Next Article in Journal
Interventions to Improve Connectedness, Belonging, and Engagement in Secondary Schools: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Everyone Is Reading and Playing! A Participatory Theatre Project to Promote Reading Competence
Previous Article in Journal
Students’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Literary Reading in School and Leisure Contexts
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluating the Simple View of Reading Model: Longitudinal Testing and Applicability to the Swedish Language
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/educsci15050581
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Reading Development Following Forward-Looking Assessments Providing Recommendations to Teachers

by
Ulrika B. Andersson
1,*,
Henrik Danielsson
2,
Thomas Nordström
3 and
Stefan Gustafson
1
1
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
2
The Swedish Institute for Disability Reseach, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
3
Department of Psychology, Linnaeus University, 351 95 Växjö, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 581; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050581
Submission received: 18 February 2025 / Revised: 23 April 2025 / Accepted: 30 April 2025 / Published: 7 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Students with Special Educational Needs in Reading and Writing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this retrospective and observational study, we examine grade 1 reading development following an assessment tool providing recommendations for teachers. Tests and recommendations for instruction were provided by LegiLexi, a non-profit foundation that aims to increase reading skills in primary school. We analyzed differences between poor decoders who receive a decoding recommendation after the first test session, then improve their decoding and therefore receive another recommendation (responders) and poor decoders who develop their decoding more slowly (non-responders) and receive a decoding recommendation after both the first and second assessment. Responders are characterized by initial word decoding problems but a substantial improvement between test sessions leading them to a high level of reading comprehension at the end of grade 1. Their decoding improved the most when this skill was the recommended focus of instruction but their reading comprehension also steadily improved when the recommendations changed. The group of non-responders was larger and showed improvements that were more modest on all reading tests during grade 1. The study demonstrates that decoding continues to be a bottleneck for reading development in the early school years and that recommending teachers to focus on decoding instruction might be helpful for some pupils.

