View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Decoding Strategies in Spanish First-Grade Students at Risk of Reading Difficulties

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Decoding Strategies in Spanish First-Grade Students at Risk of Reading Difficulties
Language: English
Authors: Patricia Crespo (ORCID 0000-0001-6384-7709), Juan E. Jiménez, Cristina Rodríguez, Doris Luft Baker (ORCID 0000-0001-8517-9799), Juan A. Hernández Cabrera
Source: Learning Disability Quarterly. 2026 49(2):59-69.
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: 11
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Grade 1
Primary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Decoding (Reading), Intervention, Grade 1, Spanish Speaking, Reading Instruction, At Risk Students, Reading Difficulties, Program Effectiveness, Reading Achievement, Reading Strategies, Reading Fluency, Phoneme Grapheme Correspondence
Geographic Terms: Spain
DOI: 10.1177/07319487251323587
ISSN: 0731-9487
2168-376X
Abstract: In this study, we examine the effect of an intervention on decoding strategies of monolingual Spanish-speaking, first-grade students in Spain. Participants were first-grade Spanish-speaking monolingual students assigned to one of three conditions based on their reading risk in Spain. The first group comprised typically developing readers; the second group comprised students at risk for a reading disability who received an empirically derived intervention; the third group comprised students at risk for a reading disability who received business as usual instruction. Findings suggest that students at risk for a reading disability who received the intervention scored significantly higher than students at risk who did not receive the intervention at the end of first grade. Moreover, students at risk who received the intervention moved from a sound-by-sound decoding strategy to being able to blend sounds to read a pseudoword as effectively as normally developing students. Implications for practice and future research on Spanish decoding and word automaticity are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1501903
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHGma9vpMkutlqyq3445QdbAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBNwYeSeE3xE-bIXXAIBEICBm275VnLG597dylGW7hk2jGqtmNdFVcj7a8fRUc212wgUNRKZ6m3-XjJf45ZCwrpNzNM461RnRQNRW7QVh5F1h1p4935RxoviWEGQE-ctXKspxYT6sSS8gAT_YzAnLKUJTuqSxeWGW_UjJIjuzJ8vJsF43NeOgXKSz7Cx8RAyzar-dyZnjJNxkun-gQTG382cC34-ZikS2gSpQOzZ
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0192656041;dyw01may.26;2026Apr02.02:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0192656041-1">Decoding Strategies in Spanish First-Grade Students at Risk of Reading Difficulties </title> <p>In this study, we examine the effect of an intervention on decoding strategies of monolingual Spanish-speaking, first-grade students in Spain. Participants were first-grade Spanish-speaking monolingual students assigned to one of three conditions based on their reading risk in Spain. The first group comprised typically developing readers; the second group comprised students at risk for a reading disability who received an empirically derived intervention; the third group comprised students at risk for a reading disability who received business as usual instruction. Findings suggest that students at risk for a reading disability who received the intervention scored significantly higher than students at risk who did not receive the intervention at the end of first grade. Moreover, students at risk who received the intervention moved from a sound-by-sound decoding strategy to being able to blend sounds to read a pseudoword as effectively as normally developing students. Implications for practice and future research on Spanish decoding and word automaticity are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: At risk; learning disabilities; decoding; reading; education; teacher</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-2">Alphabetic Knowledge</hd> <p>Alphabetic knowledge is one of the abilities that belongs to the spectrum of skills necessary for the acquisition of reading in the first years of schooling. It refers to student knowledge of the correspondence between letters and their sounds ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref2">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>]). The acquisition of alphabetic knowledge allows novice readers to read words and later comprehend text accurately. However, such an acquisition is subject to the characteristics of the alphabetic code in which the reading process is taking place ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref4">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref6">38</reflink>]). In other words, the level of orthographic consistency of the language in which the learner is learning to read implies variations in the grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules and, therefore, differences in the acquisition of the alphabetic code ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref9">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref10">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>For example, in languages with a transparent orthography, such as Spanish, learning the phoneme grapheme correspondence rules allows students to decode all words ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref13">40</reflink>]), enabling reading acquisition to be consolidated around age 7 (i.e., first grade). But when referring to students who have difficulties with reading acquisition, even though the grapheme-phoneme conversion is easier to acquire in transparent orthographies, the speed at which this conversion process takes place is very slow. This suggests that, despite the linguistic differences, students at risk of reading difficulties may demonstrate certain universal challenges in acquiring reading skills.</p> <p>Studies with English monolingual students at risk of reading difficulty have been extensive (see [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref17">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref18">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]). However, in our literature search, we found only a few studies in languages with a transparent orthography that provided an intervention to teach students letter-sound correspondence rules (see [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref22">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref24">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref25">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref26">40</reflink>]), perhaps because of the assumption that the skill will be acquired without instructional support given the almost one-on-one letter-sound correspondence rules. The aim of the present study is to examine the effect of an intervention on students decoding strategies in Spanish.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>Different theories and models have tried to explain the development of word reading ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref27">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref28">39</reflink>]). However, one of the most widely accepted theories of reading development is that proposed by [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]). This author postulates that there are four phases through which a student progresses until he/she becomes a competent reader. Each phase is characterized by the reading strategy used by the learner at each moment of his or her reading development. In the first phase, called the <emph>pre-alphabetic phase</emph>, students use only visual stimuli and do not form grapheme-phoneme connections to read words. In this phase, students are essentially non-readers. The second phase, known as the <emph>partially alphabetic phase</emph>, students learn the name or sound of letters and use them to try to read words. They only use a few sounds or letters, usually the first and last letters of each word. Because they are limited and only make partial connections, it is much more difficult for them to decode unfamiliar words. The third phase, called the <emph>full alphabetic phase</emph>, allows students to complete the connections between graphemes and phonemes and allows them to