Literacy is a basic and key learning in Primary Education, and difficulties in its learning have been related to a higher probability of academic failure. In Spain, there are no screening tests in official languages other than Spanish to detect these difficulties early. The aim of this study was to create and analyse the psychometric characteristics of a new screening test for the early detection of problems in reading in Catalan (Prelectocat). A total of 459 5-year-old children in the last year of Preschool Education were administered the reading screening test. This test assesses phonological awareness, sound-grapheme correspondence, phonological memory, verbal sequencing/lexical retrieval, and writing. The results show good construct reliability and validity. Normative values are indicated in percentiles and cut-off points to identify children at risk. Several early indicators allow us to detect those children who are at risk of having difficulties in these areas in Primary Education. This type of test can be used as a universal screening tool for all students aged 5-6 years in order to initiate early intervention and therefore contribute to the reduction of academic failure.
Article Details
How to Cite
López-Sala, A., Aguilera, M., Ahufinger, N., Martínez-García, C., Colomé-Roura, R., Perálvarez, I., … Andreu, L. (2025). Prelectocat. Catalan screening tool for early detection of reading difficulties in childhood. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 24(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2025.24.2.496
López-Sala, Aguilera, Ahufinger, Martínez-García, Colomé-Roura, Perálvarez, Balsells,
Cuadras, and Andreu: Prelectocat. Catalan screening tool for early detection of reading difficulties in
childhood
Introduction
Learning to read and write involves the transformation of written language into spoken
language (reading) or vice versa (writing). Children with strong oral language skills
learn to read and write better than those who experience difficulties (). In this regard, general oral language ability in Preschool Education (ages 3-5)
can be considered a single predictive factor for future development of reading and
writing skills in Primary Education (ages 6-12) (for a review, see ).
Given the importance of oral language in acquiring reading and writing skills, various
studies have sought to determine which oral abilities best predict subsequent reading
and writing development. According to the “simple view of reading” (), reading involves two fundamental skills. One is the ability to translate printed
words into speech (a process known as decoding) and the other is the ability to understand
what is read (a process known as reading comprehension).
Longitudinal studies have provided valuable insights into the risk factors for difficulties
in reading and writing skills. These risk factors can be classified into three levels:
biological, cognitive and environmental (). It is well established that the likelihood of developing a reading disorder has
a strong genetic component, and that a child with a family history of dyslexia is
highly likely to inherit it ().
The environment plays a critical role from a very early stage. What has been called
the “home literacy environment” has a direct effect on the development of pre-literate
skills (). Regarding cognitive factors, various cognitive skills and tasks have been reported
to predict the acquisition and subsequent development of reading and writing in different
languages. With respect to reading, many studies have examined the role of phonological
awareness (the ability to manipulate the sounds of one’s own language) and alphabet
knowledge (knowing the names of letters and their corresponding sounds) during the
preschool years as predictors of decoding skills (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). Moreover, other skills have also demonstrated significant predictive effects. These
include phonological memory; i.e., the retrieval of phonological information stored
in long-term memory (; ) and short-term memory, which is generally assessed using digit or pseudoword repetition
tasks (; ; ; ; ).
Previous studies have shown that verbal sequencing tasks in preschool, such as reciting
the days of the week, naming colours and identifying geometric shapes, can serve as
effective predictors of later reading performance (; ; ). These tasks tap into fundamental skills necessary for reading development, including
phonological processing, verbal memory and rapid automatized naming (RAN). For example,
reciting sequences such as the days of the week requires children to organise and
retrieve language-based information in a fixed order, paralleling the sequential processing
involved in reading (; ). Similarly, tasks involving naming colours and geometric figures engage both vocabulary
retrieval and rapid naming, processes closely linked to RAN, which has been consistently
associated with reading fluency (; ). Studies suggest that children who demonstrate competence in these verbal sequencing
tasks tend to develop stronger decoding and word recognition skills (; ). Consequently, assessing verbal sequencing abilities in preschool provides valuable
information about children’s potential literacy trajectories, enabling early identification
of those who may benefit from targeted reading interventions.
