View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Exploring Sources of Reading Comprehension Difficulties among Adolescents in Taiwan: A Latent Profile Analysis with a Focus on Content-Area Reading

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Exploring Sources of Reading Comprehension Difficulties among Adolescents in Taiwan: A Latent Profile Analysis with a Focus on Content-Area Reading
Language: English
Authors: Hsuan-Hui Wang (ORCID 0000-0002-1877-910X), Li-Yu Hung (ORCID 0000-0003-0840-3341)
Source: Annals of Dyslexia. 2025 75(1):149-177.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 29
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 7
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Grade 8
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Content Area Reading, Reading Comprehension, Adolescents, Reading Difficulties, Reading Fluency, Vocabulary, Knowledge Level, Predictor Variables, Grade 7, Grade 8, Reading Skills
Geographic Terms: Taiwan
DOI: 10.1007/s11881-024-00319-6
ISSN: 0736-9387
1934-7243
Abstract: With a focus on content-area reading, this study aimed to (a) understand the sources and prevalence of concurrent and specific difficulties in word-level skills, vocabulary, and knowledge among adolescent struggling readers (ASRs) and (b) explore the relations among reading skills, profiles, and reading comprehension. A dual-measure screening approach was used to classify a sample of 492 seventh- and eighth-graders. Among the subgroup of 225 ASRs, five distinct profiles were identified by latent profile analysis. The results confirmed the following: (a) the heterogeneity of reading difficulties in adolescents; (b) the universal prevalence of vocabulary difficulties across various language systems; and (c) the finding that fluency, rather than word accuracy, presents a more significant challenge at the word level in ASRs. Additionally, academic vocabulary knowledge and content-area knowledge independently predict content-area reading comprehension, even after accounting for general reading comprehension. This implies that preventive and remedial efforts for adolescent reading difficulties should prioritize and tailor crucial components of content-area reading.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1464984
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFOe7ff2kfA5tCljEa53F9WAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH0sJjq84FE_eMsUUAIBEICBmtve_mAs6mlhIDVu5XHBtV_p30fmKGwppmAsUZm7-IRc1tbdw5kOlkYXjuxpXBu-4Thqc2mqRXScgssMARhG1OcKovsJJmCWhXWU7HRMLRThor1d4PyyYJPUepHkFCHF-szm4OZfFwHFOUv0rCBaW6QqpEBnlSajKiwmq7skKVRsAVzm-2jU8P309oKCG0pyzJqW15ZeWps2Spk=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184166211;bm501apr.25;2025Apr03.03:35;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184166211-1">Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among adolescents in Taiwan: a latent profile analysis with a focus on content-area reading: Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among adolescents in Taiwan: a latent profile analysis with a focus on content-area reading: H.H. Wang and L.Y. Hung </title> <p>With a focus on content-area reading, this study aimed to (a) understand the sources and prevalence of concurrent and specific difficulties in word-level skills, vocabulary, and knowledge among adolescent struggling readers (ASRs) and (b) explore the relations among reading skills, profiles, and reading comprehension. A dual-measure screening approach was used to classify a sample of 492 seventh- and eighth-graders. Among the subgroup of 225 ASRs, five distinct profiles were identified by latent profile analysis. The results confirmed the following: (a) the heterogeneity of reading difficulties in adolescents; (b) the universal prevalence of vocabulary difficulties across various language systems; and (c) the finding that fluency, rather than word accuracy, presents a more significant challenge at the word level in ASRs. Additionally, academic vocabulary knowledge and content-area knowledge independently predict content-area reading comprehension, even after accounting for general reading comprehension. This implies that preventive and remedial efforts for adolescent reading difficulties should prioritize and tailor crucial components of content-area reading.</p> <p>Keywords: Adolescents; Chinese; Content-area reading; Latent profile analysis; Reading comprehension difficulties; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <p>The original online version of this article was revised: "The copyright holder for this article was incorrectly given as "The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The International Dyslexia Association 2025" but should have been "The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature"</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Many students experience academic failure in middle school, which, in turn, could lead to limited participation and opportunities in further education and the job market due to their impoverished reading skills (National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref1">33</reflink>]). Studies conducted in various countries have suggested that limited reading comprehension might have an adverse impact on individuals' social participation as well as mental wellbeing from childhood to adulthood (Clark & Teravainen-Goff, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]; Lincoln et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref3">31</reflink>]; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref4">50</reflink>]). This is why intense research efforts have been aimed at developing interventions and advocating to improve adolescents' reading comprehension (e.g., Scammacca et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref5">42</reflink>]). Compared to young children, adolescents' reading comprehension is closer to that of adults and cannot be decontextualized from content areas (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]). While the rising demand for reading poses challenges to adolescents, many of them lack adequate opportunities to develop their reading skills both before and after entering middle school (National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref7">33</reflink>]). To prevent and address reading difficulties in adolescents, it is necessary to understand the factors that influence their content-area reading comprehension, as well as the sources of reading comprehension difficulties among them.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-3">Differences between general and content-area reading demands</hd> <p>Content-area learning involves general language and reading comprehension; however, successful content-area learning goes beyond these. For example, mathematical word-problem solving not only requires general vocabulary skills and text comprehension but is also influenced by specific language abilities in math (Fuchs et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref9">22</reflink>]). As highlighted by the literacy development model (Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref10">44</reflink>]), students' literacy development begins with basic literacy, encompassing foundational reading skills such as decoding and knowledge of high-frequency vocabulary. It then progresses to intermediate literacy, involving generic reading comprehension strategies. Finally, students advance to disciplinary literacy, which refers to subject-specific reading and writing skills.</p> <p>Due to the text features, adolescents encounter various challenges in content-area reading, including longer text length, academic vocabulary, complex text structures, and complicated knowledge concepts (Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]). Academic vocabulary, considered one of the most crucial features, can serve as an example. Generally, academic vocabulary consists of at least two categories—general academic vocabulary and content-area-specific vocabulary (e.g., Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]). General academic vocabulary is used across all domains (e.g., construct, infant, precede), and content-area-specific vocabulary comprises words of low utility limited to specific content areas (e.g., amphibian, peninsula, perpendicular). Furthermore, academic vocabulary across disciplines exhibits common or unique features, such as special symbols, interdisciplinarity, low frequency, polysemy, extended meanings, and nominalization (Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref13">44</reflink>]). These characteristics contribute to the abstract, complex, challenging, and dense nature of academic vocabulary, resulting in challenges for adolescents during content-area reading.</p> <p>Research on disciplinary literacy has delved into two main areas: defining the construct of disciplinary literacy and exploring attributes of content-area reading impacting students' academic achievement. Spires et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref14">48</reflink>]), for instance, provided a comprehensive definition of the multidimensional construct of disciplinary literacy, highlighting distinctions across diverse domains. Some studies directed their focus to specific components, such as academic vocabulary, investigating their influence on adolescents' academic success, and considering diverse populations, including individuals at risk and those with disabilities (Townsend et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref15">49</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref16">56</reflink>]). Collectively, these studies suggest that general reading comprehension skills may not fully support success in content-area reading.</p> <p>It is noteworthy that some scholars argue that disciplinary literacy and content-area literacy are distinct. The former emphasizes instructing students to engage in specific-discipline reading in an expert manner (Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref17">44</reflink>]), while the latter focuses more on supporting novices or struggling readers through general content-area reading strategies (Faggella-Luby et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]). This study focuses on the reading performance of struggling readers, hence the use of the term "content-area reading."</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-4">The influence of word decoding, vocabulary, and knowledge on adolescents' reading comprehensi...</hd> <p>To better understand the complex interplay between reading components and their influence on comprehension across development, prior research has investigated the relations among these skills in students of varying ages (Ahmed et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]; Cromley & Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref22">52</reflink>]). These findings suggest the importance of vocabulary, especially for older readers. Tracking Dutch primary school students from first to sixth grade, Verhoeven and van Leeuwe ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref23">52</reflink>]) found that in the early grades, word decoding and vocabulary had similar predictive impacts on reading comprehension. However, the predictive impact of vocabulary surpasses that of word decoding in the upper grades. Recent work by Kim ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref24">27</reflink>]) examining the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER) revealed a hierarchical and dynamic relation among reading skills. Tracking students from second to fourth grade, Kim observed a weakening direct effect of word reading on reading comprehension. Conversely, the indirect effect of vocabulary on reading comprehension, mediated by listening comprehension, increased. Kim ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]) suggested this may be due to the use of more advanced vocabulary in fourth-grade texts. This is further supported by the stronger link between vocabulary and reading comprehension compared to listening comprehension.</p> <p>Given the relations between reading component skills and reading comprehension evolve as readers encounter different texts with varying demands at distinct developmental stages, another predictor that has gained attention recently is knowledge (Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]; Elleman & Compton, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]). Theoretical reading models of the comprehension process (e.g., the landscape model) have indicated that readers activate their concepts and form conceptual networks during reading (e.g., van den Broek et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref28">51</reflink>]). In addition to the text currently being processed by the reader, the reader's prior knowledge is an important source that serves conceptual activation. Previous studies have shown that prior knowledge was not only predictive of content-area reading comprehension but could also be more predictive than reading skills among elementary school students (Rydland et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref29">41</reflink>]) and undergraduates (Ozuru et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref30">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>Being subsumed within the simple view of reading framework and focusing on older readers, Cromley and Azevedo ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>]) proposed the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model hypothesizing a set of relations among word reading, vocabulary, background knowledge, inferences, and strategies that together result to comprehension. With a sample of 175 ninth-graders, Cromley and Azevedo ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref32">13</reflink>]) found that among all components, vocabulary and background knowledge were the two greatest predictors of reading comprehension. Later studies examined the DIME model with larger and more multiple samples. Though the contribution to reading comprehension of different predictors varied, the importance of vocabulary and background knowledge still remained (Ahmed et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]; Cromley et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]). On the contrary, even when fluency measures were taken into account, the prediction of word-level skills for adolescents' reading comprehension remained either limited (Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref35">7</reflink>]) or insignificant (Ahmed et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]; Cromley & Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; Cromley et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref38">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-5">The heterogeneity of reading skills among adolescents struggling readers</hd> <p>Previous studies have noted the heterogeneity of reading comprehension skills among adolescent struggling readers, (ASRs; Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>]; Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]). For example, among a sample of 345 eighth- and ninth-graders, Hock et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]) reported that more than 80% of ASRs exhibited difficulties in vocabulary. Additionally, 74% of them had difficulties in both vocabulary and fluency, while 61% exhibited global weaknesses in word reading accuracy, fluency, and vocabulary. In another sample of 195 ninth-graders, Brasseur-Hock et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]) identified five distinct reading skill profiles. Approximately half of the ASRs demonstrated global difficulties in word accuracy, fluency, vocabulary, and language comprehension. While no students were identified with word accuracy difficulties only, nearly 30% of students were identified as having word fluency difficulties only. Lesaux and Kieffer ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>]) reported three distinct reading skill profiles in another sample of early adolescents. The first profile (63.3%) was identified with average word accuracy skills but difficulties in both fluency and vocabulary; the second profile (18.3%) was identified with difficulties in vocabulary only; the third profile (21.4%) was identified with global difficulties in word accuracy, fluency, and vocabulary.