begin to learn words by sight. At this stage they are ready to decode unfamiliar words. Finally, the <emph>consolidation phase</emph>, in which they increase the number of words read by sight. The connection of letter-sound units might be between grapheme and phonemes, onset-rimes, syllables, or morphemes depending on the reader's knowledge of the orthographic system ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]). This way of grouping segments allows them to read multisyllabic words automatically. More recently, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>] has postulated the amalgamation theory, suggesting that once written words become familiar to the reader, they are no longer decoded by sounding them out, but they are read by sight, by activating the spelling units automatically as soon as the reader is exposed to the word. Although Ehri has proposed and tested these theories from the perspective of the English language, different studies show the existence of these phases in languages with greater orthographic transparency such as Spanish and Portuguese (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref36">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The question, however, remains on how the word reading phases and ultimate memorization of letter-sound patterns in English occur in the same way into languages with transparent orthographies. Theoretically, the transparency of orthographies causes the learning between spelling and sound to be accomplished faster. For example, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>] postulated the absence of the partial alphabetic phase in students learning to read in transparent languages (e.g., German). [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>], for example, states that the partial phase is shortened in time as decoding skills emerge earlier in transparent orthographies. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>], who conducted a study to test the strategies used by novice readers in transparent orthographies, concludes that the method by which students learn to read plays a decisive role in the acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Therefore, the present study specifically looks at whether instruction accelerates student transition from one alphabetic phase to another, and ultimately to the automatic recognition of words.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-4">Alphabetic Knowledge Instruction and Assessment</hd> <p>In [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>], the National Reading Panel (NRP) reviewed the scientific literature on reading and reading instruction, highlighting the importance of systematic interventions for instruction in alphabetic knowledge as well as phonological awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension, to ensure reading success. Although the NRP's findings were based only on reading in English, these instructional components have also been implemented successfully with Spanish-speaking students learning English as a second language ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref42">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref43">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>]), and, more recently, with Spanish students learning to read in monolingual contexts ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Of the 38 studies that comprised the meta-analysis by the NRP, 18 used a pseudoword reading measure to determine the validity of the interventions. Many studies have aimed at studying the correlation between the pseudoword reading measure and global measures of reading (i.e., fluency and comprehension). On one hand, pseudoword reading has been used as a predictor of student's risk status at the beginning of the year ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]), and on the other hand, as a measure of growth that leads to higher fluency and comprehension ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref49">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref52">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]). Findings have also indicated that the predictive validity of pseudoword reading varies according to the reading profile of the students (normal readers or at-risk readers). [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>] found these same results when they examined the predictive validity of pseudoword reading on reading fluency in English for students in first grade. Results indicated that in students who were not at risk, growth in pseudoword reading explained 9% of the variance in fluency at the end of the grade, whereas in students at risk the percentage of variance explained was 27%.</p> <p>In the present study, the chosen measurement considers both, reading performance and reading time, providing data on the decoding strategy carried out by Spanish monolingual students (i.e., whether the students read the pseudoword by sounds or as a whole word). In other words, it assesses both the child's ability to activate the conversion mechanism between the spelling and its sound and the automatization of this process by storing the letter-sound patterns in memory, allowing the reader to retrieve words with these patterns automatically ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref56">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research along these lines has been conducted in English, a language characterized by the opacity of its alphabetic code. To our knowledge, only a few other studies have examined the reading growth of the alphabetic principle in Spanish with Spanish-native speakers. These studies, however, were conducted in the United States with Spanish-native speakers learning to read in English and in Spanish. All the studies, however, highlight the need for assessing as well as teaching decoding in transparent languages.</p> <p>The aim of the study is to examine the effect of an intervention on students decoding strategies in Spanish. Specifically, two research questions are addressed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do students at risk of reading difficulties employ different strategies for reading pseudowords—specifically, reading sound by sound versus blending sounds into words—after participating in a reading intervention?</item> <p></p> <item> Do students who were at risk of reading difficulties catch up to their peers, who were normal readers, after receiving a reading intervention?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0192656041-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0192656041-6">Participants</hd> <p>This study was conducted in the Canary Islands (Spain) and involved 367 Spanish monolingual first-grade students with a mean age of 6.5 years, distributed across 39 schools. These students included one group of 187 typical readers and two groups at risk. Of the 178 at-risk students, 115 from 33 intervention schools received a researcher-developed evidence-based intervention (PREDEA) under consistent guidance from our research team. The remaining 63 at-risk students from six control schools received regular support provided by their schools, which included additional small-group instruction (3–5 students) outside the regular classroom, similar to the PREDEA group. However, this support was tailored by the schools' special education teachers based on their assessments and available resources. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistic for participants. The three groups were selected on the basis of their scores on The Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Behavior Checklist (HKSLD; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref57">10</reflink>]), a teacher-reported measure. Teachers completed the checklist by rating their students' skills according to criteria provided by the research team to ensure consistency across all schools. Normal readers scored below the 75th percentile on the HKSLD, and the two at-risk groups scored above the 75th percentile. This cutoff was chosen based on the Response to Intervention (RtI) model which often utilizes the 25th or 75th percentiles to identify children at risk ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref58">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]). Approximately 56% of the sample were boys. Students with intellectual, sensory, physical, mental, or motor disability were excluded.