Overall oral language comprehension ability is a strong predictor of reading comprehension
(; ; ; ). Specifically, vocabulary has been identified as a key factor in the development
of later reading comprehension (; ; ).
Finally, with regard to writing, few studies have focused on early predictors of later
writing development, although emergent writing skills, such as writing one’s name,
letter knowledge and early spelling, are reported to be critical components of early
writing development (e.g., ; ; ; ).
In particular, there are few studies in Spanish that have analysed the predictive
value of these variables. For example, found that phonological awareness was the best predictor of accuracy in reading and
writing, while rapid naming of pictures predicted reading speed in children in Preschool
Education.
These data indicate that it is possible to forecast the acquisition of reading and
writing skills before formal instruction (). Therefore, the availability of screening tasks at early ages may facilitate early
intervention for children at risk of difficulties in reading and writing skills, maximising
their potential. Furthermore, such screening tasks are fundamental for dynamic approaches
such as the Response to Intervention (RtI) educational model or Multi-Tiered Systems
of Support (MTSS), which are educational frameworks designed to provide high-quality
support to students according to their varying levels of need. These approaches generally
consist of three levels, each offering progressively more intensive intervention.
At Level 1, all students receive universal instruction based on research-supported
practices. Those who do not respond adequately to this general classroom instruction
receive Level 2 support, consisting of targeted small-group interventions to address
learning difficulties or gaps in specific skills. For students who continue to face
challenges, Level 3 provides individualised support, often delivered in one-to-one
sessions tailored to their specific needs. In this context, adjusting the intensity
of instruction begins with assessment using a universal screening tool, termed “universal”
because it is applied to all students with the purpose of identifying those who may
benefit from additional support at Levels 2 and 3.
Accordingly, a growing number of studies have highlighted the usefulness of screening
tests in Preschool Education for predicting later reading and writing achievement,
especially because early predictors play a crucial role in laying the foundation for
successful reading and writing development (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). and published pioneering longitudinal studies examining early prediction of performance.
Their research demonstrated the long-term predictive validity of early screening tests,
such as the Sheppard School Entry Screening Test (SSEST). These studies reinforced
the idea that screening tools applied during the preschool years can provide strong
indicators of future literacy success or failure, emphasising the importance of early
intervention. Following these seminal works, numerous studies, the majority in English,
have investigated the use of screening tools in Preschool Education to predict later
reading difficulties (; ; ; ; ; ). , in a systematic review, provided a comprehensive overview of screening tests and
their role in identifying literacy difficulties. The authors showed that screening
tests assessing key early reading skills, such as phonological awareness, alphabet
knowledge and vocabulary, are effective in identifying children at risk of reading
difficulties.
In the Spanish-speaking context, various tools have been developed to predict later
reading development in Spanish-speaking children in Preschool Education, such as the
Prolexia test (). This test includes early screening assessments for children aged 4 to 6 and comprises
six subtests, including phonological awareness activities, phonological short-term
memory and rapid naming tasks. However, this test lasts approximately 30 minutes and
is designed for clinical application by psychology professionals rather than as a
universal screening tool in schools. Whereas, created a test for the early detection of reading and writing learning difficulties
in Spanish, which is easy to administer and score and can be applied as a universal
screening tool by teachers in the classroom to four-year-old children.
However, in other official languages of Spain, such as Catalan, Galician or Basque,
which are the first language of many children and the official languages of instruction
in their respective autonomous regions, universal screening tests do not exist. In
this regard, the aim of this study was to develop a universal screening test for the
early detection of reading and writing learning difficulties in Catalan, designed
to be quick and straightforward for teachers to use, enabling the identification at
age five of children at risk before they start Primary Education and thereby facilitating
early intervention. To this end, collaboration was established between the Sant Joan
de Déu Hospital (School Learning Disorders Unit, UTAE) and Fundació Privada Educativa
Vedruna Barcelona, formalised in an agreement signed in July 2013, and subsequently
extended to all its schools in Catalonia through a partnership with Fundació Vedruna
Catalunya Educació in May 2017. Vedruna schools are publicly funded, privately managed
schools (concertadas) distributed throughout Catalonia.