</p> <p>Despite the variations in criteria for identifying reading difficulties, measure types, and statistical techniques across the studies mentioned above, the findings consistently suggest that vocabulary is a prominent and prevalent challenge among ASRs. Furthermore, previous studies have indicated that ASRs with a deficit solely in word accuracy are exceedingly rare (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>]; Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>]). In fact, some studies have even reported a 0% occurrence rate of such cases (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref49">3</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref50">28</reflink>]). However, the word-level weakness might manifest as fluency difficulties among adolescents (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref52">12</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref53">28</reflink>]). These findings align with models that emphasize developmental changes in reading comprehension and reading difficulties (e.g., Ahmed et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref54">1</reflink>]; Cromley & Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref55">13</reflink>]). Based on the above research, the primary difficulties and needs of ASRs are expected to center around fluency, vocabulary, and knowledge. Additionally, while some ASRs may still struggle with word accuracy, these students generally exhibit low overall proficiency rather than encountering isolated accuracy issues.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-6">Need for research on reading skill profiles in Chinese contexts</hd> <p>Share ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>]) argued that despite the abundance of research in reading, Anglophones have dominated the field for an extended period. In contrast with English, Chinese is called a morpho-syllabic language. Its basic unit of writing is a character, which corresponds to a syllable and frequently functions as a morpheme as well. Typically, a character consists of a semantic radical and a phonetic radical, which signify the meaning and the pronunciation of the character, respectively. Research suggests that both universal and unique cognitive processes exist during Chinese reading (e.g., Peng et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref57">37</reflink>]; Perfetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref58">39</reflink>]). In addition to activating phonological and semantic information, the importance of orthographic knowledge in Chinese reading should not be overlooked. Character reading is a crucial fundamental decoding skill that involves a correlative but distinct cognitive process compared to word reading (Li & McBride-Chang, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]). Forming words through morpheme combinations in Chinese is more frequent and flexible compared to alphabetic language systems. Given the unique meaning-based nature and the high prevalence of compound words in the Chinese writing system, recognizing characters in compound words is simpler than in isolation for Chinese readers (Wang & McBride, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref60">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on the aforementioned research on adolescent reading, which suggests that later reading comprehension is more strongly influenced by comprehension-level skills, we argue that more attention should be directed toward these skills when investigating adolescent reading comprehension or reading difficulties. Additionally, in content areas, academic vocabulary often represents key concepts specific to the subject matter and carries precise definitions. For instance, the term "年均溫" (/nian2 jun1 wen1/, meaning "annual average temperature") allows students to infer its meaning from the three characters (which also function as morphemes): 年 (/nian2/ meaning "year"), 均 (/jun1/ meaning "average"), and 溫 (/wen1/ meaning "temperature"). However, inferring meaning from morphemes does not guarantee that students fully understand that, in social studies, "annual average temperature" refers to the average of the monthly mean temperatures throughout the year, not the average of the daily mean temperatures. Therefore, we argue that, compared to comprehension-level skills, word-level skills have a more limited impact on content-area reading comprehension. Some studies have examined the sources of reading comprehension difficulties among native Chinese-speaking adolescents (Chung et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>]; Lin et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref63">30</reflink>]; Zou et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref64">59</reflink>]). However, most of these studies have focused on cognitive-linguistic markers of dyslexia (e.g., Chung et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]) and young children (e.g., Zou et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref67">59</reflink>]), explored distal factors such as engagement (e.g., Lin et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref68">30</reflink>]), or primarily addressed word-level skills (e.g., Chung et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref69">10</reflink>]; Peng et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref70">37</reflink>]). To date, there have been limited investigations into the reading skill profiles of ASRs in inclusive education settings, with even fewer studies examining content-area reading or comprehension-level skills.</p> <p>In addition, results from the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment show that middle school students in Taiwan surpassed the average of countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref71">34</reflink>]). However, concerns linger due to insufficient reduction in the percentage of students below reading proficiency level 2 over the decade, underscoring the urgent need to enhance reading comprehension, particularly for those facing difficulties in inclusive classrooms. Taken together, we believe that conducting research in diverse language contexts will not only provide opportunities to enhance reading comprehension for local students facing difficulties but also contribute to a deeper understanding of the reading process in the research field.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-7">The current study</hd> <p>Chall ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]) suggested that the stage of reading for learning the new develops between grades 4 and 8. This stage can be further divided into two phases. In the upper elementary grades, students extensively use reading to acquire world knowledge and develop reading strategies. As adolescents enter middle school, they gradually transition to engaging with materials similar to those read by adults, completing their development of mature reading skills. Based on this developmental framework, the present study targeted seventh- and eighth-grade students with the following aims: (a) to examine the sources and prevalence of concurrent and specific difficulties in word-level skills, vocabulary, and knowledge among ASRs in Taiwan and (b) to investigate the relations among reading component skills and reading comprehension performance. The study is guided by three research questions and hypotheses as follows.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What distinct skill profiles exist among ASRs?</item> <p></p> <item> What is the prevalence of difficulties in word-level skills, vocabulary, and knowledge?</item> <p></p> <item> How do reading-related skills relate to content-area reading comprehension?</item> </ulist> <p>Regarding our first two research questions, and drawing from prior studies that have integrated latent profile analyses with ASRs (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref74">12</reflink>]; Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref75">23</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref76">28</reflink>]), we hypothesized that multiple reading skill profiles will be identified within the distinct language context of this study, which focuses on the Chinese language. Additionally, previous studies have shown that primary sources of reading difficulties among ASRs include fluency and vocabulary (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref77">3</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref78">12</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref79">28</reflink>]). Therefore, we expected that ASRs would exhibit primary difficulties in vocabulary and word fluency.</p> <p>Referring to our last research question, as previous studies have revealed the distinction between general reading comprehension and content-area reading comprehension (e.g., Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref80">6</reflink>]), we hypothesized that in addition to general reading comprehension, the reading-related skills, particularly the components of vocabulary and knowledge, will predict adolescents' content-area reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-8">Method</hd> <p>This study conducted a secondary analysis using pre-intervention data from a quasi-experimental study that examined the effects of a multicomponent content-area reading instruction for adolescents, compared to two other instructional conditions: lecture-based instruction and business-as-usual (Wang, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref81">53</reflink>]). Building upon prior research that explored the sources of reading difficulties in ASRs (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>]; Capin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref84">12</reflink>]; Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref86">28</reflink>]), this study aimed to identify distinct skill profiles among ASRs and investigate how these skill profiles impact content-area reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-9">Participants</hd> <p>Participants were drawn from 492 students from seventh to eighth grade in two urban-district schools in North Taiwan. Demographic information is presented in Table 1. The male participants (52.0%) were slightly more prevalent than female participants (48.0%). The majority of the participants were eighth-graders (83.5%). This was because, in the original intervention study, the participation was contingent upon teachers' willingness and the feasibility of implementing the instruction during alternative curriculum periods in their schools. Due to other school activities arranged for seventh-grade students, only one seventh-grade class and five eighth-grade classes were recruited for each of the three conditions. Among all participants, 19 students (3.9%) were identified as students with disabilities, including nine (47.4%) students with learning disabilities, three (15.8%) students with autism, two (10.5%) students with emotional behavioral disorders, two (10.5%) students with hearing impairment, and three (15.8%) with either intellectual disabilities or with other health impairment. This study aimed to identify sources of reading difficulties in general educational settings for adolescents, with a focus on content-area reading. In the context of inclusive education, students with disabilities typically participate in content-area learning within general classrooms. Moreover, previous research investigating the sources of reading difficulties did not explicitly exclude students with disabilities. Students with disabilities were included in the current study due to the reasons mentioned above.</p> <p>Table 1 Participants' information</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>All students</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Typically developed readers</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Adolescent struggling readers</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Gender</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Male</p></td><td align="left"><p>256</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>122</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>45.7</p></td><td align="left"><p>134</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>59.6</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female</p></td><td align="left"><p>236</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>48.0</p></td><td align="left"><p>145</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>54.3</p></td><td align="left"><p>91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40.4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Grade</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Seven</p></td><td align="left"><p>81</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.2</p></td><td align="left"><p>43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19.1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Eight</p></td><td align="left"><p>411</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>83.5</p></td><td align="left"><p>229</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>85.8</p></td><td align="left"><p>182</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>80.9</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Special education</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.9</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.6</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.3</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184166211-10">Identification of ASRs</hd> <p>A dual-measure screening approach was employed to address the diverse reading demands encountered by adolescents, including both general and content-area reading comprehension measures. Students were identified as ASRs if they scored at or below the 25th percentile on either the general reading comprehension measure or the content-area reading comprehension measure. Previous research has established that (a) there is a distinction between general reading comprehension and content-area reading comprehension (Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref87">44</reflink>]) and (b) adolescents enter secondary education with general reading comprehension skills, while content-area reading comprehension becomes their primary learning objective and challenge at this stage (Chall, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref88">8</reflink>]). Based on these, the ASR identification approach used in this study would allow for a broader representation of potential reading difficulties among adolescents.</p> <p>Latent profile analysis (LPA) was not used to identify ASRs, as done in some studies (e.g., Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref89">3</reflink>]), due to unsatisfactory data results (entropy = 0.77 and average latent class posterior probabilities [ALCPP] = 0.87). While cutoff scores are often criticized for their arbitrary nature, they remain a common method in research (e.g., Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref90">28</reflink>]). Additionally, combining scores from the two reading comprehension measures was avoided to prevent masking students who struggle with only one type of reading comprehension. Our data revealed that some students performed poorly on one measure while performing at or above average on the other. For instance, a student might excel in general reading comprehension but struggle with content-area reading comprehension, or vice versa.</p> <p>The 25th percentile was chosen as a cutoff for the identification for several reasons. First, we aimed to include a broader range of students who struggled with content-area reading in general classrooms, rather than limiting the sample to students diagnosed with reading disabilities. Setting the inclusion threshold at the 25th percentile helped to encompass students who may need additional support to succeed in middle school content-area acquisition, which aligns better with the purpose of this study. Second, the negatively skewed distributions of both screening measures indicated that these two measures were relatively easy in terms of their difficulty level. Compared to similar studies that set the cutoff at the 35th percentile (e.g., Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref91">28</reflink>]), we found the 25th percentile to be more appropriate based on the features and frequency distribution of our measures. Finally, setting the 25th percentile allowed us to apply statistical methods for investigating the heterogeneity within the sample while reducing the impact of range restriction in the analysis.