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Participants in Decoding Strategies Study.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="2" rowspan="2">Typical readers</th><th align="center" colspan="4">At risk</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">Intervention</th><th align="center" colspan="2">No intervention</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Participants</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">% or <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">% or <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center">% or <italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center"><italic>N</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td>187</td><td>51</td><td>115</td><td>32</td><td>63</td><td>17</td><td>365</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>78</td><td>41</td><td>78</td><td>68</td><td>37</td><td>56</td><td>193</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>109</td><td>59</td><td>37</td><td>32</td><td>26</td><td>43</td><td>172</td></tr><tr><td>Mean Age</td><td /><td>6.5 (0.30)</td><td /><td>6.5 (0.31)</td><td /><td>6.5 (0.28)</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0192656041-7">Intervention</hd> <p>The intervention group received the Program for the Prevention of Specific Learning Difficulties (PREDEA in Spanish), in small groups (3-5 students) outside the regular classroom, 5 days a week for 30 minutes during the school year from November to June. This program is an adaptation of the original Proactive Reading program ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]). The program is centered on the findings by the NRP (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US) (2000) on the five components that predict reading success (i.e., phonological awareness, alphabetic knowledge, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) and follows the instructional principles of direct instruction ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref62">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>]). A pilot study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of the PREDEA intervention program on students in kindergarten, first, and second grades learning to read in Spanish. Results indicated evidence of the effectiveness of the program on different variables (see [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>]). Each daily lesson consisted of a series of six to nine short activities that included several of the core components of beginning reading. Two basic principles characterize the program, 1), direct instruction, that means each activity followed the same model-lead-test routine, i.e., first teachers modeled the activity, next the teacher provided many opportunities for students to respond, and finally, immediate corrective feedback for students who made a mistake in the activity was used; 2), the content, each session begins with the lower-order components, that is phonological awareness and alphabetic knowledge. These are systematically addressed at the phoneme and word levels, and as the school year progresses, they expand to include phrases and texts. The fluency component is a transversal element that is incorporated at each of these levels. Vocabulary begins to be explicitly addressed once most phonemes have been introduced. Specifically, alphabetic knowledge is initially taught through instruction in the grapheme-phoneme conversion mechanism. Typically, the child is presented with the grapheme and instructed on its corresponding sound. As several graphemes have been introduced, instruction progresses from syllabic instruction to the word level and subsequently to short phrases. Fluency is an active part of every activity, as decoding (sound-to-sound) and subsequent reading (blending) are repeated multiple times with the intention of automating the process and achieving fluency as a reading skill ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref65">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>The group at risk without intervention also received the support in small groups following the principles of the Spanish educational system, where the phonetic method is followed. The children receive instruction based on general parameters, and each specialist teacher works according to their own criteria, so nothing is concrete established.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-8">Measures</hd> <p>The instrument, The Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Behavior Checklist ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]), was developed by a research team at the University of Hong Kong with the participation of experienced teachers, curriculum specialists and health professionals working with school-age students with learning difficulties in the city of Hong Kong. The original scale comprises 97 items that collect information on cognitive skills, language and literacy skills, quantitative skills, social competence, and self-monitoring skills covering a range from 6 to 12 years old. With the authorization of the aforementioned university, the research team made an adaptation and taking into account the items that were relevant for first-grade students (from the original scale), a specific scale was created with a total of 51 items for first grade. Its validity was carried out with the Early Grade Reading Assessment scale (see [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref67">27</reflink>]). Students who scored above the 75th percentile were identified as at-risk for a learning disability.</p> <p>Indicadores Dinámicos del Éxito en la Lectura (Dynamic Indicators of Reading Success; IDEL) <emph>Fluidez en las Palabras sin Sentido</emph> (Fluency in Nonsense Words, FPS; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref68">37</reflink>]). The FPS is a 1-minute timed measure that assesses students understanding of the alphabetic principle, including (a) the correspondence between sounds and letters (Todos los Sonidos de las Letras: FPS_TSL) and (b) the ability to blend sounds to form pseudowords (Número de Palabras Completas: FPS_NPC). The student is presented with a template of randomly ordered pseudowords with a CV and CVCV structures (e.g., panu, lu, mosi), that they can read either sound by sound or as a unit in one minute. Two scores are obtained on this test:</p> <p>Sound-by-Sound Decoding: Students earn one point for each individual letter-sound correctly articulated. For example, if the pseudoword is "panu," and the student articulates each sound correctly—/p/ /a/ /n/ /u/—they receive four points. This score is notated in the column <emph>"sound by sound."</emph></p> <p>Blending Sounds to Form Pseudowords: If students read the pseudoword as a coherent whole, blending the sounds together (e.g., saying "panu" instead of separate sounds), they receive one point for the entire word. This score is notated in the column for all words read correctly as <emph>"a unit,"</emph> emphasizing the fluency and fluidity of their decoding. It's important to note that this is not "sight word reading" as the pseudowords are unfamiliar and cannot be memorized in advance; rather, this measures the efficiency of phonetic decoding and blending. Additionally, they receive four points for each sound decoded correctly that are counted in the column for letter-sound read correctly.</p> <p>The monthly test-retest reliability for the Spanish monolingual sample in kindergarten was 0.83 and for the first-grade sample was 0.88.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-9">Data Collection Procedure</hd> <p>Data were collected at three points in time during the school year. The baseline assessment was carried out in November and December, then another measure in the mid-term assessment in February and March, and the last one at the end-of-year assessment in June. For the control group and the normal readers group, the data collectors were psychology graduates pursuing doctoral or master's degrees in educational psychology and were trained for 2 weeks at the beginning of the school year on the application and correction of each of the subtests. For the experimental group, the teachers who implement the intervention program administer and score the assessments. All of the data collectors were regular school staff trained by the research team to administer and score the assessments. Initial training in assessment procedures and intervention content was provided at the beginning of the course, followed by refresher sessions before each evaluation.