ABSTRACT
Virtually all reading researchers and theorists, regardless of their views of reading development, regard comprehension as the gold standard in de ning prima facie reading dif culties. Thus, even if a good comprehender exhibited some de cits in particular skill areas (e.g., phonics or monitoring), we would say that those variations from the ideal were differences that did not make a difference, or perhaps disabilities that did not make a difference. Conversely, if a student was skilled at decoding, oral language vocabulary, and monitoring but could not understand the most basic material, we would conclude that he or she had a reading dif culty and, depending on our view of the neurology of reading, perhaps even a disability. Less than ideal comprehension, then, is the key criterion in de ning disability. When it comes to addressing poor comprehension performance, the key question is what is the basis of the performance de cit? What is it about a student’s intellectual makeup, skill repertoire, knowledge, experience, dispositions, or instructional history that might account for the prima facie failing in comprehension? Other questions readily follow: (a) Is the nature of disability the same for all poor comprehenders or are there different patterns of disability with different etiologies for different classes of students? (b) Can more than one pattern of sub-skill performance lead to the same comprehension achievement? (c) How are comprehension dif culties best ameliorated for students with reading disabilities?