</p> <p>Of the 492 students, 127 (25.8%) scored below the cutoff in general reading comprehension and 181 (36.8%) scored below the cutoff in content-area reading comprehension. Among them, 83 students (16.9%) scored below the cutoff in both measures. Consequently, a total of 225 students (45.7%) were identified as ASRs. In terms of grades, 43 seventh-graders (53.1% of the seventh-grade group) and 182 eighth-graders (44.3% of the eighth-grade group) were identified as ASRs. Although there were no significant differences in general reading comprehension between seventh- and eighth-graders (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>, 490) = 2.21, <emph>p</emph> = 0.14), eighth-graders outperformed seventh-graders in content-area reading comprehension (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>, 490) = 9.50, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). This suggests that the higher proportion of ASRs among seventh-graders might be due to their lower content-area reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-11">Measures</hd> <p>Students were administered seven measures by trained research personnel. The measures were grouped within a reading component framework identified in the literature as essential to successful reading comprehension of adolescent readers (Ahmed et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>]; Cromley & Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref95">13</reflink>]), including word-level skills, vocabulary, knowledge, and reading comprehension. While some previous researchers have focused on various reading components—Lesaux and Kieffer ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref96">28</reflink>]) emphasized morphological awareness, and Clemens et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref97">12</reflink>]) underscored text fluency—studies exploring the sources of reading difficulties in adolescents consistently encompass measurements of reading comprehension, word reading accuracy, fluency, and vocabulary (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref98">3</reflink>]; Capin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref99">5</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref100">12</reflink>]; Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref101">23</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref102">28</reflink>]). This suggests that these components are commonly recognized and shared areas of concern in research on adolescent reading difficulties. As pioneers in researching the sources of adolescent content-area reading difficulties in the Chinese context, we believe it is reasonable to begin with a framework that incorporates components widely accepted in research. To investigate more precisely the impact of reading component skills on content-area reading comprehension, we focused on the social studies curriculum. Specifically, we focused on the content-area acquisition of marine education in Taiwan as it offers a rich context for examining both general and content-area-specific skills. We differentiated each component skill into a relatively general reading skill and a more content-area-specific skill, focusing on measures of vocabulary, knowledge, and reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-12">Word-level skills</hd> <p>We used the Assessment of Sight-Word Reading and Fluency developed by Hung et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref103">25</reflink>]) to assess students' <emph>word reading accuracy</emph> and <emph>word reading fluency</emph>. This standardized, norm-referenced assessment is frequently used for reading diagnosis in Taiwan. The assessment consists of 60 characters. Suitable grade versions of the assessment were used in this study. The alpha coefficients of the measure for seventh- and eighth-grade versions were 0.91 and 0.93, respectively.</p> <p>The procedure involves two steps. First, the student reads aloud 60 characters in a specified order under timed conditions. After completing the reading, the student forms words based on each character, without any timing. The <emph>word reading fluency</emph> score was calculated based on the rate at which the student correctly pronounced the characters per minute. To address the potential overestimation of students' word decoding skills, the <emph>word reading accuracy</emph> score was calculated based on the characters that the student read and used to form a correct word. Due to the high prevalence of Chinese characters consisting of a phonetic radical, many elementary school students have developed strategies to guess the correct pronunciation of characters. For example, in Chinese, the characters "稠" and "綢" are both pronounced as /chou2/. If the student correctly pronounces 稠 and forms the word 稠密 (/chou2 mi4/ meaning "dense"), they will receive one point for accuracy. However, if the student pronounces the character correctly but forms the word 絲綢 (/si1 chou2/ meaning "silk"), no points will be awarded for that item.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-13">Vocabulary measures</hd> <p>Vocabulary not only serves as one of the most influential factors in predicting reading comprehension (e.g., Cromley & Azevedo, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref104">13</reflink>]) but also stands out as a primary source of difficulties in reading comprehension for adolescents (e.g., Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref105">28</reflink>]). Measures of general vocabulary and academic vocabulary were administered to each participant.</p> <p> <emph>Academic vocabulary</emph> was measured with a multiple-choice test in which students selected the best definition for a target academic word from four choices across 15 items. The items included in the academic vocabulary measure consisted of discipline-specific words covered in units related to Taiwan and its maritime relations within the middle school social studies curriculum (e.g., 領海/ling3 hai3/ [territorial waters], 遷徙/qian1 xi3/ [migrate], 大陸棚/da4 lu4 peng2/ [continental shelf], 南島語族/nan3 dao3 yu3 zu2/ [Austronesian], 戒嚴/jie4 yan2/ [to impose martial law], 宵禁/xiao1 jin4/ [curfew]). With the present sample, the alpha coefficient of the measure was 0.70.</p> <p> <emph>General vocabulary</emph> was measured with the assessment developed by Wang and Hung ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]) in which students selected the best synonym for a given word from three options across 40 multiple-choice items. In contrast to the academic vocabulary measure, the items within the general vocabulary measure were unrelated to maritime units in the social studies domain (e.g., 廚師/chu2 shi1/ [a cook], 融洽/rong2 xia4/ [harmonious], 寫生/xie3 sheng1/ [sketching], 綁票/bang3 piao4/ [kidnap], 基層/ji1 ceng2/ [basic level], 滑稽/gu3 ji1/ [funny], 片場/pian4 chang3/ [film set]). With the present sample, the alpha coefficient of the measure was 0.89.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-14">Knowledge measures</hd> <p>Measures of background knowledge and content-area knowledge were administered to each participant. <emph>Content-area knowledge</emph> refers to the significant, specific-domain concepts taught to students in the middle school social studies curriculum, particularly those related to Taiwan and its maritime relations. In contrast, <emph>background knowledge</emph> refers to the pre-existing knowledge that students possess through life experience before undertaking the course. Basic facts, such as the island's connection to the Pacific Ocean or the popular traditional belief in Mazu in Taiwan, are typically acquired in daily life or before middle school. However, specific content-area knowledge requires a deeper understanding through dedicated instruction. For instance, the frequent marriages between Han Chinese men from Fujian and Guangdong with Taiwanese indigenous women during the early Qing dynasty stemmed from Qing government's restrictions on immigration. Understanding these marriages requires knowledge of Qing immigration policies and their impact on social demographics in Taiwan, which goes beyond simply knowing the event occurred. Similarly, the decline of important ports along Taiwan's western coast, despite increased cargo demands and larger ships, is related to the natural silt accumulation caused by the region's geographical conditions. Comprehending the decline of ports necessitates understanding the interplay of geography, historical events, and technological advancements in shipping, making it content-area knowledge that goes beyond what students might acquire through daily life experiences. Secondary school social studies curriculum plays a crucial role in building this content-area knowledge, which goes beyond what one might acquire through daily life experiences.</p> <p> <emph>Content-area knowledge</emph> was measured using a researcher-developed 13-item multiple-choice test. Each item presented a knowledge-based question with four options. For example, one question asked: "Taiwan's early major ports were mostly located along the western coastline. However, in recent years, with the increase in freight demand and the growth in ship sizes, these ports have gradually declined. What is the primary reason for this phenomenon? (A) Gradual loss of beaches, (B) Wider coastal plains, (C) Straighter coastlines, (D) Sediment accumulation in ports." The correct answer was (D). Another question asked: "In northern Taiwan, including Keelung and Yilan, there are around 200 days of rainfall annually, whereas in the southwestern Jianan Plain area, there are only about 100 days. What is the main cause of this difference? (A) Topography and monsoons (B) Monsoons and longitude (C) Monsoons and latitude (D) Latitude and the distance to the sea." The correct answer was (A). With the present sample, the alpha coefficient of the measure was 0.68.</p> <p> <emph>Background knowledge</emph> was measured using a researcher-developed 15-item multiple-choice test. Each item presented a knowledge-based question with four options. For example, one question asked: "There is a saying: 'Marry a fisherman, not sleep for half a year,' which describes the life of a fisherman as: (A) easy, (B) tough, (C) leisurely, (D) interesting." The correct answer was (B). Another question asked: "The fishing village of Nanfang'ao depends on fishing for its livelihood. Based on this, which religious belief is most likely predominant in the area? (A) 媽祖/ma1 zu3/ (Mazu), (B) 關聖帝君/guan1 sheng4 di4 jun1/ (Holy Emperor Guan), (C) 玉皇大帝/yu4 huang2 da4 di4/ (Jade Emperor), (D) 土地公/tu3 di4 gong1/ (lord of the land)." The correct answer was (A). With the present sample, the alpha coefficient of the measure was 0.75.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-15">Reading comprehension measures</hd> <p>We differentiated reading comprehension into general reading comprehension and content-area reading comprehension.</p> <p> <emph>General reading comprehension</emph> was assessed through a 15-item multiple-choice test. Participants were required to read two short passages (283 and 478 characters, respectively) and respond to seven to eight multiple questions about each passage. Each passage focused on the topics of popular science and the grand tour, which were not covered in the middle school social studies curriculum. Students were generally less familiar with the grand tour, as it is not a common concept in Taiwan. However, they might have some exposure to volcanoes because there are some in Taiwan. The questions included the identification of main ideas, details, cause-and-effect relationships, and the author's purpose. Example questions included "Based on the article, which of the following reasons did the author mention for the easy-open-can?" and "Which of the following best summarizes the author's point of view in the second paragraph?" With the present sample, the alpha coefficient of the measure was 0.73.</p> <p> <emph>Content-area reading comprehension</emph> was assessed through a 17-item multiple-choice test. The assessment included a 727-character reading article which was related to the content covered in the middle school social studies curriculum, with a focus on the comparison between Switzerland and Taiwan. These two countries exhibit differences: Taiwan is surrounded by the sea on all sides, whereas Switzerland is a landlocked mountainous country with a population only one-third the size of Taiwan's. However, they also share many similarities. Both countries have similar land areas; economically, they both have a high proportion of small- and medium-sized enterprises and a small domestic market and rely heavily on foreign trade. Diplomatically, both countries navigate complex diplomatic relations between major powers. Additionally, Switzerland is also included in Taiwan's middle school world geography curriculum. In this measure, we provided textual introductions to both countries' conditions and characteristics, prompting students to compare and analyze them. The core focus lies in how each country comprehends its environmental and resource conditions and how this understanding translates into strategic planning. Students read the text silently and immediately answer questions about the article, including the identification of main ideas, details, cause-and-effect relationships, and the author's purpose. Example questions included: "Based on the above passage, which of the following is a similarity in development between Switzerland and Taiwan?" "What is the main idea of this article?" and "Which of the following is the most likely text structure for the XXX paragraph?" The alpha coefficient of the measure was 0.71.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-16">Skewness and frequency distribution of reading comprehension screening measures</hd> <p>The analysis revealed patterns in the distribution of scores for both general and content-area reading comprehension. For general reading comprehension, the skewness of the distribution was − 0.76 (SE = 0.11), indicating a moderate negative skewness. The kurtosis was 0.26 (SE = 0.22), suggesting that the distribution was approximately normal but with slightly heavier tails than a normal distribution. Frequency distribution analysis revealed that the majority of cases clustered around the higher end of the scale, with a peak frequency observed at 98.27 to 117.86.</p> <p>For content-area reading comprehension, the skewness was observed to be − 0.52 (SE = 0.11), indicating a slight negative skewness. The kurtosis was 0.02 (SE = 0.22), suggesting a platykurtic distribution with thinner tails compared to normal distribution. Frequency distribution analysis revealed that the majority of cases clustered around the higher end of the scale, with a peak frequency observed at 94.13 to 109.85.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-17">Data analysis</hd> <p>Given that seventh- and eighth-grade students are in the later phase of the "reading for learning the new" stage (Chall, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref107">8</reflink>]) and prior research often explored the sources of reading difficulties in adolescents by combining different grades (e.g., Capin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref108">5</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref109">12</reflink>]), we considered seventh- and eighth-grade students as a single group for data analysis. Due to the negative skew in students' performance on both general and content-area reading comprehension measures, we employed statistical analysis methods that are not constrained by the normal distribution assumption, specifically latent profile analysis (LPA) and ordinal logistic regression (OLR), to address our research questions. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the factors underlying reading difficulties in adolescents, we did not exclude students with extremely low performance or disabilities.</p> <p>To address our first two research questions, we conducted a series of LPA on the sample identified as ASRs. LPA was conducted using six reading component skill variables: word reading accuracy, word reading fluency, general vocabulary, academic vocabulary, background knowledge, and content-area knowledge (see Appendix for code). This analysis identified five distinct subgroups with varying profiles across these component skills. To address our third research question, we carried out a series of OLR models to further investigate the influence of reading skills on adolescents' content-area reading comprehension. <emph>Z</emph> scores categorized content-area reading comprehension into three levels: 1 (below − 0.5 <emph>SD</emph>), 3 (above 0.5 <emph>SD</emph>). The dependent variable in the regression model was the levels of content-area reading comprehension. While controlling for general reading comprehension, the independent variables consisted of various reading skills, including word accuracy, word fluency, general vocabulary, academic vocabulary, background knowledge, and content-area knowledge. To assess multicollinearity in our dataset, we calculated the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each independent variable. VIF values greater than 5 typically indicate potential multicollinearity concerns because they suggest a high degree of correlation between independent variables, which can inflate standard errors and affect the stability of coefficient estimates (James et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref110">26</reflink>]). In our analysis, the VIF values ranged from 1.55 to 3.00, suggesting no significant collinearity among the independent variables. Therefore, we could be confident that multicollinearity is not a major issue in our model.