Method
Test
The Prelectocat screening tool was developed by the team at the School Learning Disorders
Unit (UTAE) at the Sant Joan de Déu Hospital in Barcelona. At the same time, indicators
considered important for identifying potential reading and writing difficulties were
jointly selected by teaching and educational psychology teams from the Vedruna school
network in Catalonia. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify
the most commonly used predictors of reading and writing performance, focusing on
key aspects of reading development. From this review, the team selected skills that
could be assessed in a short period of time to include in a screening tool; namely,
phonological awareness, sound-grapheme correspondence, phonological memory, verbal
sequencing/lexical retrieval, and writing. Five core domains emerged from the literature
and professional practice as critical for successful reading development. These are
outlined below. For each domain, representative tasks were selected for assessment
purposes. The selection process was carried out by a group of reading experts with
over 10 years’ experience and reviewed by educational psychologists from the participating
schools. The screening tool includes 31 items1:
- Domain 1. Phonological awareness (11 items). Identifying phonemes within a word;
i.e., naming words that begin with a given sound, determining whether two words begin
or end with the same sound, forming new words by combining sounds and changing the
initial sound in a word.
- Domain 2. Sound-grapheme correspondence (6 items). Identifying the grapheme-phoneme
correspondence for vowels, frequent consonants and all graphemes, and reading three
simple monosyllabic words.
- Domain 3. Short-term/phonological memory (6 items). Repeating sequences of 2 to
4 digits or 2 to 4 non-meaningful syllables.
- Domain 4. Verbal sequencing/lexical retrieval skills (4 items), humming the days
of the week, reciting a phonetic count from 1 to 20 and naming colours and geometric
shapes.
- Domain 5. Writing (4 items): Writing one’s name and three simple, high-frequency
words (CVC and CVCV structures) using uppercase or cursive letters.
Each item is scored on a scale from 0 to 3. For each item, the manual specifies scoring
criteria based on both accuracy and response speed. The total possible score ranges
from 0 to 93. The screening takes approximately 10 minutes to administer.
Participants
The study sample comprised a total of 459 children, 222 girls (48.4%) and 237 boys
(51.6%), who were in their final year of Preschool Education (ages 5 and 6). No exclusion
criteria were applied. The children were enrolled in 31 schools belonging to the Fundació
Vedruna educational network, located in different towns and cities in all four provinces
of Catalonia. These schools reflect a broad geographical diversity, including both
urban and rural settings. Urban areas were represented by schools in major cities
such as Barcelona and in densely populated towns like Terrassa and Sabadell. These
schools are situated in environments with ready access to a wide range of educational
and cultural resources. The sample also included schools in smaller or more rural
municipalities such as Bellpuig, l’Espluga de Francolí and Santa Coloma de Queralt,
where population density is lower and access to educational and cultural services
more limited. The geographic distribution further encompassed mountain regions, including
towns such as Puigcerdà and Ripoll, which pose specific challenges related to connectivity
and access to resources. Additionally, coastal towns such as Cambrils and Palamós
were included, offering insights into socio-economic contexts shaped by tourism and
maritime economies.
Procedure
The Prelectocat screening was always administered during the third trimester of the
school year by the classroom teacher and/or the school’s educational psychologist.
Each child was assessed individually in a quiet, distraction-free space. The screening
process involved all the materials included with the Prelectocat tool: an answer sheet,
support materials (including the letters, colours and shapes the child is asked to
recognise) and a manual with detailed instructions for administration and scoring.