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-10">Data Analysis Procedure</hd> <p>Two Hierarchical Linear Models (HLMs) were conducted, one for each part of the measure: (a) the coefficient of the pseudowords read by sounds (FPS_TSL) and (b) the coefficients of the pseudowords read as a unit (FPS_NPC). Also, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the differences between the at-risk groups at the three measurement times. We did not include school or classroom levels in our HLMs. This approach was chosen to focus on individual student progress and ensure the observed effects were primarily due to the interventions rather than differences in educational settings, assuming standardized intervention implementation across all schools.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-11">Results</hd> <p>Table 2 presents means and standard deviations for the two ways of reading pseudowords (i.e., one-to-one letter-sound correspondence vs. whole word reading) across the three time points with three groups of readers: normal readers, at-risk readers with the intervention, and at-risk readers without the intervention. The differences between the two at-risk groups on the sound-by-sound task are minimal and nonsignificant across the three time points. However, the mean differences between the two at-risk groups for reading whole pseudowords are large and significant across time points.</p> <p>Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of IDEL Measures for Each Group at Each Measurement Time (N = 366).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">Typical readers (<italic>n</italic> =188)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">At-risk, intervention (<italic>n</italic> = 115)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">At-risk, no intervention (<italic>n</italic> = 63)</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Measures</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>FPS_TSL_INI</td><td>67.43</td><td>45.85</td><td>24.10</td><td>25.67</td><td>27.79</td><td>27.36</td></tr><tr><td>FPS_ TSL _MED</td><td>93.61</td><td>43.10</td><td>56.19</td><td>40.98</td><td>59.14</td><td>36.33</td></tr><tr><td>FPS_ TSL _FIN</td><td>119.55</td><td>45.30</td><td>92.65</td><td>48.92</td><td>95.58</td><td>43.80</td></tr><tr><td>FPS_NPC_INI</td><td>12.56</td><td>13.86</td><td>4.45</td><td>7.76</td><td>3.51</td><td>7.78</td></tr><tr><td>FPS_NPC_MED</td><td>21.63</td><td>15.50</td><td>14.64</td><td>13.73</td><td>10.07</td><td>8.30</td></tr><tr><td>FPS_NPC_FIN</td><td>27.89</td><td>16.26</td><td>25.32</td><td>15.66</td><td>17.80</td><td>12.14</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> IDEL = Indicadores Dinámicos del Éxito en la Lectura (Dynamic Indicators of Reading Success); FPS_TSL = Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Todos los sonidos de las letras (Fluency in Nonsense Words_ All Letter Sounds); FPS_NPC = Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Número de Palabras Completas (Fluency in Nonsense Words_ Number of Complete Words); INI = Inicio (Beginning); MED = medio (middle); FIN = final (end).</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-12">Growth in Reading Pseudowords Sound by Sound</hd> <p>Table 3 shows the estimated indexes for fluency in reading pseudowords read by sounds (FPS_TSL). According to the hierarchical linear modeling results, the normal readers read, on average, approximately 68 letter sounds correctly at the beginning of the year (coefficient = 67.76; <emph>SE</emph> = 2.96; <emph>t</emph> = 22.85), with an approximate growth ratio of 26 sounds at each time point (coefficient = 25.87; <emph>SE</emph> = 1.40; <emph>t</emph> = 18.59). The at-risk group of students with the intervention read approximately 23 sounds (coefficient = −44.311; <emph>SE</emph> = 4.81; <emph>t</emph> = −9.20) at the beginning of the year with a growth ratio of 34 sounds per time point (coefficient = 8.14; <emph>SE</emph> = 2.26; <emph>t</emph> = 3.6). Finally, the at-risk group with no intervention read approximately 27 letter sounds (coefficient = −40.69; <emph>SE</emph> = 5.92; <emph>t</emph> = −6.88) and experienced a growth ratio of approximately 34 sounds at each time point (coefficient = 8.16; <emph>SE</emph> = 2.78; <emph>t</emph> = 2.93).</p> <p>Table 3. Fluency Growth for Nonsense Words Read Sound by Sound Throughout First Grade.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Growth parameters</th><th align="center">Standard estimate</th><th align="center">Standard</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic>—value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>67.76</td><td>2.96</td><td>22.85</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>25.872</td><td>1.39</td><td>18.59</td></tr><tr><td>At-risk, intervention</td><td>–44.31</td><td>–4.81</td><td>9.21</td></tr><tr><td>At risk, no intervention</td><td>–40.69</td><td>5.92</td><td>–6.88</td></tr><tr><td>Time, intervention</td><td>8.14</td><td>2.26</td><td>3.60</td></tr><tr><td>Time, no intervention</td><td>8.160</td><td>2.78</td><td>2.94</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Regarding the differences between groups, the normal readers differed significantly from the at-risk group with the intervention (coefficient = 44.31, <emph>SE</emph> = 2.96, <emph>t</emph> = 9.21) and the at-risk group without intervention (coefficient = −40.69, <emph>SE</emph> = 5.92, <emph>t</emph> = 6.88). The ANOVA results for comparisons at baseline for both at-risk groups are shown in Table 4; there were no significant differences between the two groups (<emph>p</emph> =.61).</p> <p>Table 4. Analysis of Variance of Pseudoword Reading Read Sound by Sound Among the Three Groups.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Time measures</th><th align="center">Groups</th><th align="center"><italic>T</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center">η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">p.hocberg</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Begin</td><td>RiskInterv-RiskNoInt</td><td>–0.851</td><td>124.78</td><td>0.006</td><td>.396</td><td>0.612</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>RiskInterv-RiskNoInt</td><td>–0.604</td><td>145.42</td><td>0.003</td><td>.547</td><td>0.612</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>RiskInterv-Typicalreader</td><td>7.46</td><td>243.54</td><td>0.186</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>-RiskNoInt-Typicalreader</td><td>6.14</td><td>124.97</td><td>0.232</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>End</td><td>RiskInterv-RiskNoInt</td><td>–0.509</td><td>142.31</td><td>0.002</td><td>.612</td><td>0.612</td></tr><tr><td>End</td><td>RiskInterv-Typicalreader</td><td>4.81</td><td>225.65</td><td>0.092</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>End</td><td>RiskNoInt-Typicalreader</td><td>3.71</td><td>110.97</td><td>0.109</td><td>.000</td><td>0.001</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. RiskInterv = At-risk group with intervention; RiskNoInt = at-risk group, no intervention.</p> <p>For growth ratios, we found differences between normal readers and both the at-risk group with intervention (coefficient = 8.44, <emph>SE</emph> = 2.26, <emph>t</emph> = 3.60) and the at-risk group without intervention (coefficient = 8.160, <emph>SE</emph> = 2.26; <emph>t</emph> = 2.94). The ANOVA showed no significant differences between the two at-risk groups at the middle and end of the year. Table 4 shows the ANOVA results for the at-risk groups at the beginning, middle, and end of the school year; between the intervention group and the normal readers in the middle and end of the school year; and between the non-intervention group and the normal readers in the middle and end of the school year. Figure 1 shows the scores for the three groups.