1. Introduction

Teaching pupils to read is one of the school’s most important tasks. This requires knowledge about early reading development and differences between pupils as well as knowledge about how to monitor and assess different reading skills. This knowledge can be used to adapt the teaching to different, changing educational needs over time. Research has contributed insights on how to conduct effective early reading instruction in general (Adams, 1990; Cain, 2010; Castles et al., 2018; Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Høien & Lundberg, 2013; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NCLB], 2000) and how to overcome potential obstacles to reading development (Elbro et al., 1998; Gersten et al., 2020; Hulme & Snowling, 2016; Stanovich, 1986). When it comes to assessment and its relation to instruction and intervention, valuable contributions have been made in the fields of response to intervention (RTI) and formative assessment (FA) (cf. Andersson et al., 2019; Black & Wiliam, 2010; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Nordström et al., 2019; Sortwell et al., 2024). Thus, many studies address the question of how assessments and instruction can be used and adapted to facilitate early reading development. However, there are still some children who lag behind their peers and fail to reach goals related to reading development, set by professionals in the school system. In the present study, we focus on pupils who lag behind in their early reading development, and whose teachers receive recommendation for how to adapt instruction.
Reading is about understanding the content of written texts. According to The Simple View of Reading theory, this requires two basic components, decoding the individual written words, and language comprehension, that together leads to a coherent understanding of the text (Gustafson et al., 2013; Nordström et al., 2025). Language comprehension is specifically linked to spoken language and begins to develop early in life. Decoding development, unlike language comprehension, is linked to the written language. The ability to decode is also linked to formal, early reading instruction and for most children, it starts when they begin school. There is strong empirical evidence that decoding skills are central in early reading development (Adams, 1990; Catts et al., 2005; Ehri, 2020; Rayner et al., 2001; Stanovich, 1986). As the ability to decode develops and the reading flow increases, decoding requires less of the pupil’s energy, which can instead be spent on understanding and interpreting the content and message of texts (Elwér et al., 2015; Hjetland et al., 2017, 2019).
Typical decoding development can be divided into four phases—pseudo-reading, logographic reading, alphabetical–phonological, and orthographic–morphemic reading. How long the reader is in the different phases varies, and the different phases of reading development occur simultaneously to some extent (Høien & Lundberg, 2013). Pupils who have difficulty decoding (poor decoders or non-responders) need to develop their ability and practice in areas such as phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and letter–sound knowledge to increase reading fluency (Hatcher et al., 1994; Wolff, 2016). This is demonstrated by Wolff (2016) in a Swedish 5-year follow-up study of a randomized reading intervention where the main purpose was to investigate whether there were lasting effects in grade 8 after a completed reading intervention in grade 3. The study shows that pupils with word reading problems who received training in phoneme/grapheme mapping, reading comprehension, and reading speed in grade 3 performed better on word decoding 5 years later. Furthermore, the pupils who had the poorest decoding skills in grade 3 benefited the most from the intervention. Results also showed that typically developing pupils outperformed pupils identified as poor readers in grade 2 on working memory, spelling, and reading comprehension.
Difficulties in decoding and reading fluency are characteristic features of dyslexia1 (Ramus, 2004). Of course, decoding difficulty can have other explanations than dyslexia (Alatalo, 2011). Nevertheless, it is important to detect these difficulties to provide adequate support and prevent complications before they potentially harm the pupil’s interest in reading and self-esteem (cf. the Matthew effect, Stanovich, 1986; Snowling et al., 2020). Teachers’ knowledge of reading instruction is a decisive factor in facilitating pupils’ reading development (Cunningham & O’Donnell, 2015). High-quality reading instruction can be described as assessing and identifying pupils’ needs, and systematically and structurally adapting classroom instruction to them (Adams, 1990; Alatalo, 2011). By identifying and addressing pupils’ different reading abilities early, the risk of them falling behind and having persistent reading difficulties is also minimized (Catts et al., 2016; McCardle et al., 2001; Snow et al., 1998).
In the present study, we examine reading development following recommendations provided by a forward-looking assessment tool from the LegiLexi foundation2. We use the term forward-looking assessments for assessments that are directed towards the future and do not only summarize present knowledge. This does not mean that the past is unimportant. On the contrary, if the past is used with the purpose to inform educational decisions and promoting pupils’ learning, it should be regarded as a forward-looking assessment. Formative assessment and response to intervention (RTI) are two well-established examples of forward-looking assessment approaches; for a discussion about the similarities and differences between them, see a theoretical article by Andersson et al. (2019). Both formative assessment and RTI have influenced the assessment tool used in this study (Fälth et al., 2017).
There are both similarities and differences between RTI and the tool provided by the LegiLexi (n.d.) and how they can be used to assess pupils’ reading development. In line with RTI (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006), the LegiLexi foundation advocates a goal-oriented and clear structure with systematic and recurring testing of pupils’ reading abilities. For this, a test battery with standardized tests is used. One significant difference is that the LegiLexi tool is tailored to Swedish curricula and reading instruction in Sweden. Swedish teachers choose whether to use the tool. RTI, on the other hand, is used internationally, usually implemented in school districts and can be used in multiple school subjects. The RTI system places pupils in different tiers based on identified needs, which are linked to instructional content and implementation (e.g., whole class, small group, or special education). Unlike RTI, the test results from the LegiLexi tool are not used to control the content of standardized interventions and placement in tiers (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006); instead, the teacher is offered the test results and recommendations for further teaching at the individual level. Previous studies have shown positive effects on pupils’ reading development (Connor et al., 2009; Förster & Souvignier, 2015; Gustafson et al., 2019; Stecker et al., 2005). Other studies have shown that there are challenges in using assessment information as a basis for developing pupils’ reading ability (cf., Hoogland et al., 2016; Nordström et al., 2019).
Difficulties with changing teaching practices and the relative complexity of targeting individual needs in general classroom education contribute to these challenges, as does the actual implementation of data use (cf., Hoogland et al., 2016; Nordström et al., 2019). That teachers and pupils perceive sufficient benefits is also stated as an important component for successful use (Hoogland et al., 2016). This in turn requires that the test and materials used are carefully chosen. For example, a timed reading comprehension test will be more sensitive to different cognitive abilities than an untimed reading comprehension test, which means that one test will reveal and highlight certain differences that will not be revealed by another test (Keenan et al., 2008; Keenan & Meenan, 2014).
The recommendations provided by LegiLexi are intended for the teacher and it is then the teacher who decides how to use them (Fälth et al., 2017; LegiLexi.org, n.d.). Teachers’ instructional competence is, unlike RTI, described as central in the tool from the LegiLexi foundation (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; LegiLexi, n.d.). In formative assessment, the dialogue between pupil and teacher, along with clearly articulated learning objectives, is advocated to facilitate pupils’ engagement in their own learning process, to foster their ability to take responsibility for their learning, and to enhance their metacognitive skills (cf. Andersson et al., 2019; Wiliam, 2011). However, this approach of involving pupils is neither implemented in RTI nor in the tool provided by LegiLexi.
The way teachers use assessments is important and insufficiently studied, and more subject-area-specific knowledge is necessary to further nuance the picture (Coburn & Turner, 2012; Hirsh & Lindberg, 2014; Lindberg & Eriksson, 2019; Prøitz et al., 2017). In the present study, we seek to bridge the gap between research on forward-looking assessments (Andersson et al., 2019; Jönsson, 2017) and research on teaching initiatives to support decoding development in early reading (Catts et al., 2005; Stanovich, 1986; Taube et al., 2015).

2. Aims

The general aim was to examine reading development following recommendations. More specifically, we analyzed if recommending teachers to focus their reading instruction on decoding facilitated reading development, including decoding, in pupils who were poor decoders at the beginning of grade 1. To answer this question, the development of word decoding, language comprehension, and reading comprehension during grade 1 were retrospectively compared to those of a comparison group. We also examined differences between poor decoders who received a decoding recommendation after the first test session, improved their decoding, and then received another recommendation (responders), and poor decoders who developed their decoding more slowly and received a decoding recommendation after both the first and second test occasions (non-responders). This study explored early reading recommendations and the progress of struggling first-grade readers by asking the following questions:
  • What proportion of pupils will receive a decoding recommendation at the beginning and another recommendation after the second test occasion (responders), and what characterizes them?
  • What proportion of pupils will receive a decoding recommendation after both the first and the second test occasion (non-responders), and what will characterize them?
  • How do these two groups develop in relation to the comparison group between the first, second and third test occasions?
  • What will be the differences between these groups regarding different reading-related abilities?

3. Method

3.1. Inclusion and Exclusion of Data

Data were collected within LegiLexi in the academic year 2016–2017, at the regular test sessions (T1–T3), T1 in autumn 2016, T2 in winter 2016–2017 and T3 in spring 2017 for pupils in grade 1. Data were selected with the following criteria: pupils had to have test results on both decoding tests (word and pseudoword reading) on all three test occasions.