</p> <p>All test scores were transformed into standard scores (<emph>M</emph> = 100, <emph>SD</emph> = 15) to facilitate further comparisons during data analysis. SPSS 23.0 and Mplus 7.0 were employed for all statistical analyses. Regarding the handling of missing data, 11 students (2.2%) had missing data on one or two measures: eight students lacked background knowledge only, two lacked content-area knowledge only, and one lacked data on both measures. The missing data came from various schools and classes. While we found no evidence of systematic missingness, we did find they came from different categories of students. Five missing values were from typical readers, one from a reader with difficulties only in content-area reading, and the other five from readers with difficulties in both general and content-area reading. Based on this, we adopted the imputation method suggested by Zumel and Mount ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref111">60</reflink>]), imputing based on the means of different reader categories.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-18">Results</hd> <p>Table 1 displays demographic information for the study sample. Table 2 presents descriptive data for each variable and the correlation data between reading comprehension and measures of reading component skills.</p> <p>Table 2 Descriptive and correlation data</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Measure</p></th><th align="left"><p>GRC</p></th><th align="left"><p>CRC</p></th><th align="left"><p>ACC</p></th><th align="left"><p>FLU</p></th><th align="left"><p>GVC</p></th><th align="left"><p>AVC</p></th><th align="left"><p>BGK</p></th><th align="left"><p>CK</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>GRC</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CRC</p></td><td align="left"><p>.524**</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>ACC</p></td><td align="left"><p>.466**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.403**</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>FLU</p></td><td align="left"><p>.331**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.228**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.591**</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>GVC</p></td><td align="left"><p>.649**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.541**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.679**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.421**</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>AVC</p></td><td align="left"><p>.475**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.540**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.434**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.278**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.599**</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BGK</p></td><td align="left"><p>.502**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.512**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.428**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.234**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.574**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.566**</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>CK</p></td><td align="left"><p>.482**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.548**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.410**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.264**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.558**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.602**</p></td><td align="left"><p>.647**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>492</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>100.30</p></td><td align="left"><p>100.17</p></td><td align="left"><p>105.72</p></td><td align="left"><p>99.66</p></td><td align="left"><p>99.94</p></td><td align="left"><p>99.96</p></td><td align="left"><p>99.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>99.60</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>15.07</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.88</p></td><td align="left"><p>13.64</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.55</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.68</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>15.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.96</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Min</p></td><td align="left"><p>49.29</p></td><td align="left"><p>52.21</p></td><td align="left"><p>50.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>65.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.36</p></td><td align="left"><p>55.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>51.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>59.63</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Max</p></td><td align="left"><p>122.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>130.81</p></td><td align="left"><p>136.00</p></td><td align="left"><p>155.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>119.56</p></td><td align="left"><p>127.98</p></td><td align="left"><p>120.68</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>126.68</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Skewness</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.70</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 1.19</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.31</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.43</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kurtosis</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.26</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.05</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>− 0.54</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.45</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>GRC</emph>, general reading comprehension; <emph>CRC</emph>, content-area reading comprehension; <emph>ACC</emph>, word accuracy; <emph>FLU</emph>, word fluency; <emph>GVC</emph>, general vocabulary; <emph>AVC</emph>, academic vocabulary; <emph>BGK</emph>, background knowledge; <emph>CK</emph>, content-area knowledge **<emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-19">Distinct reading profiles and their prevalence among ASRs</hd> <p>Table 3 presents the LPA results. The five-class solution was favored based on BLRT, BIC, and AIC, indicating significant differences in subgroups. The BLRT showed a significant improvement with a fifth class (BLRT = 46.468, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). BIC and AIC declined with a fifth class, supporting the result. Adding a sixth or even seventh class had no significant impact on BLRT or BIC/AIC. Additionally, the entropy (0.811) and the lowest average latent class posterior probability (0.850) of the five-profile solution were acceptable.</p> <p>Table 3 Latent profile analysis fit statistics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>2-class</p></th><th align="left"><p>3-class</p></th><th align="left"><p>4-class</p></th><th align="left"><p>5-class</p></th><th align="left"><p>6-class</p></th><th align="left"><p>7-class</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Log likelihood</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 5530.165</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 5358.054</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 5305.591</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 5283.215</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 5259.982</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 5246.316</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Entropy</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.858</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.854</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.884</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.811</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.826</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.848</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>ALCPP</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.945</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.929</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.926</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.850</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.839</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.861</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>AIC</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,754.108</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,663.182</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,668.968</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,599.963</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,599.256</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,584.556</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BIC</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,819.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,752.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,781.699</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,736.607</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,759.813</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,769.026</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>SABIC</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,758.799</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,669.601</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,677.116</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,609.839</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,610.861</p></td><td align="left"><p>10,597.889</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BLRT</p></td><td align="left"><p>344.222</p></td><td align="left"><p>104.926</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.214</p></td><td align="left"><p>46.468</p></td><td align="left"><p>14.707</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.077</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BLRT <italic>p</italic>-value</p></td><td align="left"><p> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.000</p></td><td align="left"><p> <.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.667</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.429</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Count per profile</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>101</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>124</p></td><td align="left"><p>78</p></td><td align="left"><p>77</p></td><td align="left"><p>48</p></td><td align="left"><p>49</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>119</p></td><td align="left"><p>119</p></td><td align="left"><p>89</p></td><td align="left"><p>86</p></td><td align="left"><p>83</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 4</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 5</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>45</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 6</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 7</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>33</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The lowest off-diagonal average latent class posterior probability for each solution was presented. <emph>ALCPP</emph>, average latent class posterior probability; <emph>AIC</emph>, Akaike information criterion; <emph>BIC</emph>, Bayesian information criterion; <emph>SABIC</emph>, sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criterion; <emph>BLRT</emph>, bootstrap likelihood ratio test (statistical significance indicates that the class solution is better fitting than the solution with one fewer class)</p> <p>Table 4 and Fig. 1 illustrate the mean scores for six reading skill components across five latent profiles. The first profile (<emph>n</emph> = 32, 14.2%) included students who scored above average on most of the measures (<emph>M</emph> = 102.70–115.14), including word accuracy, general and academic vocabulary, and background and content-area knowledge. Therefore, the first profile was labeled as <emph>High-Skill Readers</emph>. The second profile (<emph>n</emph> = 89, 39.6%) was the largest profile, labeled as <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>, because they demonstrated below-average scores only on word fluency (92.93), approximately 0.5 <emph>SD</emph> below the mean, while other skills were at average (<emph>M</emph> = 98.01–102.76). The third profile (<emph>n</emph> = 48, 21.3%), <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, exhibited average word reading accuracy (105.20) and fluency (100.75), below-average general vocabulary skills (91.01), and weak skills on academic vocabulary (81.86), background knowledge (80.40), and content-area knowledge (79.27). Notably, their scores on content-area knowledge were approximately 1.4 <emph>SD</emph>s below the mean. The fourth profile (<emph>n</emph> = 32, 14.2%) included students who seemed to have <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph>, as these students exhibited below-average skills on all reading component measures (<emph>M</emph> = 82.84–90.27). They scored with approximately half a <emph>SD</emph> below the mean on background knowledge (90.27) and with approximately one <emph>SD</emph> below the mean on the rest of the measures (<emph>M</emph> = 82.84–87.28). The fifth profile (<emph>n</emph> = 24, 10.7%) included students who seemed to have <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph>, as they scored more than one <emph>SD</emph> below the mean on all measures (<emph>M</emph> = 61.30–78.99). These students faced significant challenges in general vocabulary (<emph>M</emph> = 61.30) and background knowledge (<emph>M</emph> = 71.35), scoring approximately two or more <emph>SD</emph>s below the mean.</p> <p>Table 4 Estimated means from five-profile readers (<emph>n</emph> = 225)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Measure</p></th><th align="left"><p>HSR (<italic>n</italic> = 32)</p></th><th align="left"><p>MDR (<italic>n</italic> = 89)</p></th><th align="left"><p>WKR (<italic>n</italic> = 48)</p></th><th align="left"><p>MGW (<italic>n</italic> = 32)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SGW (<italic>n</italic> = 24)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>95.30</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>90.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>86.33</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>69.29</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area reading comprehension</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>91.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>93.13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>84.31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>86.44</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>77.10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>115.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>102.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>105.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>86.00</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>78.99</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>109.69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>92.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>100.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>87.28</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>83.87</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>106.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>98.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>91.01</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>82.84</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>61.30</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>107.98</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>98.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>81.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>85.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>78.04</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>103.80</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>101.79</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>80.40</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>90.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71.35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>102.70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>102.49</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>79.