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Initial Status and Growth Ratio of the Three Groups for Nonsense Words Read Sound by Sound (FPS_TSL). Note. FPS_TSL_BEGINNING = Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Todos los sonidos de las letras al inicio (Fluency in Nonsense Words_ All Letter Sounds at the beginning of the academic year); FPS_TSL_MID = Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Todos los sonidos de las letras a la mitad del curso académico (Nonsense Words Fluency read by sound at the middle of the academic year); FPS_TSL_END = Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Todos los sonidos de las letras al final del curso académico (Nonsense Words Fluency read by sound at the end of the academic year); NR = normal readers; Risk_Inter = group at risk with intervention; Risk_No_Inter = group at risk without intervention; GR = growth rate.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-13">Growth in Reading Pseudowords as a Unit</hd> <p>Table 5 shows the estimated rates for fluency in reading pseudowords as whole words (FPS_NPC). According to the model, normal readers read approximately 13 pseudowords at baseline (coefficient = 13.07; <emph>SE</emph> =.97; <emph>t</emph> = 13.46), with an approximate growth ratio of 7 pseudowords at each time point (coefficient = 7.65; <emph>SE</emph> =.44; <emph>t</emph> = 17.4). The at-risk group with the intervention read approximately 4 pseudowords at baseline (coefficient = −8.79; <emph>SE</emph> = 1.58; <emph>t</emph> = −5.58), with a growth ratio of 10 pseudowords at each time point (coefficient = 2.67; <emph>SE</emph> =.71; <emph>t</emph> = 3.74). Finally, the at-risk group with no intervention read approximately three pseudowords at baseline (coefficient = −9.93; <emph>SE</emph> = 1.94; <emph>t</emph> = −5.12), with a growth ratio of approximately seven pseudowords at each time point (coefficient = −0.36; <emph>SE</emph> =.88; <emph>t</emph> = −0.41).</p> <p>Table 5. Fluency Growth in Nonsense Words Read as a Unit.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Growth paremeters</th><th align="center">Standard estimation</th><th align="center">Standard error</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>13.074</td><td>0.971</td><td>13.46</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>7.652</td><td>0.439</td><td>17.40</td></tr><tr><td>At-risk, with intervention</td><td>–8.795</td><td>1.576</td><td>–5.58</td></tr><tr><td>At-risk, with no intervention</td><td>–9.926</td><td>1.938</td><td>–5.12</td></tr><tr><td>Time: at-risk, intervention</td><td>2.671</td><td>0.714</td><td>3.74</td></tr><tr><td>Time: at-risk, no intervention</td><td>–0.359</td><td>0.878</td><td>–0.41</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Significant differences were found for reading pseudowords as units at baseline between normal readers and the at-risk group with the intervention (coefficient = −8.79, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.57; <emph>t</emph> = 5.58) and between normal readers and the at-risk group without the intervention (coefficient = −9.93, <emph>SE</emph> = 1.94, <emph>t</emph> = 5.12). However, Table 6 indicates that there were no significant differences between the two at-risk groups at baseline, suggesting that both groups were similar (<emph>p</emph> =.43).</p> <p>Table 6. Analysis of Variance of the Pseudowords Read as a Unit.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Time measures</th><th align="center">Groups</th><th align="center"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center">η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">p.hocberg</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Beginning</td><td>RiskInterv-RiskNoInt</td><td>0.78</td><td>127.56</td><td>0.005</td><td>.437</td><td>0.437</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>RiskInterv-RiskNotInt</td><td>2.74</td><td>174.22</td><td>0.041</td><td>.007</td><td>0.020</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>RiskInterv-Normalreader</td><td>4.25</td><td>263.53</td><td>0.064</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Middle</td><td>RiskNoInt-Normalreader</td><td>7.65</td><td>200.66</td><td>0.226</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>End</td><td>RiskInterv-RiskNoInt</td><td>3.26</td><td>159.83</td><td>0.062</td><td>.001</td><td>0.004</td></tr><tr><td>End</td><td>RiskInterv-Normalreader</td><td>1.49</td><td>241.99</td><td>0.009</td><td>.135</td><td>0.271</td></tr><tr><td>End</td><td>RiskNoInt-Normalreader</td><td>5.11</td><td>142.70</td><td>0.155</td><td>.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. RiskInterv = At-risk group with intervention; RiskNoInt = at-risk group, no intervention.</p> <p>There were significant differences in growth ratios for reading pseudowords as units between students who received the intervention and students who did not receive the intervention (coefficient = 2.67, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.71, <emph>t</emph> = 3.74). However, there were no differences in growth ratios between normal readers and students at risk who did not receive the intervention (coefficient = −0.35; <emph>SE</emph> = 0.88; <emph>t</emph> = 0.41). The ANOVA showed that there were no significant differences between the two at-risk groups at the beginning and middle of the year, but there were significant differences between them at the end of the year (<emph>p</emph> <.05). In addition, at the end of the year, there were no differences between the normal readers and the students who received the intervention (<emph>p</emph> =.27). Table 6 shows the ANOVA results of the analyses of variance between the two at-risk groups (i.e., the group that received the researcher intervention and the group that received the intervention provided by the school) at the beginning, middle, and end of the year; between the intervention group and the normal readers group in the middle and end; and between the no-intervention group and the normal readers group in the middle and end. Figure 2 shows the graph with the scores of the three groups.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Initial Status and Growth Ratios of the Three Groups for Nonsense Words Read as Units (FPS_NPC). Note. FPS_TSL_BEGINNING= Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Número de Palabras Completas al inicio del curso académico (Nonsense Words Fluency read as a unit at the beginning of the academic year); FPS_TSL_MID = Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Número de Palabras Completas a la mitad del curso académico (Nonsense Words Fluency read as a unit at the middle of the academic year); FPS_TSL_END = Fluidez en Palabras sin Sentido_Número de Palabras Completas al final del curso académico (Nonsense Words Fluency read as a unit at the end of the academic year); NR: Normal readers; Risk_Inter = group at risk with intervention; Risk_No_Inter = group at risk without intervention; GR = growth rate.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-14">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of the present study was to examine the effect of an intervention on students decoding strategies in Spanish. Specifically, two research questions were tested: (a) If students at risk of reading difficulties employ different strategies for reading pseudowords—specifically, reading sound by sound versus blending sounds into words—after participating in a reading intervention and (b) Whether students who were at risk of reading difficulties catch up to their peers, who were normal readers, after receiving a reading intervention.</p> <p>Our findings indicate that there was not a significant difference between the at-risk students who received the PREDEA intervention and the at-risk students who received the intervention provided by the school in their sound by sound reading. However, at-risk students who received the reading intervention read more pseudowords as a unit compared to normal readers and to students who received the intervention provided by the school. This growth rate was statistically significant, and by the end of the school year, at-risk students who received the PREDEA intervention read as many pseudowords as the normal readers, closing the gap between the normal readers and the at-risk readers who received the researcher intervention.