3.2. Participants

Participants were selected from schools where teachers had chosen to use the tool provided by LegiLexi as part of their teaching. Participants were 2749 Grade 1 pupils divided into two different groups, responders and non-responders. The responders group consisted of 674 pupils, from 92 different schools, divided into 170 classes. The non-responders group consisted of 2075 pupils, from 102 Swedish primary schools, divided into 200 different classes. The schools were spread across Sweden and varied in terms of socioeconomic conditions, size, and geographical location; that is, there was a mix of urban and rural schools. Participants in the comparison group were pupils in grade 1 (n = 71) from 10 school classes, from eight different primary schools with different socioeconomic conditions and geographical locations. The teachers of the comparison group chose to let the pupils complete the LegiLexi tests but were not given access to test results, recommendations or any other LegiLexi material until the data collection was completed. The pupils followed the Swedish primary school syllabus for grades 1–3 (The National Agency for Education, 2011).
Two groups were created based on the pupils’ test scores on test occasions 1 and 2: non-responders and responders. We also collected data on pupils who served as a comparison group. The comparison group was tested with LegiLexi’s tests but did not receive any recommendations based on their results. The non-responders group received a decoding recommendation after both the autumn (T1) and the winter testing (T2). The responders group received a decoding recommendation after the autumn testing and another recommendation (that was not decoding) after the winter testing. To receive a decoding recommendation, the pupil had to score low both on the word decoding test (<40 correct words) and the pseudoword decoding test (<16 correct non-words), otherwise a different recommendation was given. Of the pupils whose data passed our quality control, 55.9% received a decoding recommendation at T1, 47.3% at T2, and 37.1% at T3.

3.3. Features of the Tool Provided by LegiLexi

The assessment tool provided by LegiLexi aims to map reading skills according to The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). The tool is described as part of a formative approach where recurring assessments three times per academic year are intended to provide the teacher with early information on how the pupils respond to the reading instruction that has been completed (Fälth et al., 2017). Furthermore, LegiLexi has developed three educational features. The first is a test battery of nine reading tests used to measure pupils’ reading skills in decoding, language comprehension, and reading comprehension. In the present study, we used eight tests and left one test out because it was too advanced for pupils in their first year of school. Seven of the tests were self-instructed to be used on a tablet or a computer, with headphones, and the two remaining tests (word and pseudoword decoding) were administered one-to-one (pupil and teacher). Individual and class level test results were administered to the teachers. Based on the pupils’ results, the teacher was given access to the second and third features of the program.
The second LegiLexi feature, the exercise bank, consists mainly of exercise examples that train pupils’ decoding, language, and reading comprehension skills at different levels. The third and final feature, the inspiration library, contains informative texts written by Swedish reading researchers and teachers experienced in teaching early reading skills.
The material can be used in several different ways; no specific methods, programs or interventions were followed. Teachers were allowed to freely use all three features. They communicated regularly with the staff at LegiLexi and the research team during the year of the study. The communication mainly consisted of phone conversations discussing practical issues; e.g., when the tests should take place, about the test administration, as well as unexpected test results and positive or negative feedback regarding the tests.

3.4. Test Material

A detailed description of the tests can be found in a test manual (Fälth et al., 2017). Tests were developed by the research team specifically for the LegiLexi tool.
The word decoding test measured the pupils’ decoding of real words. The test was administered one-to-one (teacher and the pupil) and contained 144 words with increasing length and complexity. The test had a time limit of one minute and each correctly pronounced word received one point. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.84.
The pseudoword decoding test assessed the phonological word decoding ability by fast-reading pseudowords. The 84 Swedish pseudowords increased in complexity. The words followed basic rules of how Swedish words can be constructed but were not real words. The test was administered one-to-one (teacher and pupil). The test had a time limit of 1 min and each correctly pronounced word received one point. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.74. These two tests were used to create the responder and non-responder groups.
The test battery also includes two tests of pre-reading skills, phonological awareness and letter-sound knowledge, as well as word comprehension, listening comprehension, and two reading comprehension tests.
The phonological awareness test measured the pupils’ ability to identify sounds and perform sound synthesis. It consisted of 26 items with increasing complexity. In the first part, the pupil listened to letter sounds and was presented with five different pictures that illustrated common words. The pupil was asked to identify the picture that had the corresponding letter sound at the beginning of the word (six items), at the end of the word (six items), or within the word (six items). Then the participant was asked to listen to phonemes from words and was instructed to perform sound synthesis and mark the picture whose sounds correspond to a particular word. The complexity of the items increased successively from three to a total of seven phonemes. Each correctly performed item was scored as one point with a maximum of 26 points. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.72.
The letter and sound knowledge test was meant to measure the pupils’ ability to make correct phoneme to grapheme connections. The pupil listened to 12 different letter sounds, one at a time, and was asked to choose the corresponding picture of a letter among 10 different alternatives. In the initial four items, the letters were uppercase, in the next four lowercase, and in the final four the letters were a mix of both upper and lowercase. Each correct answer received one point, with a maximum of 12 points. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.50.
The word comprehension test aimed to measure the pupils’ listening comprehension ability in the area of vocabulary. The pupil was instructed to mark one picture out of five that best corresponded to a word spoken out loud. The complexity of the spoken words increased successively. There was a total of 24 items and each correctly performed item received one point. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.77.
The listening comprehension test measured pupils’ ability to comprehend the content and to make inferences from a text that did not require the pupil to read it. The participant was instructed to mark a picture that best corresponded to a short text that was spoken out loud. After each text was spoken, a question was asked, and five similar pictures were presented. There was a total of 12 different texts, each worth one point if correctly solved. There was no time limit, but the estimated time required was approximately 10–12 min. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.65.
The reading comprehension (basic) test aimed to measure the pupils’ ability to read and comprehend simple texts. The texts were classified according to LIX as between 3 and 18 (e.g., LIX < 30 classifies as very easy, such as children’s books). The test contained 12 short texts with associated questions that the pupils read by themselves. The pupil was asked to choose one out of five similar pictures that best corresponded to the short text. The texts were adapted to what the pupils should master at the end of grade 1 (in line with the Swedish curriculum). The participant was instructed to answer 12 questions, which could give a maximum score of 12 points. This test had a time limit of 5 min. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.72.
The reading comprehension (advanced) test measured the pupils’ ability to read and comprehend advanced texts (LIX 5–30). The test consisted of six texts with a total of 18 questions that the pupils read by themselves. After each text, the pupils’ answered three multiple-choice questions about the content of the text, which received a maximum score of 18 points. The time limit was 7 min. Test–retest reliability between T2 and T3 was 0.44.
Tests were administered in the following order: phonological awareness, letter–sound knowledge, word comprehension, listening comprehension, reading comprehension (basic), reading comprehension (advanced). The word decoding and pseudoword decoding tests were administered one-to-one with a teacher and the test order varied. The estimated total time required was 35–40 min (Fälth et al., 2017; LegiLexi, n.d.).

