems: A latent change approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.06.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiang R., Yu K. (2024). Unconditional quantile regression for streaming datasets. Journal of Business &amp; Economic Statistics, 42(4), 1143–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2023.2293162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jordan N. C., Hanich L. B. (2000). Mathematical thinking in second-grade children with different forms of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(6), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King S. G., Powell S. R. (2023). Language proficiency and the relation to word–problem performance in emergent bilingual students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice, 38(4), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch W. (2018). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In Alvermann D. E., Unrau N. J., Sailors M., Ruddell R. B. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (pp. 178–203). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch W., Greeno J. G. (1985). Understanding and solving word arithmetic problems. Psychological Review, 92(1), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.1.109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koenker R., Hallock K. F. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.4.143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lariviere D. O., Arsenault T. L., Payne S. B. (2024). A literature review: Mathematics-vocabulary interventions for students with mathematics difficulty. School Science and Mathematics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin X. (2021). Investigating the unique predictors of word-problem solving using meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1097–1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09554-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin B. N., Fuchs L. S. (2022). Predicting risk for comorbid reading and mathematics disability using fluency-based screening assessments. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice, 37(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marulis L. M., Neuman S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children's word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310377087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marzano R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Association for Supervision &amp; Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mazzocco M. M., Feigenson L., Halberda J. (2011). Impaired acuity of the approximate number system underlies mathematical learning disability (dyscalculia). Child Development, 82(4), 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01608.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Monroe E. E., Panchyshyn R. (1995). Vocabulary considerations for teaching mathematics. Childhood Education, 72, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1996.10521849</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers J. A., Witzel B. S., Powell S. R., Li H., Pigott T. D., Xin Y. P., Hughes E. M. (2022). A meta-analysis of mathematics word-problem solving interventions for elementary students who evidence mathematics difficulties. Review of Educational Research, 92(5), 695–742. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211070049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). The nation's report card. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/">www.nationsreportcard.gov/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, &amp; Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Mathematics standards. Common Core State Standards Initiative. https://<ulink href="http://www.corestandards.org/math">www.corestandards.org/math</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson G., Powell S. R. (2018). A systematic review of longitudinal studies of mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417714773</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosco M. J. (2014). A math intervention for third grade Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Exceptionality, 22(4), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.865535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peng P., Lin X. (2019). The relation between mathematics vocabulary and mathematics performance among fourth graders. Learning and Individual Differences, 69, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.11.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter S. R. (2015). Quantile regression: Analyzing changes in distributions instead of means. In Paulsen M. B. (Ed.), Higher education, vol. 30: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 335–381). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Berry K. A. (2015). Texas word problems. Department of Special Education, The University of Texas at Austin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Berry K. A., Fall A.-M., Roberts G., Fuchs L. S., Barnes M. A. (2021). Alternative paths to improved word-problem performance: An advantage for embedding prealgebraic reasoning instruction within word-problem intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(5), 898–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Berry K. A., Tran L. M. (2020). Performance differences on a measure of mathematics vocabulary for English learners and non-English learners with and without mathematics difficulty. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly, 36(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1677538</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Driver M. K., Roberts G., Fall A. M. (2017). An analysis of the mathematics vocabulary knowledge of third-and fifth-grade students: Connections to general vocabulary and mathematics computation. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Fuchs L. S. (2015). Intensive intervention in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice, 30(4), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Fuchs L. S. (2018). Effective word-problem instruction: Using schemas to facilitate mathematical reasoning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918777250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Nelson G. (2017). An investigation of the mathematics-vocabulary knowledge of first-grade students. Elementary School Journal, 117(4), 664–686. https://doi.org/10.1086/691604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Stevens E. A., Berry K. A. (2019). Effects of a word-problem intervention on word-problem language features for third-grade students with mathematics difficulty. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 24(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2019-V24-I2-9835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Tran L. (2016). Mathematics vocabulary: Grade 3. The University of Texas at Austin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell S. R., Urrutia V. Y., Berry K. A., Barnes M. A. (2022). The word-problem solving and explanations of students experiencing mathematics difficulty: A comparison based on dual-language status. Learning Disability Quarterly, 45(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720922198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purpura D. J., Ganley C. M. (2014). Working memory and language: Skill-specific or domain-general relations to mathematics? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122, 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.12.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purpura D. J., Reid E. E. (2016). Mathematics and language: Individual and group differences in mathematical language skills in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.12.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rios-Avila F. (2020). Recentered influence functions (RIFs) in Stata: RIF regression and RIF decomposition. The Stata Journal, 20(1), 51–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X20909690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubenstein R. N., Thompson D. R. (2002). Understanding and supporting children's mathematical vocabulary development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(2), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.9.2.0107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanford A. K., Pinkney C. J., Brown J. E., Elliott C. G., Rotert E. N., Sennott S. C. (2020). Culturally and linguistically responsive mathematics instruction for English learners in multitiered support systems: PLUSS enhancements. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719836173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrank F. A., McGrew K. S., Mather N. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens E. A., Leroux A. J., Mowbray M. H., Lee G. S. (2023). Evaluating the effects of adding explicit vocabulary instruction to a word-problem schema intervention. Exceptional Children, 89(3), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221112290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson H. L., Kong J. E., Moran A. S., Orosco M. J. (2019). Paraphrasing interventions and problem-solving accuracy: Do generative procedures help English language learners with math difficulties? Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice, 34(2), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor D. B., Mraz M., Nichols W. D., Rickelman R. J., Wood K. D. (2009). Using explicit instruction to promote vocabulary learning for struggling readers. Reading &amp; Writing Quarterly, 25(2–3), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trakulphadetkrai N. V., Courtney L., Clenton J., Treffers-Daller J., Tsakalaki A. (2020). The contribution of general language ability, reading comprehension and working memory to mathematics achievement among children with English as additional language (EAL): An exploratory study. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1373742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vukovic R. K., Lesaux N. K. (2013). The language of mathematics: Investigating the ways language counts for children's mathematical development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence (2nd ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilkinson G. S., Robertson G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test 4 professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willcutt E. G., McGrath L. M., Pennington B. F., Keenan J. M., DeFries J. C., Olson R. K., Wadsworth S. J. (2019). Understanding comorbidity between specific learning disabilities. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 165, 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong T. T.-Y., Ho C. S.-H. (2017). Component processes in arithmetic word-problem solving and their correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(4), 520–531. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000149</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu C., Burr S. D. L., Skwarchuk S.-L., Douglas H., Lafay A., Osana H. P., Simms V., Wylie J., Maloney E. A., LeFevre J.-A. (2022). Pathways to learning mathematics for students in French-immersion and English-instruction programs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(6), 1321–1342. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu C., Lafay A., Douglas H., Burr S. D. L., LeFevre J.-A., Osana H. P., Skwarchuk S.-L., Wylie J., Simms V., Maloney E. A. (2022). The role of mathematical language skills in arithmetic fluency and word-problem solving for first- and second-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(3), 513–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000673</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0188670370-40"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This research was supported in part by Grant R324A150078 from the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education to the University of Texas at Austin. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Danielle O. Lariviere</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6170-4701 Sarah R. Powell</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-6160</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Danielle O. Lariviere; Sarah R. Powell; Anna-Maria Fall; Greg Roberts and Tessa L. Arsenault</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref157"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1488652 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Language Predictors of Word-Problem Performance among Third-Grade Students with Mathematics Difficulty – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Danielle+O%2E+Lariviere%22">Danielle O. Lariviere</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6170-4701">0000-0002-6170-4701</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sarah+R%2E+Powell%22">Sarah R. Powell</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-6160">0000-0002-6424-6160</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna-Maria+Fall%22">Anna-Maria Fall</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Greg+Roberts%22">Greg Roberts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tessa+L%2E+Arsenault%22">Tessa L. Arsenault</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Learning+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Learning Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2025 58(6):445-458. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 14 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: SourceSuprt Label: Sponsoring Agency Group: SrcSuprt Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED) – Name: NumberContract Label: Contract Number Group: NumCntrct Data: R324A150078 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Audience Label: Education Level Group: Audnce Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Skills%22">Language Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Problems+%28Mathematics%29%22">Word Problems (Mathematics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Problems%22">Learning Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Learners%22">English Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computation%22">Computation</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink> – Name: SubjectThesaurus Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Wide+Range+Achievement+Test%22">Wide Range Achievement Test</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Woodcock+Johnson+Tests+of+Achievement%22">Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Wechsler+Abbreviated+Scale+of+Intelligence%22">Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Texas+English+Language+Proficiency+Assessment+System+%28TELPAS%29%22">Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1177/00222194241311979 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0022-2194<br />1538-4780 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: We examined how generalized and mathematics-specific language skills predicted the word-problem performance of students with mathematics difficulty. Participants were 325 third-grade students in the southwestern United States who performed at or below the 25th percentile on a word-problem measure. We assessed generalized language skills in word reading, passage comprehension, and vocabulary knowledge. In addition, we measured mathematics-specific vocabulary knowledge. To explore variation within the mathematics-difficulty population, we utilized unconditional quantile regression to determine how each of these skill sets predicted word-problem performance when controlling for computation and emergent bilingual status. Results revealed that mathematics-vocabulary knowledge significantly predicted word-problem performance at all but two quantiles (p < 0.001), with strongest predictive relations at the highest quantiles. Passage comprehension had an overall significant relation to word-problem performance (p < 0.05) that was also reflected in multiple quantiles. Neither word-reading accuracy nor generalized-vocabulary knowledge demonstrated a significant predictive relation to word-problem performance. Given the consistent relation between mathematics-vocabulary knowledge and word-problem performance across quantiles, researchers and practitioners should prioritize evidence-based mathematics-vocabulary instruction to support students' word-problem-solving skills. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: CodeSource Label: IES Funded Group: SrcInfo Data: Yes – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1488652 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1488652 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1177/00222194241311979 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 StartPage: 445 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Language Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Word Problems (Mathematics) Type: general – SubjectFull: Grade 3 Type: general – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Problems Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension Type: general – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Accuracy Type: general – SubjectFull: English Learners Type: general – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students Type: general – SubjectFull: Computation Type: general – SubjectFull: Texas Type: general – SubjectFull: Wide Range Achievement Test Type: general – SubjectFull: Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement Type: general – SubjectFull: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence Type: general – SubjectFull: Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Language Predictors of Word-Problem Performance among Third-Grade Students with Mathematics Difficulty Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Danielle O. Lariviere – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sarah R. Powell – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Anna-Maria Fall – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Greg Roberts – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Tessa L. Arsenault IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0022-2194 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1538-4780 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 58 – Type: issue Value: 6 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Learning Disabilities Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