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>84.36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>75.74</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>LPA was conducted using six reading component skill variables: word reading accuracy, word reading fluency, general vocabulary, academic vocabulary, background knowledge, and content-area knowledge. General reading comprehension and content-area reading comprehension measures were included in Table 4 to better understand how the five profiles performed on reading comprehension; however, these two measures were only used for identifying ASRs. <emph>HSR</emph>, High-Skill Readers; <emph>MDR</emph>, Mild Dysfluent Readers; <emph>WKR</emph>, Weak Knowledge Readers; <emph>MGW</emph>, Moderate Global Weakness; <emph>SGW</emph>, Severe Global Weakness</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Standard scores on each component reading skill of latent profiles</p> <p>Overall, we found that approximately one-fourth of ASRs (<emph>n</emph> = 56, 24.9%) exhibited moderate to severe global weaknesses across word reading, vocabulary, and knowledge skills. A total of 46.2% of this population (i.e., <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph>, and <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph>) exhibited difficulties in vocabulary and knowledge. Furthermore, although none of the ASRs exhibited difficulties solely in word reading accuracy, 39.6% had mild word fluency difficulties.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-20">Predictors of content-area reading comprehension</hd> <p>Table 5 presents the results of OLR. Among the total sample, general reading comprehension (<emph>B</emph> = 0.032, S.E. = 0.008, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and two reading component skills—academic vocabulary (<emph>B</emph> = 0.033, S.E. = 0.009, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and content-area knowledge (<emph>B</emph> = 0.027, S.E. = 0.009, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01)—were found to be significantly associated with adolescents' content-area reading comprehension performance. For each unit increase in general reading comprehension, academic vocabulary, and content-area knowledge, the predicted increase in the log odds of an adolescent being in a higher content-area reading comprehension performance category was 0.032, 0.033, and 0.027, respectively. Conversely, word-level skills did not exhibit a statistically significant relationship with content-area reading comprehension.</p> <p>Table 5 Ordinal logistic regression models among typically developed readers and adolescent struggling readers</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Sample</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Content-area reading comprehension</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>S.E</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sig</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>All students</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>492</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p>.032</p></td><td align="left"><p>.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.020</p></td><td align="left"><p>.010</p></td><td align="left"><p>.057</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>.298</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>.232</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>.000<sup>***</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>.272</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>.002<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Typically developed readers</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>267</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p>.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>.044<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>.420</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>.205</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>.019</p></td><td align="left"><p>.618</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.025</p></td><td align="left"><p>.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>.066</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.020</p></td><td align="left"><p>.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>.160</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>.961</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Adolescent struggling readers</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>225</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.024</p></td><td align="left"><p>.011</p></td><td align="left"><p>.032<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.030</p></td><td align="left"><p>.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>.063</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.017</p></td><td align="left"><p>.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>.204</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>.929</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>.263</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.007</p></td><td align="left"><p>.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>.563</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.042</p></td><td align="left"><p>.014</p></td><td align="left"><p>.002<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <sups>*</sups> <emph>p</emph> <.05, <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> <.01, <sups>***</sups><emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <p>Among typically developed readers, only general reading comprehension emerged as a significant predictor to content-area reading comprehension (<emph>B</emph> = 0.036, S.E. = 0.018, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). With each unit increase in general reading comprehension, there was a corresponding increase of 0.036 in the log odds of an adolescent being classified in a higher rank on content-area reading comprehension. Other reading component skills did not show significant associations with content-area reading comprehension.</p> <p>On the other hand, among ASRs, general reading comprehension (<emph>B</emph> = − 0.024, S.E. = 0.011, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and content-area knowledge (<emph>B</emph> = 0.042, S.E. = 0.014, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01) were significantly related to content-area reading comprehension. With each unit increase in content-area knowledge, there was an expected increase of 0.042 in the log odds of an adolescent being classified in a higher rank on content-area reading comprehension. However, the increase in general reading comprehension led to the opposite effect. Other reading component skills did not show significant associations with content-area reading comprehension.</p> <p>To provide insight into the relationship between content-area reading and component skill profiles, Table 6 displays the number and percentage of ASRs falling into each rank of content-area reading comprehension task. The results reveal a clear trend. Students with <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph> demonstrated the most significant challenges. None scored above 0.5 SD above the mean, and 83.3% fell into the lowest level. <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> and <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph> profiles exhibited similar patterns, with approximately 65% and 30% of students scoring in the lowest and middle ranks, respectively. In contrast, <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> and <emph>High-Skill Readers</emph> showed a more balanced distribution. Around 40% fell into the lowest level, approximately half scored in the middle, and less than 10% performed above 0.5 <emph>SD</emph> above the mean.</p> <p>Table 6 Percentage of adolescents struggling readers by content-area reading rank and component skill profiles</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Component skill profiles</p></th><th align="left" colspan="6"><p>Content-area reading comprehension rank</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Below − 0.5 <italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Range − 0.49 to 0.50 <italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Above 0.50 <italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>%</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>High-Skill Readers</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>53.1%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.3%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mild Dysfluent Readers</p></td><td align="left"><p>35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>47</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>52.8%</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.9%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Weak Knowledge Readers</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>64.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.2%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Moderate Global Weakness</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>65.6%</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34.4%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0%</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Severe Global Weakness</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>83.3%</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.7%</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0%</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We further investigated the predictive relationship among the five profiles identified from LPA. As presented in Table 7, while controlling for general reading comprehension, none of the word-level, vocabulary, or knowledge skills emerged as significant predictors of content-area reading performance within the <emph>High-Skill Reader</emph>, <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph>, or <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph>. This result might be attributed to the limited sample sizes within these groups, coupled with their overall reading skills residing at either the high or low end of the spectrum. Additionally, this result could be due to the high correlation between general reading comprehension and other measures of reading component skills. When the effect of general reading comprehension was controlled for, the effect of the remaining variables became insignificant.</p> <p>Table 7 Ordinal logistic regression models among five profiles</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Sample</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Variable</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Content-area reading comprehension</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>S.E</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sig</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>High-Skill Readers</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.114</p></td><td align="left"><p>.042</p></td><td align="left"><p>.006<sup>**</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.071</p></td><td align="left"><p>.066</p></td><td align="left"><p>.282</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.004</p></td><td align="left"><p>.045</p></td><td align="left"><p>.930</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.055</p></td><td align="left"><p>.073</p></td><td align="left"><p>.448</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>.048</p></td><td align="left"><p>.858</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>.046</p></td><td align="left"><p>.959</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>.050</p></td><td align="left"><p>.232</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Mild Dysfluent Readers</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>89</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.021</p></td><td align="left"><p>.018</p></td><td align="left"><p>.241</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.033</p></td><td align="left"><p>.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>.217</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.031</p></td><td align="left"><p>.024</p></td><td align="left"><p>.208</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.003</p></td><td align="left"><p>.029</p></td><td align="left"><p>.925</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>.022</p></td><td align="left"><p>.594</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>.022</p></td><td align="left"><p>.923</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.064</p></td><td align="left"><p>.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>.012<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Weak Knowledge Readers</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>48</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.022</p></td><td align="left"><p>.026</p></td><td align="left"><p>.414</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p>.130</p></td><td align="left"><p>.062</p></td><td align="left"><p>.035<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.047</p></td><td align="left"><p>.037</p></td><td align="left"><p>.202</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>.038</p></td><td align="left"><p>.467</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.050</p></td><td align="left"><p>.041</p></td><td align="left"><p>.223</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.019</p></td><td align="left"><p>.030</p></td><td align="left"><p>.520</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.085</p></td><td align="left"><p>.041</p></td><td align="left"><p>.038<sup>*</sup></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Moderate Global Weakness</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p>.025</p></td><td align="left"><p>.037</p></td><td align="left"><p>.492</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.007</p></td><td align="left"><p>.054</p></td><td align="left"><p>.901</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p>.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>.058</p></td><td align="left"><p>.830</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.019</p></td><td align="left"><p>.046</p></td><td align="left"><p>.677</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>.079</p></td><td align="left"><p>.051</p></td><td align="left"><p>.123</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p> −.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>.042</p></td><td align="left"><p>.783</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>.015</p></td><td align="left"><p>.052</p></td><td align="left"><p>.775</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>Severe Global Weakness</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="7"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>General reading comprehension</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.853</p></td><td align="left"><p>1947.446</p></td><td align="left"><p>.998</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word accuracy</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.695</p></td><td align="left"><p>1855.361</p></td><td align="left"><p>.997</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Word fluency</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.161</p></td><td align="left"><p>2512.913</p></td><td align="left"><p>.999</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>General vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.469</p></td><td align="left"><p>1499.815</p></td><td align="left"><p>.999</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Academic vocabulary</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.379</p></td><td align="left"><p>1637.828</p></td><td align="left"><p>.996</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Background knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>7.093</p></td><td align="left"><p>2165.733</p></td><td align="left"><p>.997</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Content-area knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>6.650</p></td><td align="left"><p>1848.445</p></td><td align="left"><p>.997</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>No students in Severe Global Weakness scored above 0.5 <emph>SD</emph> on content-area reading comprehension. The log likelihood value is ≈ 0. Due to this, maximum likelihood estimates could not be calculated. The results shown are based on the final iteration. The validity of the model fit under these circumstances is uncertain <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> <.05. <sups>**</sups><emph>p</emph> <.01</p> <p>With regard to the two remaining profiles, <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> and <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, differences were observed. Among <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>, only content-area knowledge (<emph>B</emph> = 0.064, S.E. = 0.026, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) was significantly related to content-area reading comprehension. With each unit increase in content-area knowledge, there was an expected increase of 0.064 in the log odds of an adolescent being classified in a higher rank on content-area reading comprehension. Among <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, both word accuracy (<emph>B</emph> = 0.130, S.E. = 0.062, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and content-area knowledge (<emph>B</emph> = 0.085, S.E. = 0.041, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) were significantly related to content-area reading comprehension. With each unit increase in content-area knowledge and word accuracy, there was an expected increase of 0.130 and 0.085 in the log odds of an adolescent being classified in a higher rank on content-area reading comprehension, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-21">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184166211-22">Heterogeneity and primary sources of reading difficulties among ASRs</hd> <p>In line with our hypotheses and consistent with previous research, there is heterogeneity in reading comprehension skills among ASRs within the Chinese language context (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref112">3</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref113">12</reflink>]; Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref114">23</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref115">28</reflink>]). This study, using a sample of Taiwanese adolescents, reveals five distinct and highly heterogeneous reading skill profiles: <emph>High-Skill Readers</emph>, <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>, <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph>, and <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph>.