3.5. LegiLexi-Generated Recommendations for Teaching

After each test occasion, teachers received recommendations corresponding to the components of the Simple View of Reading. They were given access to an individual profile based on the test results and a focus area for the pupils’ ongoing reading development (Fälth et al., 2017). Test results for the three major areas were each divided into a six-point scale that was also color-coded (red, yellow or green) to ease interpretation. Scale-level three corresponded to the Swedish curriculum goals for end-of-term in grade 1 (The National Agency for Education, 2011) while level four corresponded to the end-of-term goals for grade 2. All test results for each subtest were also visualized in graphs which enabled an analysis of each pupil’s progression over time (or lack thereof) in a specific area.
The individual recommendations were based on all subtests and information on which areas were assumed to be central to the pupil’s further reading instruction. The recommendations did not, however, include any specific method, exercises or specific interventions.
To be able to compare the recommendations statistically, we chose to divide these into two broad categories: decoding recommendations and other recommendations. An example of a decoding recommendation was, “The pupil has a good understanding of language but needs help to develop the decoding ability. Focus is on developing the pupil’s pre-reading skills to get the pupil’s reading started”. The other possible recommendations (not decoding) focus on either language comprehension or reading comprehension. An example of such a recommendation is, “The pupil has a well-developed decoding ability but needs to develop reading comprehension. Focus now is on working with different text types, developing reading comprehension and encouraging the desire to read”.

4. Design and Data Analysis

The study was based on a 2 × 3 mixed design with group (responders, non-responders) and test session (T1, T2, and T3) as independent variables and eight different reading-related abilities as dependent variables.
We used R (Version 4.0.2; R Core Team, 2020) and RStudio (Version 1.3.1093; RStudio Team, 2020) for all analyses. The following R packages were used: tidyverse for data wrangling (Wickham et al., 2019), mice (Version 3.9.0; van Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011) for imputation of missing data, modi (Version 1.6.1; Hulliger, 2018) for identification of multivariate outliers, and afex (Version 0.27.2; Singmann et al., 2020) and emmeans (Version 1.4.7; Lenth, 2020) for ANOVAs.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the proportion of decoding recommendations. The second and third research questions were answered with separate 3 × 3 mixed-design ANOVAs for each subtest, with test occasion as the within-subject variable and group as the between-subject variables.

5. Results

To answer the first research question about the proportions of non-responders and responders, 75.5% of the 2749 participants who received a decoding recommendation at T1 also received a decoding recommendation at T2 (i.e., they were non-responders). The proportions of participants who received a different recommendation at T2 (responders) was thus 24.5%.
The results for non-responders, responders, and the comparison group, on all eight reading tests and all three test occasions, are presented in Table 1 (research question 2). These results were analyzed by separate ANOVAs (research question 3).
There was a statistically significant main effect of group for all eight tests (all ps < 0.001). The non-responders group scored lower than the responders group and comparison group on all tests (see Table 1). There were also statistically significant main effects of test occasion for all eight tests (all ps < 0.05). All three groups improved over time. There were statistically significant interactions between group and test occasions for the tests on phonological awareness, letter–sound knowledge, word comprehension, listening comprehension, reading comprehension basic, reading comprehension advanced, word decoding, and pseudoword decoding (all ps < 0.01). No statistically significant interactions were found for word comprehension and listening comprehension.
In the following section, we examine in some detail how the most critical abilities (word decoding and reading comprehension) developed in the different groups (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).
Inspection of Figure 1 reveals that the non-responders group performed on a lower level than the other two groups and showed a steady improvement between the three test occasions. The responders group improved substantially between the first and second test occasions and less between the second and third. The comparison group showed a steady improvement between test sessions at an intermediate level of performance. The comparison of improvements between the first and second test occasions for non-responders and responders showed that the operationalization of the groups had an effect, which was expected. However, the level of performance compared to that of the comparison group and the development between the second and third test occasions is relevant for our research questions.
The pattern of results in Figure 2 is similar to that of Figure 1 in that the responders group showed a large improvement between the first and second test session, and the responders and comparison groups showed a similar development, whereas the non-responders group performed at a lower level.
Figure 3 reveals that the responders group increased their reading comprehension skill substantially between the first and the second test occasion. They had already surpassed the comparison group at T2 and then continued to perform at a higher level than the comparison group, also at T3. The non-responders group showed improvements in parallel to the comparison group but remained on a lower level of performance.
Inspection of Figure 4 shows that the responders group started at a slightly lower level than the comparison group but closed the gap at T2, and after they had been subjected to a different recommendation than decoding, they continued to improve their reading comprehension skills and slightly surpassed the comparison group at the third test occasion. The non-responders group, on the other hand, showed only small improvements between test occasions and the gap between other groups increased.