</p> <p>According to these results, the fact that no differences were found between the at-risk groups when words were read sound by sound, but when they were read as a unit, could mean that both groups decoded the same number of sounds but that the reading strategy used by the at-risk group with the PREDEA intervention was different and more focused on decoding larger units (i.e., reading the word as a unit) compared to the at-risk group who received the intervention by the school and who were decoding the words sound by sound).</p> <p>The first research question was whether there are differences in the type of reading strategy students at risk of reading difficulties use to read pseudowords (i.e., reading pseudowords sound by sound or as a unit as a result of a reading intervention. Based on [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref69">16</reflink>] phases of reading acquisition, students who do not receive intervention could be placed in the partial alphabetic phase, while students who received the PREDEA intervention would be placed in the <emph>full alphabetic phase</emph>, having developed a mental representation of the letter-sound patterns in pseudoword that allowed them to immediately recognize the patterns, and read the word as a unit. The phase of acquisition could have varied based on the instruction students received. For example, students who were reading sound by sound after the intervention provided by the school could suggest that they were not yet able to create a mental representation of letter-sound patterns, slowing the word reading process, perhaps because instruction was not targeting decoding skills systematically as it was targeted in the PREDEA intervention. Similar findings were also shown in studies in other transparent languages such as Portuguese. For example, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>] analyzed the reading approach of students who received global versus phonetic methodology in learning to read in Portuguese. The researcher found that students in the first group did go through the partial phase, while those who received the phonetic method did not. With this, the author shows how the child's passage through this phase is conditioned by the methodology used in the reading instruction.</p> <p>In the present study, both groups received instruction with the phonetic method, but the extra support students in the treatment group received differs in terms of systematicity and empirical evidence between the two, with the group receiving evidence-based support moving quicker into the full alphabetic phase ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref71">16</reflink>]). We could think that, in transparent languages, students at risk stay longer in the partial phase because of the difficulties they have in acquiring the rules of grapheme-phoneme conversion (GPC). However, if the GPC is taught explicitly and systematically, they could reach the alphabetic phase faster, having acquired greater automaticity in the rules of GPC, and consequently scoring as well as the normal readers. With this statement, we move on to the second research question, that is, if the students who were at risk of reading difficulties could catch up their peers, who were normal readers, after receiving the PREDEA intervention. What our results indicated specifically is that an at-risk child who receives a systematic explicit intervention ends up reading a total of 24 pseudowords at the end of first grade, with a growth rate of approximately 10 pseudowords at each time point, matching the growth of normal readers, while a child who does not receive the evidence-based intervention might read only 17 pseudowords, with a growth rate of 7 pseudowords between time points. As [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref72">13</reflink>] point out, growth standards should be established with samples of students who receive empirically based instruction, to establish the actual (i.e., higher) expected levels for these students. Research on effective intervention practices shows that at-risk students can achieve growth rates comparable to their classmates, provided the intervention is sufficiently effective ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref73">13</reflink>]). From this approach, the growth experienced by students depends on the type of instruction ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref75">11</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref76">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>This result implies that the methodology used in students at risk could modify the time students invest in the partial alphabetic stage. The strategy followed by the students who receive the PREDEA intervention (i.e., reading the pseudoword as a unit) shows how the phonological decoding process can also be achieved by at-risk students if they receive an early, extra, systematized and scientifically based intervention.</p> <p>The findings obtained in this study highlight: (a) the importance of instructing grapheme-phoneme conversion rules in at-risk students learning to read in a transparent language, in addition to receiving instruction in the rest of the components prescribed by the [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>] and (b) the importance of assessing students throughout the year to adjust instruction and ensure that all students have the opportunity to practice letter-sound correspondence rules with the goal of automatizing the process of blending pseudowords.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-15">Limitations</hd> <p>This study has different limitations. We were unable to conduct a randomized control trial where students identified as at risk for reading difficulties were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group. Therefore, we cannot determine that differences in outcomes were causally related to the intervention. However, we know that students at risk in the treatment group had similar early skills at pretest compared to students at risk in the control group supporting our hypothesis that differences in outcomes between both groups were likely attributed to the intervention. Another significant limitation is that our HLM did not account for the potential effects of school or classroom levels. This omission may overlook influential factors inherent to different educational environments that could affect student outcomes.</p> <p>Additionally, the assessments were conducted by the support teachers who were also responsible for delivering the intervention, rather than by independent evaluators. While we implemented rigorous training and standardization procedures to minimize assessor bias, the absence of completely independent evaluations could potentially affect the objectivity of the results. Future research would benefit from incorporating completely independent evaluators to further safeguard the validity of the findings and eliminate any assessor bias.</p> <hd id="AN0192656041-16">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>From a practical point of view, the scores obtained by the three groups of readers allow us to establish an expected growth in understanding the alphabetic principle that can offer reading professionals a practical guide on what can be expected from students based on their reading profile. For example, students at risk for reading difficulties appear to recognize approximately 93 letter sounds at the end of first grade with a growth rate of 34 letter sounds at each time point, independently of whether they are receiving an intervention or not. However, what is the real growth that a teacher should expect when an at-risk child is confronted with reading pseudowords as a unit? That is, when he/she automate the grapheme-phoneme conversion rules? The results indicate that this growth is not only determined by the student's reading profile at the beginning of the year but also by the quality of the instruction he or she is receiving. These findings on how much growth is needed for a student to catch up to their peers who are normal readers suggest that it is not enough to just expect growth in decoding (pseudoword reading), but also expected growth that can lead to better outcomes. If the instruction the child receives is based on empirical evidence, the teacher's expectation of the child's aptitude increases, and the intervention targets strategies to move toward a complete alphabetic phase as proposed by [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>].