</p> <p>Our findings replicate previous studies, indicating that profiles exhibit a specific hierarchy in the sources of reading difficulties (e.g., Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref116">3</reflink>]). <emph>High-Skill Readers</emph> and <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> experience the least difficulties, followed by <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> and those with <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph>, with <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph> experiencing the most difficulties. However, the differences between these profiles are not entirely parallel. This suggests that ASRs have varying strengths and weaknesses in different reading component skills, rather than merely differing in their overall proficiency levels.</p> <p>As shown in Table 4 and Fig. 1, among all profiles, <emph>High-Skill Readers</emph> (14.2%) exhibited either average or above-average reading component skills. In contrast, students with <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph> and <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph> exhibited below-average skills on all measures, though the severity of their difficulties varied. Our findings regarding these three profiles are consistent with those of Brasseur-Hock et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref117">3</reflink>]). The reading difficulties of <emph>High-Skill Readers</emph> may stem from other skills not assessed in this study, such as proximal factors directly influencing reading (e.g., listening comprehension) or distal factors indirectly affecting reading (e.g., attention) (see Hulme & Snowling, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref118">24</reflink>]), or they may exhibit adequate reading component skills but lack motivation and engagement in academic reading tasks. Intervention strategies for these students may need to address these additional factors.</p> <p>Conversely, students categorized with <emph>Moderate</emph> and <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph> require comprehensive reading interventions. Particularly, those with <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph>, despite being the smallest group (<emph>n</emph> = 24, 10.7%), face the most challenges. This profile showed particularly low performance on general vocabulary, scoring more than 2.5 <emph>SD</emph>s below the mean. Students within this profile also performed significantly low on word accuracy, academic vocabulary, background knowledge, and content-area knowledge, with scores approximately 1.4 to 1.9 <emph>SD</emph>s below the mean. Their average word fluency was also low, with approximately 1.0 <emph>SD</emph> below the mean. Their significant difficulties in word reading, vocabulary, and knowledge highlight the need for comprehensive interventions and support.</p> <p>The remaining two profiles, <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> and <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, revealed distinct strengths and weaknesses. <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 89, 39.6%) struggled solely with fluency, whereas <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> (<emph>n</emph> = 48, 21.3%) exhibited average word-level skills but showed weaknesses in vocabulary and knowledge. These two profiles constituted the most prevalent subgroups among ASRs.</p> <p>Consistent with prior research (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref119">3</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref120">28</reflink>]), we found that 0% of adolescents encounter challenges exclusively related to word accuracy. This result aligns with previous studies and suggests that adolescents experiencing difficulties solely with word accuracy are exceedingly rare (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref121">3</reflink>]; Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref122">7</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref123">28</reflink>]). However, the identification of <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> suggests that fluency may be a more crucial word-level difficulty than accuracy in adolescents. Brasseur-Hock et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref124">3</reflink>]) reported that nearly 30% of ASRs struggled with fluency alone. While other studies may not always identify readers with solely fluency difficulties, they do support the notion that word-level fluency difficulties are more prevalent than word-level accuracy difficulties among adolescents. For instance, Lesaux and Kieffer ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref125">28</reflink>]) identified 60% of individuals with above-average word accuracy but far below-average fluency and general vocabulary skills.</p> <p>Prior research has underscored the importance of fluency in reading comprehension for adolescent readers (Chall, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref126">8</reflink>]; Fuchs et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref127">20</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref128">38</reflink>]). Chall ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref129">8</reflink>]) described adolescence as a critical stage during which most students transition from reading aloud to silent reading. Initially, many students may find listening comprehension of the same materials more efficient than reading. However, by the end of this stage, the efficiency of reading comprehension becomes comparable to, or even better than, listening. Since efficiency represents the ratio between the reading outcomes and the effort expended by a reader, fluency serves as the indicator reflecting the degree of effort exerted by a reader (Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref130">38</reflink>]). While fluency development typically begins in grades 2 and 3 (Chall, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref131">8</reflink>]), not all students achieve the same level. However, a recent meta-analysis revealed that interventions focused on fluency for adolescents are less common than those for younger primary school students (Maki & Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref132">32</reflink>]). Additionally, there are almost no interventions focused on Tier 1. Our findings on <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> support that there is a distinct group of students who primarily struggle with fluency solely in general classrooms. These students, though experiencing milder difficulties compared to others, comprise the largest group (39.6%) among ASRs. Their needs in reading fluency are often overlooked (Fuchs et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref133">20</reflink>]; Maki & Hammerschmidt-Snidarich, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref134">32</reflink>]), which increases the risk of widening the gap in reading achievement between them and their peers (Edmonds et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref135">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Contrary to <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>, <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> demonstrated average word-level skills, mild general vocabulary weakness, and significant difficulties in academic vocabulary, background knowledge, and content-area knowledge. This results in poorer reading comprehension performance compared to <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>, particularly in content-area reading, with a difference of approximately 0.6 <emph>SD</emph>s. Interestingly, <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> demonstrated slightly better word-level skills than <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>, even excelling by 0.5 <emph>SD</emph> in fluency. However, this advantage was outweighed by their weaknesses. <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> lag behind <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> by 0.5 <emph>SD</emph> in general vocabulary and a substantial 1.3 <emph>SD</emph> in academic vocabulary and knowledge. In fact, their significant difficulties in academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge were similar to those of students with <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph>. These findings suggest that adequate word-level skills are not sufficient for successful reading comprehension. Difficulties in academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge seem to lead to poorer content-area reading outcomes. Consequently, while interventions for some ASRs (i.e., <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>) may focus on facilitating fluency skills, others such as <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> may require differentiated intervention goals targeting vocabulary and knowledge enhancement.</p> <p>In summarizing the sources of reading difficulties in adolescents, our findings indicate that 64.4% of students exhibited mild to severe difficulties in word-level skills. While a smaller subset (<emph>Moderate</emph> and <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph>, 24.9%) faced significant difficulties in both word accuracy and fluency, a larger subgroup (<emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph>, 39.5%) struggled primarily with word fluency. Additionally, 46.2% of students, encompassing <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, <emph>Moderate Global Weakness</emph>, and <emph>Severe Global Weakness</emph> profiles, demonstrated significant difficulties in vocabulary and knowledge. While our findings did not identify a profile exclusively characterized by poor vocabulary or knowledge, these difficulties were prevalent and severe among ASRs. Consistent with alphabetic language studies (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref136">3</reflink>]; Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref137">7</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref138">28</reflink>]), our findings support the idea that difficulties in vocabulary and knowledge are prevalent and crucial. However, difficulties in word-level skills among adolescents should also be noted and addressed by educators, particularly word fluency.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-23">Content-area reading comprehension: beyond general reading comprehension and its predictors</hd> <p>Content-area reading differs from general reading (Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref139">44</reflink>]; Spires et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref140">48</reflink>]). Additionally, the contributions of vocabulary and knowledge to reading comprehension are expected to increase with age, possibly surpassing word-level skills (e.g., Ahmed et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref141">1</reflink>]; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref142">52</reflink>]). Given this research evidence, we hypothesized that (a) while controlling for general reading comprehension, the skills of academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge would have a significantly unique contribution to adolescents' content-area reading comprehension and (b) academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge would be more important than word-level skills in predicting adolescents' content-area reading comprehension.</p> <p>As expected, the results supported the hypothesis that in addition to general reading comprehension, academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge are significant predictors of content-area reading comprehension. Consistent with previous studies highlighting the distinction between general and content-area reading comprehension (e.g., Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref143">44</reflink>]), our findings suggest that while general reading comprehension contributes to content-area reading comprehension, proficiency in general reading comprehension alone does not ensure proficiency in content-area reading.</p> <p>Furthermore, our findings align with previous studies (Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref144">4</reflink>]; Townsend et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref145">49</reflink>]), highlighting the significant roles of academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge in content-area reading for adolescents, surpassing word-level skills. However, we observed that among ASRs, the effect of content-area knowledge was more significant than academic vocabulary, suggesting it as a key positive predictor for this population. To enhance adolescents' content-area reading, building content knowledge is essential, as it not only facilitates inference making (e.g., Cabell & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref146">4</reflink>]) but also compensates for weaker reading skills (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref147">46</reflink>]). Further examination of the relationship between reading component skills and content-area reading comprehension across different profiles revealed a significant predictive effect of content-area knowledge on content-area reading for <emph>Mild Dysfluent Readers</emph> and <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> (see Table 7). As these two profiles represent the majority of ASRs (<emph>n</emph> = 137, 60.9%), this finding underscores the crucial role of content-area knowledge for ASRs.</p> <p>In terms of word-level skills, our data did not reach statistical significance. Previous research has found that the contribution of word-level skills to reading comprehension varies among readers with different reading abilities. Specifically, compared to typically developing readers, word-level skills are more significant predictors of reading comprehension for ASRs (e.g., Oslund et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref148">35</reflink>]). Our study did not find a significant relationship between word-level skills and content-area reading comprehension across the entire ASR group. However, we did observe a significant positive effect of improved word reading accuracy on content-area reading comprehension within the <emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph> (Table 7), which partially aligns with the findings of prior research. Nevertheless, our findings further underscore the heterogeneity among subgroups within ASRs.