6. Discussion

In the present study, we have retrospectively examined differences between pupils whose teachers received recommendations to focus on decoding after only the first test occasion or after both the first and second test occasion. First, concerning the first research question, it can be noted that the non-responders group was much larger than the responders group (75.5% versus 24.5%). The non-responders performed lower than the other groups on all tests at T1. Looking at the individual test results, there were especially big differences on the two-word decoding tests. The non-responders scored less than half of what the other two groups scored (M = 12.5 compared to 28.8 and 24.8 on the word decoding test and M = 6.7 compared to 13.7 and 12.9 on the pseudoword decoding test at T1). Thus, non-responders can already be characterized by their low initial word decoding skills when they begin school. The results highlight the importance of utilizing a test battery that assesses various reading abilities from the very start of schooling. Early identification of pupils at risk of developing reading difficulties is a prerequisite for the teacher’s continued instruction (Elbro et al., 1998; Gersten et al., 2020; Hulme & Snowling, 2016; Stanovich, 1986). The differences compared to the other groups were statistically significant on other tests as well but were smaller. The differences on the tests related to language comprehension (word comprehension and listening comprehension) were relatively small (see Table 1). Furthermore, there were no significant interactions between group and test session on these two variables. Thus, language comprehension does not seem to be crucial for the differences in development between these groups. One interpretation is that some of the non–responders might have pronounced word decoding difficulties which were already noticeable at T1. These pupils seemed difficult to remediate while others who also required decoding instruction might be easy to remediate once they begin school. Bear in mind that participating pupils were only in grade 1 at the time of the study. In other words, the test results at T1 can be described as the pupils’ reading skills before being subjected to formal reading instruction in school. During the present study, preschool class, with formal reading preparation teaching, was not compulsory in Sweden (SFS 2010:800, n.d., Chapters 1 § 8).
After T2, the teachers of the non-responders and responders received different decoding recommendations, which makes the differences in effects after T2 particularly relevant to examine. These differences are illustrated in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. According to Figure 1 and Figure 2, the decoding skills of the responders had already improved substantially at T2, but the decoding development then flattened somewhat between T2 and T3. The development curve of the non-responders was on a lower level and the group progressed slightly but did not show the same flattening of the curve and had progressed steadily between T1 and T3. Thus, the growth curves of both groups were in line with the recommendations their corresponding teachers had received. This pattern of results shows that the teachers followed the recommendations to some extent.
This interpretation is also consistent with the results for reading comprehension shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Looking at Figure 3, the basic reading comprehension of the responders was like the results on word decoding (Figure 1 and Figure 2); that is, a substantial increase between T1 and T2 and then a flatter curve between T2 and T3. This might reflect the importance of decoding skills for basic reading comprehension and similar cognitive requirements required to solve these tasks. The results align with The Simple View of Reading Nordström et al. (2025) and previous research on reading instruction (Adams, 1990; Alatalo, 2011). Reading comprehension tests vary in the relative influence of different underlying characteristics (e.g., word decoding), which may mean that one test identifies difficulties more than another test (Keenan et al., 2008; Keenan & Meenan, 2014). The development of advanced reading comprehension (see Figure 4) was substantial and steady for the responders. Thus, even if their teachers received different recommendations between test occasions, the pupils continued to develop their advanced reading comprehension skills (which is of course the desired outcome). Advanced reading comprehension puts higher demands on the ability to interpret and understand the message and content in the text compared to the simpler texts of the basic reading comprehension test. Perhaps, for this group of pupils, a change of focus in their reading instruction, from decoding to comprehension or reading comprehension, was suitable and matched their developmental needs. They showed a higher improvement than the comparison group between T1 and T3 (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). However, it should be noted that we do not know how a continued focus on decoding would have affected their reading comprehension development.
Non-responders showed a relatively steady improvement in basic reading comprehension between T1 and T3 (see Figure 3). This indicates that the recommended decoding focus was relatively effective regarding the development of skills necessary for basic reading comprehension. The gap between non-responders and the comparison group remained the same at T1, T2, and T3. For advanced reading comprehension (Figure 4), the gap increased somewhat, and the non-responders did not seem to be ready for such demanding tasks, despite having increased their decoding skills.
In general, the results presented in Table 1 and Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 suggest that teachers, at least to some extent, followed the recommendations. It also seems that this contributed to a positive reading development for the 674 pupils who belonged to the responders group. This group seemed to consist of pupils who learned to read comparably easily; i.e., they improved their decoding skills with relevant instruction, and this seemed to lead to increased reading comprehension.
The non-responders group, whose reading difficulties persisted even at the end of academic year 1, was more than three times larger than the responders group. Thus, according to the results, a great proportion of pupils were recommended to continue focusing on decoding during grade 1 and still lagged behind the other groups. According to the results at T3, a significant proportion of the non-responders would receive a decoding recommendation also for the next semester in grade 2. Becoming a good reader requires time and effort (Castles et al., 2018), and that time and effort must be spent on adequate activities. Previous intervention studies have demonstrated that pupils who are poor decoders can improve their decoding and reading skills when instruction is focused on their specific difficulties (Fälth et al., 2015; Gustafson et al., 2007) and is structured, explicit, and led and organized by a competent teacher (Georgiou et al., 2020; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NCLB], 2000). Still, for these struggling, early readers, it is an open question of what type of instruction would benefit their reading development the most. What we can say is that these pupils’ needs should be assessed regularly, and the results of instructional efforts need to be evaluated continuously (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). In the group of non-responders, there may be pupils who are at risk of developing dyslexia. In line with this, Table 1 shows that the non-responders had lower scores on phonological awareness than the other two groups (M =17.2 compared to M = 21.3 and M = 19.1). However, the differences were not so evident that one could identify non-responders on a group level by their low phonological awareness ability alone. The present study suggests, in line with previous research (e.g., Adams, 1990; Ehri, 2020), that it is primarily word decoding that signals critical differences in early reading development.
We argue that these findings may be of interest to researchers, teachers, and principals who already possess knowledge of the importance of decoding in early reading instruction. The contribution lies in the significance of using a test battery early on that systematically assesses pupils’ various abilities over time, basing instruction on the test results, and subsequently following up on the implemented instruction. In school contexts like the Swedish one, where both whole language and phonics methods have their advocates and traces of the reading war can still be observed (cf. Castles et al., 2018), the study’s results are even more important. It is not yet common practice in all Swedish classrooms to focus on decoding and phonics in early reading instruction. The study’s results, like those of the Nordström et al. (2025), also show that for some pupils, it may be necessary to maintain a focus on decoding ability even in second grade. This, of course, does not exclude other important aspects of learning to read.