</p> <p>In summary, following the findings obtained here, it appears that at-risk students differ in the strategies they use to carry out the decoding process depending on whether or not they receive a direct, explicit, and systematic intervention. The reading strategy used and the growth rate in understanding the alphabetic principle will distinguish students at risk from those who will no longer be at risk, placing them at different stages of reading acquisition (partial versus full). These results demonstrate that learning to read in a transparent language depends also on the characteristics of the instruction, and the importance placed on understanding the alphabetic principle to automate the process of word reading. The ability of reading words automatically increases student opportunities to focus on the text content they are reading and consequently on understanding the message of fiction and information texts.</p> <ref id="AN0192656041-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Baker D. L., Crespo P., Monzalve M., Garcia I., Gutiérrez M. (2022a). Relation between the essential components of reading and reading comprehension in monolingual Spanish-speaking students: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34(4), 2661–2696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09694-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref8" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baker D. L., Cummings K., Smolkowski K. (2022b). Diagnostic accuracy of Spanish and English screeners with Spanish and English criterion measures for bilingual students in grades 1 and 2. Journal of School Psychology, 92, 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baker D. L., Park Y., Baker S. K. (2010). Effect of initial status and growth in pseudoword reading on Spanish reading comprehension at the end of first grade. Psicothema, 22(4), 955–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9261-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref42" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker D. L., Park Y., Baker S. K. (2012). The reading performance of English learners in grades 1–3: The role of initial status and growth on reading fluency in Spanish and English. Reading and Writing, 25(1), 251–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9261-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bravo-Valdivieso L. (1995). A four-year follow-up study of low socioeconomic status, Latin American students with reading difficulties. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 42(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/0156655950420302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref4" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Caravolas M. (2005). Learning to spell in different languages: How orthographic variables might affect early literacy. In Joshi R. M., Aaron P. G. (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 497–511). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203448526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref34" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cardoso-Martins C. (2001). The reading abilities of beginning readers of Brazilian Portuguese: Implications for a theory of reading acquisition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(4), 289–317. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0504_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref61" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carnine D. W., Silbert J., Kame'enui E. J., Tarver S. G. (2004). Direct reading instruction. Merrill Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan D. W., Ho C. S. H., Tsang S. M., Lee S. H., Chung K. K. H. (2004). Reading-related behavioral characteristics of Chinese children with dyslexia: The use of the teachers' behavior checklist in Hong Kong. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 300–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0014-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crespo P., Jiménez J. E., Rodríguez C., Baker D., Park Y. (2018). Differences in growth reading patterns for at-risk Spanish-monolingual children as a function of a Tier 2 Intervention. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21, Article E4. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Defior S., Martos F., Cary L. (2002). Differences in reading acquisition development in two shallow orthographies: Portuguese and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716402000073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deno S. L., Fuchs L. S., Marston D., Shin J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1995.tb00077.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engelmann S., Carnine D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. Irvington.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fien H., Baker S. K., Smolkowski K., Smith J. L. M., Kame'enui E. J., Beck C. T. (2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in kindergarten through second grade for English learners and native English speakers. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2008.12087885</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fien H., Park Y., Baker S. K., Mercier Smith J. L., Stoolmiller M., Kame'enui E. J. (2010). An examination of the relation of nonsense word fluency initial status and gains to reading outcomes for beginning readers. School Psychology Review, 39(4), 631–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frith U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In Patterson K., Marshal J. C., Colthear M. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 301–330). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs L. S., Fuchs D., Compton D. L., Bryant J. D., Hamlett C. L., Seethaler P. M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Genard N., Alegría J., Leybaert J., Mousty P., Citoler S. A. D. (2005). La adquisición de la lectura y la escritura: comparación translingüística [The acquisition of reading and writing: a cross-linguistic comparison]. Iberpsicología: Revista Electrónica de la Federación Española de Asociaciones de Psicología, 10(3), Article 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Good R. H., Baker S. K., Peyton J. A. (2009). Making sense of nonsense word fluency: Determining adequate progress in early first–grade reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(1), 33–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802491224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harn B. A., Stoolmiller M., Chard D. J. (2008). Measuring the dimensions of alphabetic principle on the reading development of first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407313585</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hogaboam T. W., Perfetti C. A. (1975). Lexical ambiguity and sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(75)80070-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes C. A., Dexter D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez J. E. (2010). Adaptación al español del Test The Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Behavior Checklist [Spanish adaptation of The Hong Kong Specific Learning Difficulties Behavior Checklist]. Consejería de Educación, Universidades, Cultura y Deportes del Gobierno de Canarias.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez J. E., Gutiérrez N., de León S. C. (2020). Universal screening for prevention of reading, writing, and math disabilities in Spanish. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 161, Article 60217. https://doi.org/10.3791/60217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez J. E., O'Shanahan I. (2008). Enseñanza de la lectura: de la teoría y la investigación a la práctica educativa [Teaching Reading: From Theory and Research to Educational Practice]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 45(5), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.35362/rie4552032</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez J. E., Rodríguez C., Crespo P., González D., Artiles C., Alfonso M. (2010). Implementation of response to intervention (RtI) model in Spain: An example of a collaboration between Canarias universities and the Department of Education of the Canary Islands. Psicothema, 22(4), 935–942. https://doi.org/10.5231/psy.writ.2011.1207</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jiménez J. E., Valle I. H. (2000). Word identification and reading disorders in the Spanish language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kame'enui E. J., Simmons D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Merrill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathes P. G., Linan-Thompson S., Pollard-Duradola S. D., Hagan E. C., Vaughn S. (2003). Lectura proactiva para principiantes: Intensive small group instruction for Spanish speaking readers (Developed with funds provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (#HD-99-012), Development of English Literacy in Spanish Speaking Students). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moats L. C. (2020a). Speech to Print.Language essentials for teachers (3rd ed.). Brooks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moats L. C. (2020b). Teaching reading "is" rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Educator, 44(2), Article 4. https://<ulink href="http://www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/moats">www.aft.org/ae/summer2020/moats</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching students to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plasencia-Peinado J., Baker D. L., Good R. H., Peinado R. (2006). Fluidez en las palabras sin sentido [No Sense Word Fluency]. In Baker D. L., Good R., Knutson N., Watson J. (Eds.), Indicadores Dinámicos del Éxito en la Lectura (7th ed., pp. 20–30). Dynamic Measurement Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour P. H., Aro M., Erskine J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour P. H. K. (1997). Foundations of orthographic development. In Perfetti C., Rieben L., Fayol M. (Eds.), Learning to spell (pp. 319–337). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410604583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Signorini A. (1997). Word reading in Spanish: A comparison between skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1017/s014271640001050x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich K. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new Frontiers. Choice Reviews Online, 38(4), Article 38-2284. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.38-2284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen J. K., Rashotte C. A., Alexander A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In Wolf M. (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 333–355). York Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn S., Linan-Thompson S., Mathes P. G., Cirino P. T., Carlson C. D., Pollard-Durodola S. D...Francis D. J. (2006a). Effectiveness of Spanish intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390010601</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn S., Mathes P., Linan-Thompson S., Cirino P., Carlson C., Pollard-Durodola S., Francis D. (2006b). Effectiveness of an English intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1086/510653</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wimmer H., Hummer P. (1990). How German-speaking first graders read and spell: Doubts on the importance of the logographic stage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11(4), 349–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716400009620</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0192656041-18"> <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 has been possible thanks to the help of the National Program for Research Aimed at the Challenges of Society, ref. PSI2009-11662, with the second author as the lead researcher.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patricia Crespo</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6384-7709 Doris Luft Baker</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-9799</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Patricia Crespo; Juan E. Jiménez; Cristina Rodríguez; Doris Luft Baker and Juan A. Hernández Cabrera</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1501903
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Decoding Strategies in Spanish First-Grade Students at Risk of Reading Difficulties
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Patricia+Crespo%22">Patricia Crespo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6384-7709">0000-0001-6384-7709</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Juan+E%2E+Jiménez%22">Juan E. Jiménez</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cristina+Rodríguez%22">Cristina Rodríguez</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Doris+Luft+Baker%22">Doris Luft Baker</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8517-9799">0000-0001-8517-9799</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Juan+A%2E+Hernández+Cabrera%22">Juan A. Hernández Cabrera</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Disability+Quarterly%22"><i>Learning Disability Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2026 49(2):59-69.
– 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: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– 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+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decoding+%28Reading%29%22">Decoding (Reading)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish+Speaking%22">Spanish Speaking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Fluency%22">Reading Fluency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phoneme+Grapheme+Correspondence%22">Phoneme Grapheme Correspondence</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spain%22">Spain</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/07319487251323587
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0731-9487<br />2168-376X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this study, we examine the effect of an intervention on decoding strategies of monolingual Spanish-speaking, first-grade students in Spain. Participants were first-grade Spanish-speaking monolingual students assigned to one of three conditions based on their reading risk in Spain. The first group comprised typically developing readers; the second group comprised students at risk for a reading disability who received an empirically derived intervention; the third group comprised students at risk for a reading disability who received business as usual instruction. Findings suggest that students at risk for a reading disability who received the intervention scored significantly higher than students at risk who did not receive the intervention at the end of first grade. Moreover, students at risk who received the intervention moved from a sound-by-sound decoding strategy to being able to blend sounds to read a pseudoword as effectively as normally developing students. Implications for practice and future research on Spanish decoding and word automaticity are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1501903
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1501903
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/07319487251323587
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 59
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decoding (Reading)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spanish Speaking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Fluency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phoneme Grapheme Correspondence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spain
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Decoding Strategies in Spanish First-Grade Students at Risk of Reading Difficulties
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Patricia Crespo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Juan E. Jiménez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cristina Rodríguez
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Doris Luft Baker
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Juan A. Hernández Cabrera
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0731-9487
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2168-376X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disability Quarterly
              Type: main
ResultId 1