Each item has its own specific instructions. Participant responses were recorded on
the answer sheet. The completed answer sheets were later entered into spreadsheets
for statistical analysis.
Results
Descriptive
Descriptive statistics were calculated for the total test score as well as for each
of the five assessed domains (table 1). A histogram was created to show the distribution of scores for each domain and
for the overall test. In all graphs, the distribution was skewed to the left (figure 1). Percentile ranks were computed using data from all 459 participants (table 2). Scores considered to indicate risk were defined as those one or more standard deviations
below the mean. The cutoff for this threshold corresponds to a raw score of 60, equivalent
to the 13th percentile.
Differences in scores based on sex were also examined. Table 3 presents descriptive statistics and the results of the test, comparing the values.
No significant differences were found between the two groups.
Table 1Mean values and standard deviations for the total Prelectocat score
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum
1st quartile
Median
3rd quartile
Maximum
Total score
76.87
15.08
22
70
82
88
93
Domain 1.
Phonological awareness
24.23
8.69
0
18
27
31
33
Domain 2.
Sound-grapheme
15.40
3.30
1
15
16
17
18
Domain 3.
Phonological memory
15.27
2.86
3
14
16
18
18
Domain 4.
Verbal sequencing /
lexical retrieval
11.32
1.37
1
11
12
12
12
Domain 5.
Writing
10.65
2.18
0
9
12
12
12
Figure 1Graphical representation of total and domain scores for the Prelectocat in the sample
of 459 children. Each variable was normalised relative to its maximum possible score
Table 2Percentile ranks for total Prelectocat score
Total score
Percentile
27
1
55
9
58
11
60
13
62
14
63
15
64
16
65
18
67
21
68
23
69
24
70
25
71
28
73
30
74
32
75
33
76
35
77
38
78
40
79
42
80
45
81
48
82
51
83
55
84
59
85
63
86
70
87
74
88
78
89
83
90
87
91
91
92
94
93
100
Table 3Descriptive statistics for the domains and total score of the Prelectocat, grouped
by sex, and results of the Mann-Whitney U test used to compare scores between the
two groups
Sex
Mean
Stat. Dev.
Min.
C1
Median
C3
Max.
Mann-Whitney U Test
W
p-value
Total score
F
77.7
14.3
23
77.3
82
88
93
27501
0,400
M
76.1
15.8
22
68
81
87
93
Domain 1.
Phonological awareness
F
24.6
8.2
0
21
27
31
33
26883
0,684
M
23.8
9.2
0
18
27
31
33
Domain 2.
Sound-grapheme
F
15.6
3.2
1
15
16
18
18
27933
0,244
M
15.2
3.4
1
15
16
17
18
Domain 3.
Phonological memory
F
15.2
2.9
3
14
16
18
18
25923
0,781
M
15.3
2.8
6
13
16
18
18
Domain 4.
Verbal sequencing /
lexical retrieval
F
11.4
1.3
1
11
12
12
12
27799
0,201
M
11.2
1.5
3
11
12
12
12
Domain 5.
Writing
F
10.8
2.0
3
9
12
12
12
28355
0,098
M
10.5
2.3
0
9
12
12
12
Reliability
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of the test. The
resulting value was 0.906, with a confidence interval ranging from 0.89 to 0.92. Internal
consistency was also examined using the split-half method, in which a score was computed
based on the even-numbered items and another based on the odd-numbered items. A Spearman
correlation of 0.811 was found between the two sets of scores. These values indicate
that the test has good reliability, as the confidence interval falls within the range
considered to represent good to excellent results (; ). Additionally, internal consistency within the scale was examined by analysing the
correlations between the different domains. Since the data did not follow a normal
distribution, non-parametric Spearman correlations were used (see table 4).
As shown in table 4, all correlations are positive and statistically significant, meaning that higher
scores in one domain tend to be associated with higher scores in the other domains.