7. Limitations

The present study was a retrospective and observational study, which provides a description, analyses, and results regarding reading development following recommendations for classroom teachers in their everyday practice. Thus, compared to a traditional intervention study, we had less control of assignment of participants to conditions and treatment fidelity. Results should therefore be treated with some caution.
The test–retest reliability presented in the method section was for some tests only moderate. This can be partly explained by the long time duration between test occasions (approximately four months). Participants were also in an early stage of their reading development and substantial differences in results between T2 and T3 could be expected.

8. Conclusions

The study may suggest that decoding continues to be a bottleneck for reading development in the early school years and that recommending teachers to focus on decoding instruction might be helpful for some pupils. There were large differences between groups and while some pupils learned to decode quickly and simultaneously improve their reading comprehension a lot, a larger group of pupils in grade 1 in Sweden seemed to require a continued focus on word decoding during grade 1 and longer.
This group of non-responders provides a challenge for educators. Given the different developmental patterns identified in this study, it is essential that teachers’ early reading instruction is adapted to the pupils who need more time learning basic reading skills, such as decoding.
We argue that the study’s results can contribute valuable knowledge regarding teachers’ forward-looking assessment practices, emphasizing that teaching pupils to read can present both successes and challenges for both the pupil and the teacher. In this study, the pupil is central, since it is the pupil’s test results that inform the teacher about what the instruction should encompass and how the implemented instruction has impacted the pupil’s reading abilities. It is the pupil’s needs that both guide the way and indicate how the instruction has progressed. We hope that the study can provide support to teachers and principals considering the implementation of an assessment tool similar to the one developed by the LegiLexi foundation, or provide inspiration to develop a comparable assessment tool that systematically evaluates pupils’ various reading abilities over time while simultaneously leveraging teachers’ instructional expertise.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, U.B.A., T.N. and S.G.; methodology, H.D. and T.N.; software, H.D. and S.G.; validation, H.D., T.N. and S.G.; formal analysis, H.D. and U.B.A.; investigation, U.B.A., H.D., T.N. and S.G.; data curation, H.D. and T.N.; writing—original draft preparation, U.B.A. and S.G.; writing—review and editing, U.B.A., S.G. and T.N.; project administration, U.B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study use anonymized reading test data collected from the foundation LegiLexi. No personal information was collected. In compliance with Swedish law (2003:460), any research involving physical intervention, biological, genetic, biometric, or sensitive personal data requires ethical approval. Since the LegiLexi data lacks sensitive personal information and cannot be linked to individual students, no ethical approval was necessary or could be applied for.

Informed Consent Statement

The data was not collected by the authors. An anonymized data file was provided by the LegiLexi foundation. Therefore, informed consent was not applicable in this study.

Data Availability Statement

When entering into an agreement with the LegiLexi Foundation, it is stated in our terms that: The data processor (LegiLexi Foundation) has the right to use statistics (anonymized data) for the further development of the tool, development of new tools or other services, reporting, marketing, and as a basis for, for example, reading research.LegiLexi stiftelse, Strandvägen 13, Box 5761, 114 87 Stockholm, Sweden.

Conflicts of Interest

Regarding LegiLexi, the authors wish to clarify that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

Notes

1
Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language, which is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and despite effective classroom instruction. Secondary consequences may include problems with reading comprehension and reduced reading experience, which can impede the growth of vocabulary and background knowledge. Adopted by the International Dyslexia Assossiation (IDA) Board of Directors, 12 November 2002. Definition of dyslexia from the International Dyslexia Association.
2
LegiLexi (www.legilexi.org) is a foundation that has developed an evidence-based, digital tool to support teachers in their work of teaching primary school pupils to read. The vision of LegiLexi is that all pupils in Swedish schools should have achieved a good reading ability for their age by grade 3 (when approximately 9 years old). The tool has been developed through a collaborative effort between researchers and practicing teachers since its inception. It continuously evolves and adapts over time to meet the needs of the educators who utilize it. acess date 18 August 2020.