</p> <p>In summary, our quantitative results confirm the distinct mechanisms underlying general and content-area reading are distinct. To the best of our knowledge, while previous studies often qualitatively pointed out that content-area reading is more challenging than general reading (e.g., Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref149">44</reflink>]), there is a lack of quantitative data to support this. Our findings demonstrate that, beyond general reading comprehension, adolescents require academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge to succeed in content-area reading comprehension. Notably, content-area knowledge is particularly crucial for ASRs. Additionally, although not universally observed, word accuracy showed some predictive power for content-area reading in a subgroup of ASRs (<emph>Weak Knowledge Readers</emph>, 21.3%). Previous studies investigating sources of adolescents' reading difficulties primarily employed standardized tests to measure general reading comprehension or general vocabulary skills (Brasseur-Hock et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref150">3</reflink>]; Capin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref151">5</reflink>]; Lesaux & Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref152">28</reflink>]; Oslund et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref153">35</reflink>]). There is almost no research specifically distinguishing and measuring content-area reading comprehension. However, given the differences between general and content-area reading, applying research results obtained from general reading directly to content-area reading is likely biased and problematic. This can lead to the neglect of crucial reading components, such as content-area knowledge, which our study identified as essential for supporting content-area reading comprehension. Finally, further examination of the relationship between reading skills and content area across different profiles revealed variations among ASRs. These findings indirectly support the heterogeneity within this population and highlight the need for tailored remediation and interventions for reading difficulties, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-24">Expanding Chinese reading research: the needs and perspectives of inclusive education</hd> <p>A recent longitudinal study of native Chinese speakers from grades 1 to 6 (Zhao et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref154">58</reflink>]) found that while reading comprehension and reading fluency are related, they are underpinned by distinct mechanisms. Early adolescent reading comprehension is significantly predicted by early morphological awareness and middle-grade vocabulary knowledge, whereas reading fluency is significantly predicted by early automaticity and middle-grade word reading fluency. Given that reading comprehension and reading fluency do not share common skill components, and meaning-based and automaticity-based skills are not interchangeable, it is reasonable to conclude that struggling readers may experience difficulties in different aspects of reading. Our findings confirm that the sources of reading difficulties for ASRs vary. Based on this evidence, we believe that diagnosing the source of reading difficulties and providing targeted interventions is necessary.</p> <p>Moreover, increasing evidence suggests that the relationship between reading component skills and reading comprehension is dynamic (Kim, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref155">27</reflink>]) and is influenced by varying reading purposes and tasks (Spires et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref156">48</reflink>]). As students age, vocabulary and knowledge skills become increasingly important for reading comprehension (e.g., Ahmed et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref157">1</reflink>]). A recent meta-analysis of Chinese-speaking students also found that the relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension becomes particularly significant during secondary school (Dong et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref158">15</reflink>]). However, this meta-analysis included 84 studies on native Chinese speakers, but only 24 of these were first language studies, and they primarily focused on elementary school students, with only five studies (6.0%) targeting upper elementary grades. This suggests that research on the relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension in Chinese is relatively scarce, especially concerning adolescent reading, and even fewer studies examine reading difficulties in content areas.</p> <p>In terms of investigating the sources of reading difficulties, to our knowledge, most studies at the adolescent stage focus on English reading, with only a few examining the profiles of Chinese readers. Additionally, (a) these studies mainly focus on specific types of reading disabilities, such as dyslexia—for example, Chung et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref159">10</reflink>]) found heterogeneity in orthographic, morphological, and rapid naming abilities of adolescents with dyslexia—and (b) in terms of reading component skills, most research has focused on word-level skills, with few studies addressing vocabulary or knowledge. Given that vocabulary and knowledge contribute more to adolescent reading comprehension than word-level skills, we argue that while previous studies have enhanced our understanding of Chinese dyslexia, (a) even students with dyslexia or disabilities may require abilities beyond word-level skills for content-area reading comprehension in secondary education, and (b) more research and evidence are needed to comprehensively understand and address reading difficulties in inclusive education classrooms.</p> <p>In this study, we deliberately did not exclude students with disabilities from the data analysis, which may have increased variability in the data and affected the results. However, our data showed that while a greater proportion of students with disabilities experience reading difficulties (<emph>n</emph> = 12, 63.2%), more than 30% of students with disabilities perform comparably to their peers, indicating that we should not assume all students with disabilities face the same challenges. Furthermore, some students with disabilities may require additional remedial interventions, such as students with dyslexia who may need individualized diagnostic instruction for word-level skills. However, the focus of this study is on general secondary classrooms in inclusive education. We believe it is insightful to understand the challenges faced by general content-area teachers in the classroom, as in states implementing inclusive education, even if students receive special education services, the majority of their learning still takes place in general education settings (Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref160">47</reflink>]; Wang & Hung, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref161">55</reflink>]). In recent years, the international perspective on interventions for students with reading difficulties has moved beyond small group or individualized interventions, placing greater emphasis on a multi-tiered system of supports, which emphasizes that effective Tier 1 instruction delivered in general classrooms benefits not only typical-developed readers but also students with reading difficulties and with disabilities (Foorman & Wanzek, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref162">19</reflink>]; Scammacca et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref163">43</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref164">56</reflink>]). The students with disabilities in this study were members of inclusive educational classrooms who received content-area instructions in general classrooms from general content-area teachers. Therefore, including students with disabilities in the research analysis reflects the reality of the inclusive educational setting, and deliberately excluding them would distort the challenges faced by teachers in the classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-25">Limitations</hd> <p>There are a few potential limitations. First, due to resource and school constraints, we were unable to administer additional measures for each construct to form latent variables for ASR identification and data analysis, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. Nuanced findings might emerge with a broader set of measures. Nevertheless, as pioneers in the early exploration of Chinese adolescents' content-area reading, we believe that starting with a framework incorporating widely accepted components in research can provide insights and contributions to the field. Second, as our primary goal was to understand the sources of reading difficulties among adolescents in the read-to-learn stage, we grouped students from different grades together rather than focusing on comparing them individually. Although this approach is common in latent profile studies (e.g., Capin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref165">5</reflink>]; Clemens et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref166">12</reflink>]), it does present a potential limitation. Recent research has highlighted the ongoing development of reading skills during adolescence (e.g., Ricketts et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref167">40</reflink>]). Our data also revealed that, while there were no differences between seventh and eighth grades in general reading comprehension, the two grades differed in content-area reading comprehension. Therefore, future research could investigate whether and how reading difficulties vary across different grades. Third, although we ruled out multicollinearity in the OLR based on the VIF values, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the unique contributions of the six reading component skills to content-area reading comprehension may be affected due to the moderate to high correlation between variables. Therefore, the regression results should be interpreted with caution. Fourth, content-area reading varies across different disciplines (Shanahan & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref168">44</reflink>]; Spires et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref169">48</reflink>]). This study specifically focuses on social studies, and the findings may not necessarily apply to other content areas, such as math or science. Nonetheless, this emphasizes the importance of future research exploring discipline-specific reading in various content areas.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-26">Implications</hd> <p>Our study provides empirical support for practices and research already underway, in addition to contributing to future applications of adolescents' content-area reading.</p> <p>Our findings in LPA suggest that distinct profiles emerge within the Chinese language adolescent population based on their reading component skills. Our findings indicate that vocabulary and knowledge are the most common needs for ASRs, supporting the rationale behind previous research efforts that have focused on developing interventions targeting these aspects (Scammacca et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref170">42</reflink>]). Nearly half of the students with difficulties in vocabulary and knowledge also demonstrated significant challenges in word-level skills. Additionally, a considerable number of students, despite not having difficulties with vocabulary and knowledge, clearly need to improve their fluency. In the context of the Chinese language, there is relatively less instruction regarding these aspects. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to (a) develop and examine evidence-based instructions to promote content-area reading among adolescents, with a specific focus on these reading component skills, and (b) provide adolescents with interventions tailored to their specific needs.</p> <p>Other findings in regression suggest the necessity of distinguishing between general and content-area reading when exploring adolescent reading learning. First, reading remediations should be tailored to specific goals. For example, if the goal is to assist ASRs in achieving content-area reading comprehension, building content-area knowledge becomes more crucial than word-level skills (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref171">46</reflink>]). However, the attention given to knowledge in reading interventions is not as significant as that given to other reading skills (Elleman & Compton, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref172">17</reflink>]). Second, controlling for general reading comprehension, we presented predictive relations different from those of previous studies (e.g., Oslund et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref173">35</reflink>]). We believe it is necessary to make differentiations in the reading research field for a clearer understanding of adolescent content-area reading. Furthermore, previous studies have pointed out that reading and writing constructs in different disciplines are distinct (e.g., Spires et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref174">48</reflink>]). However, most studies on the reading skill profiles of adolescents still lack differentiation and measurement of content-area reading comprehension. Consequently, we believe that more research exploring and examining specific content-area reading is necessary. Researchers may consider developing more reliable assessments and examining the relation between reading skill profiles and reading performance among adolescents by including other reading skills and standardized norm-referenced measures.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>Our findings support the presence of heterogeneity in reading skills among ASRs within the context of the Chinese language. Many adolescents still struggle with word-level skills, although most experience only mild issues with word fluency, which easily go unnoticed. Additionally, difficulties in vocabulary and knowledge are prevalent.</p> <p>This study also highlights that general reading comprehension alone is insufficient for successful content-area reading comprehension among adolescents. Overall, adolescents' content-area reading relies more on academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge skills than on fundamental word-level skills. Enhancing academic vocabulary and content-area knowledge skills would increase the likelihood of adolescents achieving a higher rank in content-area reading comprehension. However, the varying importance of different reading component skills for ASRs with diverse profiles implies the necessity of differentiated interventions and tailored support to address their specific reading difficulties.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-28">Declarations</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-29">Appendix</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184166211-30">Analysis Code of LPA</hd> <p>This appendix provides an example of the code used by researchers for LPA, illustrated with a two-class solution. The example is presented as follows.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <emph>SID</emph>, student id; <emph>ACC</emph>, word reading accuracy; <emph>FLU</emph>, word reading fluency; <emph>GVC</emph>, general vocabulary; <emph>AVC</emph>, academic vocabulary; <emph>BGK</emph>, background knowledge; <emph>CK</emph>, content-area knowledge; <emph>GRC</emph>, general reading comprehension; <emph>CRC</emph>, content-area reading comprehension</p> <hd id="AN0184166211-31">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0184166211-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref19" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmed Y, Francis DJ, York M, Fletcher JM, Barnes M, Kulesz P. Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2016; 44–45: 68-82. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref12" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I. L, McKeown, M. G, & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction (Second Edition). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref39" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brasseur-Hock IF, Hock MF, Kieffer MJ, Biancarosa G, Deshler DD. Adolescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences. 2011; 21; 4: 438-452. 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref26" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cabell SQ, Hwang H. Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly. 2020; 55; S1: S99-S107. 10.1002/rrq.338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref83" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Capin P, Vaughn S, Miller JE, Miciak J, Fall A-M, Roberts G, Cho E, Barth AE, Steinle PK, Fletcher JM. Investigating the reading profiles of middle school emergent bilinguals with significant reading comprehension difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2024; 28; 2: 190-213. 10.1080/10888438.2023.2254871</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. (2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing adolescent literacy for college and career success. Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://<ulink href="http://www.carnegie.org/publications/time-to-act-an-agenda-for-advancing-adolescent-literacy-for-college-and-career-success/">www.carnegie.org/publications/time-to-act-an-agenda-for-advancing-adolescent-literacy-for-college-and-career-success/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref35" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Catts HW, Hogan TP, Adlof SMCatts HW, Kamhi AG. Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. The connections between language and reading disabilities. 2005; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 25-40. 