The strongest correlations were found between Domain 1 (phonological awareness) and
Domain 2 (sound-grapheme correspondence), with a coefficient of 0.526, and between
Domain 1 and Domain 5 (writing skills), with a coefficient of 0.556. These results
therefore suggest strong internal consistency between domains.
Table 4Correlation table between Prelectocat domains
*** The correlation is significant at level < 0.001
Validity
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess whether the data collected
aligned with the domain structure originally proposed when developing the tool, thereby
testing its construct validity. The model is built using maximum likelihood estimation.
Table 5 presents the results of the model fit.
The confirmatory factor analysis results yielded a significant value. However, this value is highly sensitive to the large sample size available
to build the model. The RMSEA value was below 0.08, indicating an acceptable model
fit. Finally, the CFI was below 0.90, which also indicates a good fit (see table 5).
Table 5Fit coefficients for the confirmatory factor analysis of Prelectocat
Chi-square
RMSEA
CFI
= 1478.055 df = 424 p < 0.001
0.074
0.813
Discussion
The aim of this study was to develop and analyse the psychometric properties of a
new screening test for pre-literacy skills in Catalan (Prelectocat), designed for
a population of Catalan students in Preschool Education. The test was designed to
identify children aged 5-6 who may be at risk of experiencing difficulties in the
process of learning to read and write, enabling early prevention and intervention.
Its development encompassed five task domains (phonological awareness, sound-grapheme
correspondence, phonological memory, verbal sequences/lexical retrieval, and writing)
that have been identified in the literature as having predictive value for later reading
and writing development. The results showed no differences between boys and girls,
either in the total score or in any individual domain.
They also demonstrated high internal consistency based on reliability indices, as
well as good consistency across the five domains. With regard to construct validity,
the coefficients indicated acceptable values and a good fit between the data and the
proposed five-domain model. While these findings support the overall structure and
robustness of the instrument, the distribution of scores tended to be skewed towards
higher values, particularly in domains 4 and 5. This skew suggests that some tasks
may be relatively easy for a portion of the sample, which could reduce the test’s
ability to discriminate among higher-performing children. It would therefore be advisable
to review certain items in future revisions of the test to improve its sensitivity.
Based on the findings of this study, it is proposed that children whose scores fall
one standard deviation or more below the mean, equivalent to a raw score of 60 or
less, be considered at risk, and should be closely monitored, supported and evaluated,
particularly during the first cycle of primary education, where a strong emphasis
is placed on acquiring reading and writing skills.
The test was designed to provide teachers with a universal assessment tool. This type
of assessment is aligned with the Response to Intervention model, which promotes educational
evaluation within inclusive schooling (; ; ; ), and supports the provision of psychoeducational and speech and language therapy
services (; ; ). This intervention model is based on prevention and the identification of specific
educational support needs through assessment of how pupils respond to the interventions
implemented. It involves a continuous cycle of assessment and intervention aimed at
ensuring pupils reach their full potential. Through frequent and systematic evaluations
of pupil progress, interventions should be adjusted and refined as needed, with levels
of support added or removed in response to the needs identified (; ; ).
In this context, Prelectocat is a quick and easy-to-administer test that we consider
well suited for systematic implementation in schools as a universal screening tool
during the final term of the last year of Preschool Education. This would allow teaching
staff to identify pupils at risk and provide appropriate support during the early
years of primary education. In doing so, personalised support plans could be developed,
appropriate follow-up conducted, and the necessary evaluations ensured to support
the development of reading and writing skills, essential for academic success.
Conclusions and limitations
The implementation of Prelectocat represents a significant advance in the early detection
of reading and writing difficulties within the Catalan educational context. This study
demonstrates that the tool has strong psychometric reliability and validity, consolidating
it as a practical and effective resource for identifying children aged 5-6 years who
are at risk of experiencing challenges in learning to read and write. The ability
to conduct quick and simple universal screening in the classroom allows teachers to
adopt a proactive role in preventing academic failure by intervening at a key stage
in children’s development.
Among the limitations identified is the asymmetrical distribution of scores in the
histogram, which may affect the test’s sensitivity in distinguishing between the highest
and lowest levels of performance. This suggests the need to revise certain items or
incorporate new tasks in future versions of the tool to allow for better differentiation.
This limitation is noted in the test manual to guide accurate interpretation of the
results. Furthermore, no socioeconomic data were available for the sample, although
the variety of contexts represented by the participating schools, including urban,
rural, mountainous and coastal areas, has been documented. In addition, it will be
essential to conduct longitudinal studies to evaluate the predictive capacity of Prelectocat
in identifying reading and writing difficulties at later stages. At the time of administering
the Prelectocat screening instrument, no standardised norm-referenced test existed
in Spanish that assessed the same skills. As a result, it was not possible to analyse
the content and criterion validity of the instrument. Future studies should assess
the test’s predictive capacity and evaluate it across the different domains, allowing
for the identification of specific difficulty profiles and determining which domain(s)
underlie the difficulties observed in each child.
Despite these limitations, we consider that Prelectocat has the potential to be implemented
as a universal screening instrument at the end of the final year of Preschool Education.
Its use would enable the planning of personalised support and appropriate monitoring
to ensure optimal reading and writing development, promote academic success and support
educational inclusion.
Author contributions
Anna López-Sala: Project administration; Conceptualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review
and editing; Research; Methodology; Resources; Supervision; Validation; Visualisation.
Mari Aguilera: Conceptualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review and editing; Research;
Methodology; Visualisation.
Nadia Ahufinger: Conceptualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review and editing; Research;
Methodology; Visualisation.
Cristina Martínez-García: Conceptualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review and editing; Research;
Methodology; Visualisation.
Ismael Perálvarez: Formal analysis; Data curation; Software.
Sol Balsells: Formal analysis; Data curation; Methodology; Software; Visualisation.
Daniel Cuadras: Formal analysis; Data curation; Methodology; Software; Visualisation.
Llorenç Andreu: Conceptualisation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review and editing; Research;
Methodology; Resources; Supervision; Validation; Visualisation; Funding acquisition.
Ethical statement
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
(UOC). It was also conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set out in the
1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments (WMA. World Medical Association,
2013).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the Vedruna Schools of Catalonia for their collaboration,
as well as the support provided by the professionals of the School Learning Disorders
Unit (UTAE) at Sant Joan de Déu Hospital in Barcelona.
Note
1The Prelectocal assessment tool is stored in the OSFHome data repository. It includes
the test record sheet and instructions (Appendix 1), as well as the interpretation
and scoring sheet (Appendix 2). Available at: López-Sala, A. et al. (2025, June 12).
Prelectocat. Catalan screening tool for early detection of reading difficulties in
childhood. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3GPVU
References
1
Acosta-Rodríguez, V. M. (2006). Efectos de la intervención y el apoyo mediante prácticas
colaborativas sobre el lenguaje del alumnado con necesidades educativas específicas.
Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 26(1), 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0214-4603(06)70095-x
2
Acosta-Rodríguez, V. M. (2008). La intervención en niños con dificultades de lenguaje.
Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 28(4), 203-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0214-4603(08)70127-x
3
Adlof, S. M., & Hogan, T. P. (2019). Understanding dyslexia in the context of developmental
language disorders. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 49(4), 762-773. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_lshss-dyslc-18-0049
Archibald, L. M. D. (2017). SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform
reason-based practice. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 2, 239694151668036. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516680369
6
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language
learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1), 158-173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.1.158
7
Bishop, A. G. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading achievement: A comparison
of fall and winter kindergarten screenings. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593651
8
Bishop, A. G., & League, M. B. (2006). Identifying a multivariate screening model
to predict reading difficulties at the onset of kindergarten: A longitudinal analysis.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(4), 235-252. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035552
9
Bowers, P. G., y Swanson, L. B. (1991). Naming speed deficits in reading disability:
Multiple measures of a singular process. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51(2), 195-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(91)90032-N
10
Butler, S. R., Marsh, H. W., Sheppard, M. J., & Sheppard, J. L. (1982). Early prediction
of reading achievement with the Sheppard School Entry Screening Test: A four-year
longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 280-290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.280
11
Butler, S. R., Marsh, H. W., Sheppard, M. J., & Sheppard, J. L. (1985). Seven-year
longitudinal study of the early prediction of reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.3.349
12
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., y Bryant, P. (2000). Investigating the causes of reading comprehension
failure: The comprehension-age match design. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(1-2), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008058319399
13
Caravolas, M., Lervåg, A., Defior, S., Málková, G., & Hulme, C. (2019). Different
patterns, but equivalent predictors, of growth in reading in consistent and inconsistent
orthographies. Psychological Science, 30(6), 860-875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612473122
14
Christopher, M. E., Miyake, A., Keenan, J. M., Pennington, B. F., DeFries, J. C.,
Wadsworth, S. J., Willcutt, E. G., & Olson, R. K. (2012). Predicting word reading
and comprehension with executive function and speed measures across development: A
latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 470-488. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027375
15
Coll, C. (2015). La personalización del aprendizaje escolar. El qué, el por qué y
el cómo de un reto insoslayable. En J. M. Vilalta, Reptes de l’educació a Catalunya. Anuari d’Educació (pp. 43-104). Fundació Jaume Bofill.
16
Cuetos, F., Arribas, D., Suárez‐Coalla, P., & Martínez-García, C. (2020). PROLEXIA. Diagnóstico y detección temprana de la dislexia. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
17
Cuetos, F., Suárez‐Coalla, P., Molina, M. I., & Llenderrozas, M. C. (2015). Test para
la detección temprana de las dificultades en el aprendizaje de la lectura y escritura.
Revista Pediatría de Atención Primaria, 17(66), e99-e107. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1139-76322015000300002
18
Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid “automatized” naming (R.A.N): Dyslexia
differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14(4), 471-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(76)90075-0
19
De-Jong, P. F., & Van-der-Leij, A. (1999). Specific contributions of phonological
abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal
study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 450-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.450
20
Diakidoy, I. A. N., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The
relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text
at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26(1), 55-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590910584
21
Ebbels, S. H., McCartney, E., Slonims, V., Dockrell, J. E., & Norbury, C. F. (2019).
Evidence‐based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 54(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12387
22
Echeita, G., y Ainscow, M. (2011). La educación inclusiva como derecho. Marco de referencia
y pautas de acción para el desarrollo de una revolución pendiente. Tejuelo. Didáctica de la Lengua y la Literatura, 12, 26-46. https://tejuelo.unex.es/tejuelo/article/view/2497
23
Einarsdóttir, J. T., Björnsdóttir, A., & Símonardóttir, I. (2016). The predictive
value of preschool language assessments on academic achievement: A 10-year longitudinal
study of Icelandic children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(1), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0184
24
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub‐Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan,
T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from
the National Reading Panel’s meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
25
Gaab, N., & Petscher, Y. (2022). Screening for early literacy milestones and reading
disabilities: The why, when, whom, how, and where. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 48(1), 11-18.
26
Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. S., Baddeley, A. D., &, Emslie, H. (1994). The children's
test of nonword repetition: A test of phonological working memory. Memory, 2(2), 103-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658219408258940
27
Georgiou, G. K., Papadopoulos, T. C., Zarouna, E., & Parrila, R. (2012). Are auditory
and visual processing deficits related to developmental dyslexia? Dyslexia, 18(2), 110-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1439
28
Giné, C. (2020). Aportacions al concepte d'inclusió. La posició dels organismes internacionals.
En C. Giné, D. Durán, J. Font, & E. Miquel (coord.), L'educació inclusiva. De l'exclusió a la plena participació de tot l'alumnat (pp.11-17). Horsori Editorial.
Hjetland, H. N., Brinchmann, E. I., Scherer, R., Hulme, C., & Melby‐Lervåg, M. (2020).
Preschool pathways to reading comprehension: A systematic meta-analytic review. Educational Research Review, 30, 100323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100323
31
Kibby, M. Y., & Cohen, M. J. (2008). Memory functioning in children with reading disabilities
and/or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A clinical investigation of their
working memory and long-term memory functioning. Child Neuropsychology, 14(6), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040701821752
32
Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. K., & Pfeiffer, S. L. (2003). Naming speed and phonological
awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.453
33
Landerl, K., Ramus, F., Moll, K., Lyytinen, H., Leppänen, P. H., Lohvansuu, K., ...
& Schulte-Körne, G. (2019). Predictors of developmental dyslexia in European orthographies
with varying complexity. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(4), 386-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12029
34
Law, J., Reilly, S., & Snow, P. C. (2013). Child speech, language and communication
need re‐examined in a public health context: a new direction for the speech and language
therapy profession. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(5), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12027
35
Lervåg, A., Bråten, I., & Hulme, C. (2019). The cognitive and linguistic foundations
of early reading development: A Norwegian latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 764-781. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014132
36
Lervåg, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2019). Unpicking the developmental relationship
between oral language skills and reading comprehension: It's simple, but complex.
Child Development, 90(5), e618-e635. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12861
37
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy
and early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal
study. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 596-613. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.596
38
McNamara, J. K., Scissons, M., & Gutknecht, N. (2011). A longitudinal study of kindergarten
children at risk for reading disabilities: The poor really are getting poorer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 421-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411410040
39
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S. A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their
role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744
40
Missall, K., Reschly, A., Betts, J., McConnell, S., Heistad, D., Pickart, M., Sheran,
C., & Marston, D. (2007). Examination of the predictive validity of preschool early
literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 433-452. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087932
41
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency:
Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency:
Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427-452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100431
42
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
43
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
44
Papadimitriou, A. M., & Vlachos, F. M. (2014). Which specific skills developing during
preschool years predict the reading performance in the first and second grade of primary
school? Early Child Development and Care, 184(11), 1706-1722. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.875542
Protopapas, A., Simos, P. G., Sideridis, G. D., y Mouzaki, A. (2012). The components
of the simple view of reading: a confirmatory factor analysis. Reading Psychology, 33(3), 217-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.507626
47
Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. Μ., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., y Foorman, B.
R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.265
48
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy
environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development, 85(4), 1552-1568. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12222
49
Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T. M., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009).
The contribution of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15(3), 232-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040802220029
50
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2021). Annual research review: Reading disorders revisited
– The critical importance of oral language. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(5), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13324
51
Soden, B., Christopher, M. E., Hulslander, J., Olson, R. K., Cutting, L. E., Keenan,
J. M., Thompson, L. A., Wadsworth, S. J., Willcutt, E. G., & Petrill, S. A. (2015).
Longitudinal stability in reading comprehension is largely heritable from grades 1
to 6. Plos One, 10(1), e0113807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113807
52
Suárez-Coalla, P., García-de-Castro, M., & Cuetos, F. (2013). Variables predictoras
de la lectura y la escritura en castellano. Infancia y Aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 36(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037013804826537
53
Tilstra, J., McMaster, K. L., Van-den-Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. N. (2009).
Simple but complex: components of the simple view of reading across grade levels.
Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997).
Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the
growth of word-reading skills in second- to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(2), 161-185. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_4
56
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. Μ., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific
reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00305.x
57
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess,
S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing
abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers:
A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.3.468
58
Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and
reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300409
59
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy.
Child development, 69(3), 848-872. https://doi.org/10.2307/1132208