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alatalo, T. (2011). Skicklig läs-och skrivundervisning i åk 1–3: Om lärares möjligheter och hinder [Proficient reading and writing instruction in grades 1–3: Teachers’ opportunities and obstacles Language]. (Doktorsavhandling). ISBN 978-91-7346-709-4. Göteborgs Universitet. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/25658 (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  3. Andersson, U. B., Löfgren, H., & Gustafson, S. (2019). Forward-looking assessments that support students learning: A comparative analysis of two approaches. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cain, K. (2010). Reading development and difficulties (Vol. 8). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  6. Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T., & Adolf, S. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. Catts, & A. Kamhi (Eds.), Connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  8. Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., & Liu, Y. S. (2016). Early identification of reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 451–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2012). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Connor, C. M., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child by instruction interactions on first Graders’ literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cunningham, A. E., & O’Donnell, C. R. (2015). Teachers’ knowledge about beginning reading development and instruction. In A. Pollatsek, & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ehri, L. C. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case for systematic phonics instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S45–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Elbro, C., Borstrøm, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: The importance of distinctness of phonological representations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 36–60. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/748172 (accessed on 23 April 2025). [CrossRef]
  14. Elwér, Å., Gustafson, S., Byrne, B., Olson, R. K., Keenan, J. M., & Samuelsson, S. (2015). A retrospective longitudinal study of cognitive and language skills in poor reading comprehension. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(2), 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fälth, L., Gustafson, S., Kugelberg, E., & Nordström, T. (2017). LegiLexis formativa bedömningsverktyg-Testmanual [LegiLexis formative assessment tool-test manual]. LegiLexi Stiftelse. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321133898_LegiLexis_formativa_bedomningsverktyg_-_Testmanual (accessed on 18 August 2020).
  16. Fälth, L., Nilvius, C., & Anvegård, E. (2015). Intensive Reading with Reading Lists: An Intervention Study. Creative Education, 6, 2403–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2015). Effects of providing teachers with information about their pupils’ reading progress. School Psychology Review, 44(1), 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Georgiou, G. K., Savage, R., Dunn, K., Bowers, P., & Parrila, R. (2020). Examining the effects of structured word inquiry on the reading and spelling skills of persistently poor Grade 3 readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 131–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Newman-Gonchar, R., Dimino, J., & Jayanthi, M. (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for pupils in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 401–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gustafson, S., Ferreira, J., & Rönnberg, J. (2007). Phonological or orthographic training for children with phonological or orthographic decoding deficits. Dyslexia, 13(3), 211–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gustafson, S., Nordström, T., Andersson, U. B., Fälth, L., & Ingvar, M. (2019). Effects of a formative assessment system on early reading development. Education, 140(1), 17–27. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gustafson, S., Samuelsson, C., Johansson, E., & Wallmann, J. (2013). How simple is the simple view of reading? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(3), 292–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65(1), 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hirsh, Å., & Lindberg, V. (2014). Formativ bedömning på 2000-talet–en översikt av svensk och internationell forskning [Formative assessment in the 21st century—An overview of Swedish and international research]. ISBN 978-91-7307-269-4. Vetenskapsrådet. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hjetland, H. N., Brinchmann, E. I., Scherer, R., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2017). Preschool predictors of later reading comprehension ability: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hjetland, H. N., Lervåg, A., Lyster, S. A. H., Hagtvet, B. E., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hoogland, I., Schildkamp, K., Van der Kleij, F., Heitink, M., Kippers, W., Veldkamp, B., & Dijkstra, A. M. (2016). Prerequisites for data-based decision making in the classroom: Research evidence and practical illustrations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Høien, T., & Lundberg, I. (2013). Dyslexi, från teori till praktik [Dyslexia, from theory to practice]. (Suppl. 2), Natur och kultur. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hulliger, B. (2018). Modi (Version 1.6.1) [R-paket]. R-Forge. Available online: https://R-Forge.R-project.org (accessed on 5 May 2015).
  32. Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2016). Reading disorders and dyslexia. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 28(6), 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jönsson, A. (2017). Prov eller bedömning?: Att tolka och använda provresultat och omdömen [Test or assessment?: To interpret and use test results and assessments]. ISBN 978-91-40-69722-6. Gleerup. [Google Scholar]
  34. Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Keenan, J. M., & Meenan, C. E. (2014). Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. LegiLexi. (n.d.). Lära barn att läsa. Vägen från fonologisk medvetenhet till god läsförståelse [Teach children to read. From phonological awareness to good reading comprehension]. Ed. Sofia Norén. [Google Scholar]
  37. LegiLexi.org. (n.d.). Available online: www.LegiLexi.org (accessed on 18 August 2020).
  38. Lenth, R. (2020). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  39. Lindberg, V., & Eriksson, I. (2019). Formativ bedömning: Utmaningar för undervisningen [Formative assessment: Challenges for teaching] (A. Pettersson, Ed.). ISBN 978-91-27-82487-4. Natur & Kultur. [Google Scholar]
  40. McCardle, P., Scarborough, H. S., & Catts, H. W. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practise, 16, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NCLB). (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769); US Government Printing Office.