10.4324/9781410612052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref72" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (Second). Harcourt Brace & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref61" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chung KKH, Lo JCM, Ho CS-H, Xiao X, Chan DW. Syntactic and discourse skills in Chinese adolescent readers with dyslexia: A profiling study. Annals of Dyslexia. 2014; 64; 3: 222-247. 10.1007/s11881-014-0095-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chung KKH, Lo JCM, McBride C. Cognitive-linguistic profiles of Chinese typical-functioning adolescent dyslexics and high-functioning dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia. 2018; 68; 3: 229-250. 10.1007/s11881-018-0165-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, C, & Teravainen-Goff, A. (2018). Mental wellbeing, reading and writing: How children and young people's mental wellbeing is related to their reading and writing experiences. National Literacy Trust.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clemens, N, Simmons, D, Simmons, L. E, Wang, H, & Kwok, O.-M. (2017). The prevalence of reading fluency and vocabulary difficulties among adolescents struggling with reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(8), 785–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916662120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cromley JG, Azevedo R. Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2007; 99; 2: 311-325. 10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cromley JG, Snyder-Hogan LE, Luciw-Dubas UA. Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102; 3: 687-700. 10.1037/a0019452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dong, Y, Tang, Y, Chow, B. W.-Y, Wang, W, & Dong, W.-Y. (2020). Contribution of vocabulary knowledge to reading comprehension among Chinese students: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 525369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.525369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edmonds MS, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Reutebuch C, Cable A, Tackett KK, Schnakenberg JW. A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research. 2009; 79; 1: 262-300. 10.3102/0034654308325998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elleman AM, Compton DL. Beyond comprehension strategy instruction: What's next?. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2017; 48; 2: 84-91. 10.1044/2017_LSHSS-16-0036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faggella-Luby MN, Graner PS, Deshler DD, Drew SV. Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders. 2012; 32; 1: 69. 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318245618e</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R, & Wanzek, J. (2016). Classroom reading instruction for all students. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 235–252). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7568-3_14</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Hosp MK, Jenkins JR. Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2001; 5; 3: 239-256. 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, Compton DL, Hamlett CL, Wang AY. Is word-problem solving a form of text comprehension?. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2015; 19; 3: 204-223. 10.1080/10888438.2015.1005745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuchs LS, Gilbert JK, Fuchs D, Seethaler PM, Martin NB. Text comprehension and oral language as predictors of word-problem solving: Insights into word-problem solving as a form of text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2018; 22; 2: 152-166. 10.1080/10888438.2017.1398259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hock MF, Brasseur IF, Deshler DD, Catts HW, Marquis JG, Mark CA, Stribling JW. What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools?. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2009; 32; 1: 21-38. 10.2307/25474660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulme, C, & Snowling, M. J. (2009). Developmental disorders of language learning and cognition. Wiley Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hung, L.-Y, Chen, H.-F, Wang, C.-C, & Chang, Y.-W. (2012). Construct study of the assessment of sight-word reading and fluency. Psychological Testing, 59(2), 247–276. https://doi.org/10.7108/PT.201206.0247</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James, G, Witten, D, Hastie, T, & Tibshirani, R. (2021). An introduction to statistical learning with applications in R (Second). Springer. https://<ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24754269.2021.1980261">www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24754269.2021.1980261</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim Y-SG. Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology. 2020; 112; 4: 667-684. 10.1037/edu0000407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesaux NK, Kieffer MJ. Exploring sources of reading comprehension difficulties among language minority learners and their classmates in early adolescence. American Educational Research Journal. 2010; 47; 3: 596-632. 10.3102/0002831209355469</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, T, & McBride-Chang, C. (2014). How character reading can be different from word reading in Chinese and why it matters for Chinese reading development. In X. Chen, Q. Wang, & Y. C. Luo (Eds.), Reading development and difficulties in monolingual and bilingual Chinese children (pp. 49–65). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7380-6_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin J, Li Q, Sun H, Huang Z, Zheng G. Chinese secondary school students' reading engagement profiles: Associations with reading comprehension. Reading and Writing. 2021; 34; 9: 2257-2287. 10.1007/s11145-021-10139-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln AK, Eyllon M, Prener C, Garverich S, Griffith J, Adams W, Arford T, Rosenfeld L, Nykiel S, Johnson P, Guyer M, Leung YJ, Paasche-Orlow M. Prevalence and predictors of limited literacy in public mental health care. Community Mental Health Journal. 2021; 57; 6: 1175-1186. 10.1007/s10597-020-00750-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maki KE, Hammerschmidt-Snidarich S. Reading fluency intervention dosage: A novel meta-analysis and research synthesis. Journal of School Psychology. 2022; 92: 148-165. 10.1016/j.jsp.2022.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governor's Association Center for Best Practices. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor's guide to adolescent literacy. Author. https://media.carnegie.org/filer_public/c4/ea/c4ea065b-d6fa-47b4-90c9-6781d09357cd/ccny_grantee_2005_governors.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oslund EL, Clemens NH, Simmons DC, Simmons LE. The direct and indirect effects of word reading and vocabulary on adolescents' reading comprehension: Comparing struggling and adequate comprehenders. Reading and Writing. 2018; 31; 2: 355-379. 10.1007/s11145-017-9788-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ozuru Y, Dempsey K, McNamara DS. Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction. 2009; 19; 3: 228-242. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peng P, Wang C, Tao S, Sun C. The deficit profiles of Chinese children with reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2017; 29; 3: 513-564. 10.1007/s10648-016-9366-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti CA. Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2007; 11; 4: 357-383. 10.1080/10888430701530730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti CA, Liu Y, Tan LH. The lexical constituency model: Some implications of research on Chinese for general theories of reading. Psychological Review. 2005; 112; 1: 43-59. 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ricketts J, Lervåg A, Dawson N, Taylor LA, Hulme C. Reading and oral vocabulary development in early adolescence. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2020; 24; 5: 380-396. 10.1080/10888438.2019.1689244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rydland V, Aukrust VG, Fulland H. How word decoding, vocabulary and prior topic knowledge predict reading comprehension. A study of language-minority students in Norwegian fifth grade classrooms. Reading and Writing. 2012; 25; 2: 465-482. 10.1007/s11145-010-9279-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scammacca NK, Roberts G, Vaughn S, Stuebing KK. A meta-analysis of interventions for struggling readers in grades 4–12: 1980–2011. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2015; 48; 4: 369-390. 10.1177/0022219413504995</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scammacca NK, Roberts GJ, Cho E, Williams KJ, Roberts G, Vaughn SR, Carroll M. A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research. 2016; 86; 3: 756-800. 10.3102/0034654316652942</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shanahan T, Shanahan C. Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review. 2008; 78; 1: 40-59. 10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share DL. Is the science of reading just the science of reading English?. Reading Research Quarterly. 2021; 56; S1: S391-S402. 10.1002/rrq.401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith R, Snow P, Serry T, Hammond L. The role of background knowledge in reading comprehension: A critical review. Reading Psychology. 2021; 42; 3: 214-240. 10.1080/02702711.2021.1888348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, T. D, de Brey, C, & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of education statistics 2015 (NCES 2016–014; p. 1042). U.S. Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spires HA, Kerkhoff SN, Graham ACK, Thompson I, Lee JK. Operationalizing and validating disciplinary literacy in secondary education. Reading and Writing. 2018; 31; 6: 1401-1434. 10.1007/s11145-018-9839-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend D, Barber AT, Carter H, Salas R. More than words: Older adolescents' linguistic resources in the context of disciplinary achievement and academic risk. Reading Psychology. 2020; 41; 8: 778-802. 10.1080/02702711.2020.1782291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). Literacy as freedom: A UNESCO round-table. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000131823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van den Broek P, Young M, Tzeng Y, Linderholm Tvan Oostendorp H, Goldman SR. The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. The construction of mental representations during reading. 1999; Erlbaum: 71-98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven L, van Leeuwe J. Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2008; 22; 3: 407-423. 10.1002/acp.1414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, H.-H. (2021). Using vocabulary and text structure strategies to improve reading skills of middle school students with reading difficulties in social studies: The mediating effect of treatment fidelity [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. National Taiwan Normal University. (Text in Chinese).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, H.-H, & Hung, L.-Y. (2015, February). The relationship between semantic transparency and frequency of Chinese vocabulary. Poster session presented at the meeting of the East Asia Joint Symposium on Reading and Spelling, Taipei, Taiwan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang H-H, Hung L-Y. Improving content area acquisition of middle school students with and without reading difficulties: Evidence-based instruction implemented in general education classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development. 2023; 16; 2: 59-91. 10.53106/207136492023081602003Text in Chinese</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang H-H, Swanson E, Vaughn S. Understanding the role of academic vocabulary in content acquisition for middle school students with and without disabilities. The Journal of Special Education. 2023; 57; 1: 3-12. 10.1177/00224669221097944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang Y, McBride C. Character reading and word reading in Chinese: Unique correlates for Chinese kindergarteners. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2016; 37; 2: 371-386. 10.1017/S014271641500003X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao Y, Wu X, Cheng Y. Examining factors and mechanisms of reading comprehension and reading fluency: Longitudinal evidence for Chinese children from grade 1 to grade 6. Learning and Individual Differences. 2024; 113: 102467. 10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zou Z, Zhao W, Li M. The deficit profile of executive function in Chinese children with different types of reading difficulties. Reading and Writing. 2022; 35; 3: 565-588. 10.1007/s11145-021-10194-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zumel, N, & Mount, J. (2014). Practical data science with R. Manning Publications Co.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Hsuan-Hui Wang and Li-Yu Hung</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref167"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1464984
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Exploring Sources of Reading Comprehension Difficulties among Adolescents in Taiwan: A Latent Profile Analysis with a Focus on Content-Area Reading
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hsuan-Hui+Wang%22">Hsuan-Hui Wang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1877-910X">0000-0002-1877-910X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li-Yu+Hung%22">Li-Yu Hung</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0840-3341">0000-0003-0840-3341</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Annals+of+Dyslexia%22"><i>Annals of Dyslexia</i></searchLink>. 2025 75(1):149-177.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 29
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Area+Reading%22">Content Area Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Difficulties%22">Reading Difficulties</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Fluency%22">Reading Fluency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+7%22">Grade 7</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+8%22">Grade 8</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Taiwan%22">Taiwan</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11881-024-00319-6
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0736-9387<br />1934-7243
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With a focus on content-area reading, this study aimed to (a) understand the sources and prevalence of concurrent and specific difficulties in word-level skills, vocabulary, and knowledge among adolescent struggling readers (ASRs) and (b) explore the relations among reading skills, profiles, and reading comprehension. A dual-measure screening approach was used to classify a sample of 492 seventh- and eighth-graders. Among the subgroup of 225 ASRs, five distinct profiles were identified by latent profile analysis. The results confirmed the following: (a) the heterogeneity of reading difficulties in adolescents; (b) the universal prevalence of vocabulary difficulties across various language systems; and (c) the finding that fluency, rather than word accuracy, presents a more significant challenge at the word level in ASRs. Additionally, academic vocabulary knowledge and content-area knowledge independently predict content-area reading comprehension, even after accounting for general reading comprehension. This implies that preventive and remedial efforts for adolescent reading difficulties should prioritize and tailor crucial components of content-area reading.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1464984
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1464984
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11881-024-00319-6
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 29
        StartPage: 149
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Area Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Difficulties
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Fluency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 7
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 8
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Taiwan
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Exploring Sources of Reading Comprehension Difficulties among Adolescents in Taiwan: A Latent Profile Analysis with a Focus on Content-Area Reading
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hsuan-Hui Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Li-Yu Hung
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0736-9387
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1934-7243
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 75
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Annals of Dyslexia
              Type: main
ResultId 1