  42. Nordström, T., Andersson, U. B., Fälth, L., & Gustafson, S. (2019). Teacher inquiry of using assessments and recommendations in teaching early reading. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nordström, T., Fälth, L., & Danielsson, H. (2025). Evaluating the simple view of reading model: Longitudinal testing and applicability to the Swedish Language. Education Sciences, 15(3), 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Prøitz, T. S., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2017). Investigative modes in research on data use in education. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ramus, F. (2004). The neural basis of reading acquisition. The Cognitive Neurosciences, 3, 815–824. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  48. RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC. Available online: http://www.rstudio.com/ (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  49. SFS 2010:800. (n.d.). Skollag. [The education act]. 7 kapitlet 10 § skollagen och proposition 2017/18:9 Skolstart vid sex års ålder s 51–52. Utbildningsdepartementet. [Google Scholar]
  50. Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2020). Afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/afex/afex.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2025).
  51. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Nation, K. (2020). Defining and understanding dyslexia: Past, present and future. Oxford Review of Education, 46(4), 501–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Sortwell, A., Trimble, K., Ferraz, R., Geelan, D. R., Hine, G., Ramirez-Campillo, R., Carter-Thuiller, B., Gkintoni, E., & Xuan, Q. A. (2024). Systematic review of meta-analyses on the impact of formative assessment on k-12 pupils’ learning: Toward sustainable quality education. Sustainability, 16, 7826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Taube, K., Fredriksson, U., & Olofsson, Å. (2015). Kunskapsöversikt om läs-och skrivundervisning för yngre elever [Knowledge overview of reading and writing instructions for younger pupils]. (Vetenskapsrådets del-rapport). Vetenskapsrådet. [Google Scholar]
  57. The National Agency for Education. (2011). Curriculum for primary school, preschool class and after-school center; The National Agency for Education.
  58. van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. Available online: https://www.jstatsoft.org/v45/i03/ (accessed on 23 April 2025). [CrossRef]
  59. Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of open source software, 4(43), 1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wolff, U. (2016). Effects of a randomized reading intervention study aimed at 9-year-olds: A 5-year follow-up. Dyslexia, 22(2), 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 00581 g001
Figure 1. Boxplots of the development of word decoding skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Figure 1. Boxplots of the development of word decoding skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Education 15 00581 g001
Education 15 00581 g002
Figure 2. Boxplots of the development of pseudo-word decoding skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Figure 2. Boxplots of the development of pseudo-word decoding skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Education 15 00581 g002
Education 15 00581 g003
Figure 3. Boxplots of the development of basic reading comprehension skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Figure 3. Boxplots of the development of basic reading comprehension skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Education 15 00581 g003
Education 15 00581 g004
Figure 4. Boxplots of the development of advanced reading comprehension skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Figure 4. Boxplots of the development of advanced reading comprehension skills for the three groups between test occasions T1 (autumn), T2 (winter), and T3 (spring). The boxes contain the 25th to the 75th percentile, the median is marked with a horizontal line, and the means are the markers connected with lines between time points. The whiskers of the means denote 95% confidence intervals; the whiskers of the boxes denote the furthest data point within 1.5 * IQR from the box and datapoints outside of this are outliers that are plotted individually.
Education 15 00581 g004
Table 1. The results for all eight tests for the three groups Non-responders, Responders and Comparison, on test occasions 1-3 are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. The results for all eight tests for the three groups Non-responders, Responders and Comparison, on test occasions 1-3 are summarized in Table 1.
Test Name and Test OccasionNon-Responders
(n = 2075)		Responders
(n = 674)		Comparison
(n = 71)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Phonological awareness T117.196.0021.344.3519.134.88
Phonological awareness T220.475.0523.113.3621.083.44
Phonological awareness T321.684.6423.803.2022.992.71
Letter-sound knowledge T19.242.7511.001.409.592.63
Letter-sound knowledge T210.821.7611.530.9911.111.18
Letter-sound knowledge T311.241.4211.670.9711.551.00
Word comprehension T1 13.194.1014.823.5714.874.02
Word comprehension T2 14.493.7716.143.1615.973.88
Word comprehension T3 15.423.6416.953.0516.564.05
Listening comprehension T17.982.538.952.058.552.32
Listening comprehension T29.082.239.971.829.831.80
Listening comprehension T39.612.0610.401.6210.181.62
Reading comprehension,
basic T1		2.311.784.262.523.832.99
Reading comprehension,
basic T2		3.872.557.502.645.753.51
Reading comprehension,
basic T3		5.693.128.902.367.323.49
Reading comprehension,
advanced T1 		3.792.504.472.305.272.95
Reading comprehension,
advanced T2 		4.312.536.202.806.183.49
Reading comprehension,
advanced T3		5.202.848.303.277.623.88
Word decoding T1 12.499.7828.8310.0824.8221.62
Word decoding T2 24.6312.1251.139.2036.0324.14
Word decoding T3 36.9115.8662.9013.5950.5523.51
Pseudo-word decoding T16.685.0713.694.2912.946.93
Pseudo-word decoding T2 10.885.0920.613.8716.908.07
Pseudo-word decoding T3 14.616.3623.396.1621.288.28
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Andersson, U.B.; Danielsson, H.; Nordström, T.; Gustafson, S. Reading Development Following Forward-Looking Assessments Providing Recommendations to Teachers. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050581

AMA Style

Andersson UB, Danielsson H, Nordström T, Gustafson S. Reading Development Following Forward-Looking Assessments Providing Recommendations to Teachers. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(5):581. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050581

Chicago/Turabian Style

Andersson, Ulrika B., Henrik Danielsson, Thomas Nordström, and Stefan Gustafson. 2025. "Reading Development Following Forward-Looking Assessments Providing Recommendations to Teachers" Education Sciences 15, no. 5: 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050581

APA Style

Andersson, U. B., Danielsson, H., Nordström, T., & Gustafson, S. (2025). Reading Development Following Forward-Looking Assessments Providing Recommendations to Teachers. Education Sciences, 15(5), 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15050581

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop