Resources /
EvidenceResearch based
Tutorised
tasks
Tutorised includes tasks for evaluating decoding, reading comprehension, language comprehension, writing, mathematics, and executive functions. The digital tasks are designed for different user groups, and users can utilise them at their own discretion.
The tasks are based on research focused on developing methods for identifying learning difficulties, as well as examining the development of foundational skills and the characteristics of learning difficulties in children and young people. They support a broad understanding of the student’s learning, work habits, and behaviour.
The tasks are primarily conducted in group settings, but their precise analytics also make them suitable for individual use. As achieving maximum scores is challenging, they not only help to identify potential support needs, but also provide a broader understanding of students’ performance.
The results are indicative and may be influenced by factors such as the student’s alertness, concentration, understanding of instructions, the testing situation, and familiarity with using the device. Any potential support needs should be confirmed through individual evaluation.
Key areas
Literacy
Writing
Language
Learning skills
Mathematics
Literacy
The Tutorised subtasks evaluating decoding skills are based on research that has developed methods for identifying reading difficulties, examined the development of reading proficiency, and described the characteristics of dyslexia (e.g., Endlich et al., 2025; Jacobson, 1995; Lindeman, 1998; Nation & Snowling, 1997; Nevala & Lyytinen, 2000; Takala & Kuusela, 2009). These tasks address, for example, reading fluency, reading speed, reading accuracy, word recognition, and vocabulary (Ståhlberg et al., 2020).
All decoding tasks begin with a practice item that must be answered correctly before proceeding to the main tasks, ensuring that students understand the task format before continuing. Each task has a time limit, and once the allotted time has elapsed, the results are automatically stored in the database. In primary school (Years 1–6), the tasks are usually carried out under teacher supervision, whereas in lower secondary school and beyond, they are often completed independently. The set of decoding tasks comprises three subtests.
Reading fluency
Task focus: Reading fluency
Time limit: 210 seconds (3 minutes 30 seconds)
Versions: Short, 249 words (maximum score 30 points) / Long, 631 words (maximum score 65 points)
Scoring: +1 for a pseudoword, −1 for an authentic English word
In this task, students read a narrative text line by line as quickly as possible. The text contains either 249 or 631 words. While reading, students are instructed to identify and mark as many inserted pseudowords as possible by clicking them or tapping them. Incorrect responses, where an authentic English word is marked, result in a point deduction. The maximum score is 30 points for the short version and 65 points for the long version. The time limit for the task is 210 seconds (3 minutes 30 seconds).
The method was originally developed for a master’s thesis supervised by Juhani E. Lehto (Mynttinen & Lahti, 1999). The so-called Tarzan task was later validated in an international study by Päivi Takala and Sanna Kuusela (2009). The task primarily captures reading speed, but it also reflects reading accuracy and vocabulary (Ståhlberg, 2020; Takala & Kuusela, 2009).
Both the Tarzan test and the Tutorised nonword task follow the same logic: decoding skills are examined through a continuous text format that simulates an authentic reading situation. There are relatively few methods for examining decoding skills that use such an authentic format. Typically, decoding is explored using word lists or word chain tasks.
Reading accuracy
Task focus: Reading accuracy
Time limit: 75–90 seconds
Versions: Time limits and difficulty levels vary
Scoring: +1 point for a misspelled word, −1 point for a correctly spelled word
In this task, students read a word list line by line as quickly as possible. The list contains 62 words, of which 31 are correctly spelled and 31 are misspelled. While reading, students mark as many misspelled words as possible by clicking or tapping on them. Incorrect responses, where a correctly spelled word is marked, result in a point deduction. The maximum score in all versions is 31 points.
The misspelled words include typical orthographic errors, such as errors in long vowels, double consonants, diphthongs, as well as letter reversals and rotations. The content of the word lists varies slightly between versions, and the time limit ranges from 75 to 90 seconds.
The method is based on a widely used approach for examining decoding skills, in which misspelled words are rapidly identified among correctly spelled ones (e.g., Endlich et al., 2025; Ståhlberg et al., 2020). A similar approach has previously been used in paper-and-pencil format, for example in the Word Chain Test (Nevala & Lyytinen, 2000).
Word recognition
Task focus: Word recognition
Time limit: 75–90 seconds
Versions: Time limits and difficulty levels vary
Scoring: +1 point for a correctly placed divider mark, −1 point for an incorrectly placed divider mark
In this task, students read word chains arranged across nine lines as quickly as possible. The chains contain 56 words in total. The task is to segment the chains into individual words by clicking or tapping between the words (e.g., boy|dog|table). Before release, it was verified that meaningful words could be formed only at the intended segmentation points. Incorrect responses result in a point deduction. The maximum score for all versions is 47 points. The content of the word lists varies slightly between versions, and the time limit ranges from 75 to 90 seconds.
This task primarily reflects word recognition, but it also captures other components of decoding skills, such as reading speed and accuracy (Jacobson, 1995; Lindeman, 1998; Ståhlberg et al., 2020).
Text Comprehension
The theoretical foundation of Tutorised’s text comprehension tasks is based on the model of text comprehension developed by Walter Kintsch and Teun A. van Dijk (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). According to this model, the reader constructs a multilevel, hierarchical mental representation of the text. The model assumes that text comprehension is a constructive process involving interaction between the text, the reader’s prior knowledge, and the reader’s purpose or intention (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983).
Each text comprehension task begins with a practice item. For Years 1–3, the practice item must be completed correctly before the student can continue. In other versions, the practice item does not need to be fully correct, but students receive feedback after completing it. The practice items are designed to ensure that students understand the task format and logic before moving on to the main tasks.
In most Tutorised versions, text comprehension is examined using two different task types. This is because text comprehension is a multidimensional process, and it is not possible to gain an accurate picture of it using a single task type (Keenan, 2016).
In addition to working memory (Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, 2004) and foundational text comprehension skills such as language comprehension, decoding ability (Hoover & Gough, 1990), and vocabulary (Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2008), text comprehension also involves higher-level linguistic skills. These include, for example, inferencing, metacognitive awareness of one’s own comprehension, and the ability to recognise and process different text structures (Cain et al., 2004).
Moreover, text comprehension is linked to executive functions (Meixner, Warner, Lensing, Schiefele & Elsner, 2019), theory of mind (Atkinson et al., 2017), and semantic long-term memory (Nouwens et al., 2017).
Coherence and Title Task (Grades 1–3)
The text comprehension of students in Years 2 and 3 is examined using the Coherence and Title Task (Aro, 2002; Cain et al., 2004; Ståhlberg et al., 2020). These tasks address the ability to assign an appropriate title to a text, summarise the essential content in a single sentence, identify irrelevant information, and, more generally, perceive the coherence and logical structure of a text. Many of these skills are also reflected in national curriculum learning objectives across different countries.
The topics of the texts used for younger students are selected to be age-appropriate and engaging. The texts are deliberately short, consisting of only 3 to 5 sentences, to ensure that students in Years 2–3 can maintain their concentration throughout the task.
In Year 2, students read six texts per task type, giving a total of 12 texts, and in Year 3, eight texts per task type, giving a total of 16 texts.
Hierarchy and Sentence Verification Task (Year 4 and above)
In the other Tutorised batteries, text comprehension is examined using the Hierarchy Rating Test (Lyytinen & Lehto, 1998) and the Sentence Verification Technique (SVT) (Royer, Hastings & Hook, 1979). The Hierarchy Rating Test is included in all batteries except those designed for Years 1–3, while the Sentence Verification Technique is included in the battery for Years 5–7.
Various adaptations of these tasks are widely used in research (e.g., Marcotte et al., 2018; Pichette et al., 2014; Vainikainen et al., 2017; Ståhlberg et al., 2023).
Hierarchy Rating Task
The Hierarchy Rating Task reflects higher-level cognitive processing of text, also referred to as macroprocessing (Lehto et al., 2001). In this task, students are asked to rank sentences related to a text according to their importance for comprehension, that is, to identify which pieces of information are essential and which are less important. The task consists of 3 to 5 expository texts, depending on year level, and after each text students are presented with 8 to 16 statements related to its content. Although all statements are factually correct, their importance for text comprehension varies. One to two sentences correspond to the most important statements or topics, three to six represent main points, and three to eight express less relevant details that do not substantially contribute to understanding the overall meaning.
Students are instructed to place the statements into their appropriate categories:
- Most important statements (topics) (one to two items)
- Main-point statements (three to six items)
After this sorting, the less relevant details remain in the original list, representing information that is not central to comprehension. Participants may revise their selections freely and take as much time as they wish to complete the task. The text remains visible throughout the task, so performance does not depend on memory recall (see Lehto et al., 2001; Ståhlberg et al., 2020; Ståhlberg et al., 2023).
Sentence Verification Task
The Sentence Verification Technique (SVT) reflects the accuracy of the mental representation formed from a text, that is, the depth of the student’s text comprehension (Royer et al., 1979). In this task, students read informational texts consisting of 12 sentences, from which four different types of statements are generated (see Royer, 2001). The task is to determine whether each statement is true or false. In each subtask, students are presented with all four types of statements three times (Royer, 2001; see also Lehto & Anttila, 2003).
The correct statements are written exactly as they appeared in the text (original statements, A) or are reworded while preserving the original meaning (paraphrased statements, R). The incorrect statements either contain altered details that make the information factually incorrect in relation to the text (meaning-changed statements, MM) or include additional information that was not present in the text, although still thematically related (distractor statements, H).
Once students begin evaluating the statements, they can no longer return to the original text, nor can they revisit previous questions after submitting a response. Because the text cannot be reread, the task also engages memory processes, which are an essential component of text comprehension (e.g., Nouwens et al., 2017). In this sense, the task simulates an exam-like situation in which the material is first read and then recalled without access to the text.
Writing
The writing tasks in Tutorised are based on current national and international research examining the development of writing skills and the characteristics of writing-related learning difficulties (Aro et al., 2011; Di Blasi et al., 2023; Endlich et al., 2025; Robinson-Kooi et al., 2020). The word dictation and text dictation tasks in Tutorised address different aspects of spelling ability. In the word dictation task, students write both real words and pseudowords, while the text dictation task focuses on the ability to write complete sentences and short passages.
Research has shown that word dictation is a reliable method for examining children’s writing and spelling skills (Endlich et al., 2025). Tasks involving both real words and pseudowords are widely used in research and educational contexts to identify writing difficulties and to explore spelling proficiency (e.g., Aro et al., 2011).
Because word dictation alone provides information only about the ability to write isolated words and pseudowords, a complementary text dictation task was developed for Tutorised. Text dictation reflects functional writing ability more fully than word dictation (Di Blasi et al., 2023). Studies have shown that text dictation provides a more detailed picture of spelling proficiency, as writing connected text from dictation requires broader grammatical knowledge as well as memory processes (Robinson-Kooi et al., 2025).
Word Dictation
Tutorised includes six versions of the word dictation task, each designed for a different age group and varying in difficulty. In each task, students write only real words, with between 10 and 50 words in total depending on the version. The words are selected to include a broad range of orthographic patterns and spelling challenges appropriate for different age groups and skill levels.
There is no time limit for the task. Students may proceed at their own pace and listen to each item as many times as they wish. Each word is played automatically twice, after which students can replay it two more times. When a word is written, it appears on the screen and can be edited before moving on. This procedure helps to minimise typing errors if students progress too quickly. A minimum number of characters must be entered before continuing to the next item. The use of upper- or lowercase letters does not affect scoring. A correctly written word receives one point, while an incorrect response receives zero.
The dictated words vary in length and orthographic complexity. They include common and less frequent spelling patterns, allowing the task to capture a range of spelling skills. Because English spelling requires the integration of phonological, orthographic, and morphological knowledge, word dictation provides insight into how students apply these processes when writing. The task also reflects real-life writing situations in which individuals must spell words accurately from auditory input.
Text Dictation
The test battery includes nine text dictation tasks that vary in difficulty level. The dictated texts range from 3 to 8 sentences in length. The shortest sentence contains three words, while the longest includes 34 words. In the easier tasks, participants are required to remember basic conventions such as using a capital initial letter and an end punctuation mark. The more advanced tasks include proper nouns, a wider range of punctuation marks, and multi-word expressions that require careful spelling.
The text dictation tasks are reviewed sentence by sentence using three error categories:
Error type 1:
Missing words, incorrect word order, incorrect word choice, and extra words.
Error type 2:
Spelling errors, incorrect inflections, errors in multi-word expressions, and incorrect use of hyphens in compound forms.
Error type 3:
Capitalisation errors, incorrect or missing punctuation, missing spaces, and extra spaces.
The total score is calculated across all sentences. Sentences are automatically weighted according to their length, so that shorter sentences contribute less to the overall score. The task reflects, among other things, spelling accuracy, grammatical competence, and the ability to produce coherent written sentences from dictation.
Language
Coming up soon.
Mathematics
The mathematical tasks in Tutorised are based on current national and international research examining the development of mathematical abilities and the characteristics of mathematics-related learning difficulties (e.g., Jordan & Hanich, 2003; Li et al., 2018; Petrill et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2021). The tasks address number sense and basic arithmetic skills (Ståhlberg et al., 2020).
The tasks are designed to differentiate between varying levels of mathematical fluency. Students with more developed fluency are often able to retrieve correct answers from memory or use efficient strategies, typically within a few seconds for numbers in the range 0 to 100. Slower or less accurate responses may reflect the use of less efficient or developing strategies. When performance in these foundational areas is very limited, it may be associated with difficulties in mathematical learning (Räsänen, 2012).
Most tasks are time-limited. Each item is scored as either correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 points). Before each task, students complete a practice item, which must be answered correctly. This ensures that students understand the task format and logic before moving on to the main tasks.
Basic Arithmetic
Basic arithmetic is addressed through addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and number sequence tasks. Each task begins with single-digit problems and gradually increases in difficulty towards multi-digit calculations. Each task contains 30 items in total. The first 15 items are presented in a multiple-choice format with four answer options, while the remaining 15 require students to enter their answers manually using a digital keypad.
All arithmetic tasks follow the same underlying logic and share the same time limit across versions. Students at lower year levels typically do not progress as far within the allotted time as those at higher year levels. The tasks are intentionally designed so that reaching the final items is very challenging, allowing for clear differentiation between varying levels of mathematical fluency.
Number Sequence
In the Number Sequence task, students are shown sequences consisting of four numbers. Their task is to identify the rule governing the numerical pattern and then either select or enter the next number using the on-screen keypad. Students complete as many items as possible within the time limit of 1 minute and 30 seconds (90 seconds).
Addition
In the Addition task, students are presented with a series of addition problems. Their task is to identify and either select or enter the correct sum for each problem using the on-screen keypad. Students complete as many items as possible within the time limit of 1 minute and 30 seconds (90 seconds).
Subtraction
In the Subtraction task, students are presented with a series of subtraction problems. Their task is to identify and either select or enter the correct difference for each problem using the on-screen keypad. Students complete as many items as possible within the time limit of 1 minute and 40 seconds (100 seconds).
Addition and Subtraction
In the Addition and Subtraction task, students are presented with a mixed series of addition and subtraction problems. Their task is to identify and either select or enter the correct answer for each problem using the on-screen keypad. Students complete as many items as possible within the time limit of 2 minutes and 30 seconds (150 seconds).
Multiplication
In the Multiplication task, students are presented with a series of multiplication problems. Their task is to identify and either select or enter the correct product for each problem using the on-screen keypad. Students complete as many items as possible within the time limit of 1 minute and 30 seconds (90 seconds).
Division
In the Division task, students are presented with a series of division problems. Their task is to identify and either select or enter the correct quotient for each problem using the on-screen keypad. Students complete as many items as possible within the time limit of 1 minute and 30 seconds (90 seconds).
Numeracy
Symbolic number sense refers to a student’s ability to recognise numerals and label them with the corresponding number words. It also involves associating numerals with the correct quantities of objects. This ability is related to mathematical learning; however, on its own it does not provide sufficient information to determine whether a student has significant difficulties in mathematics (De Smedt et al., 2013).
Highest Number
In the Highest Number task, students are presented with numbers arranged in rows containing two, three, or four alternatives. Their task is to select the highest number among the options. Students complete as many items as possible within the time limit of 1 minute (60 seconds).
Number Dictation
In the Number Dictation subtest, participants hear numbers spoken aloud. Their task is to either select the number they hear from four alternatives or enter it into the answer box using the on-screen keypad. A total of ten numbers are presented, and there is no time limit for completing the task.
Learning skills
According to research, executive functions consist of three core components: working memory, inhibition, and cognitive flexibility (Lehto et al., 2003; Miyake et al., 2000). Miyake et al. (2000) identified these components in adults, and Lehto et al. (2003) showed that they are also clearly distinguishable in children. These skills are linked to other skill areas addressed in Tutorised.
The executive function tasks complement the overall Tutorised framework by supporting a broad understanding of the student’s learning, work habits, and behaviour. Together with other skill areas, they can help to identify potential support needs and provide a more detailed understanding of factors related to learning difficulties.
Working Memory
Working memory refers to the ability to temporarily store and manipulate information in one’s mind. When a child or an adult performs a task, they hold and process the information needed to complete it. Working memory is required in all demanding activities, such as problem-solving or following instructions. Its capacity is limited, and children of different ages can remember only a certain number of items at a time. In school settings, working memory is needed in situations such as the following:
- A teacher gives instructions to a student entering the classroom with outdoor clothing: “Hang your coat on the rack, put your hat on the shelf, and return to your seat.”
- A student reads an instruction: “Write your name, address, and email address on the paper.”
- A student begins to solve a maths problem: 5 + 1 + 3 × 4 = ?
In the first and second examples, the student must remember three separate instructions. In the first case, the instructions are spoken aloud; in the second, the student reads them independently. In the arithmetic example, the student must hold the numbers in mind, remember the order of operations, carry out the calculations, and monitor the intermediate steps. When working memory capacity is exceeded or overloaded, the student may forget the instructions.
Memory Grid
The Memory Grid task reflects memory span (Lehto et al., 2003; Miyake et al., 2000; Wild et al., 2008). Students watch a sequence of squares light up on a grid and then reproduce the sequence in the same order. They have three lives, and each mistake removes one life and shortens the sequence. The aim is to remember the longest possible sequence of flashing squares.
Inhibition
Inhibitory control refers to the regulation of behaviour and responses, particularly the ability to suppress irrelevant or inappropriate actions. It is a learned skill that is sometimes carried out automatically and sometimes applied consciously. In essence, it reflects the capacity to prevent habitual or automatic responses.
Examples from school settings include:
- A student waits for their turn even though they would like to speak immediately. The student is able to resist the impulse to speak because their inhibitory control is more developed.
- A student tries to focus on a school task, but a phone notification appears and captures their attention. The ability to resist checking the phone and continue working requires inhibition.
Difficulties with inhibition may appear as impulsivity, rapid shifts of attention, frequent task interruptions, and challenges in behavioural and emotional regulation. As a result, a student may find it difficult to maintain focus, as external distractions can easily draw their attention away.
Double Trouble
The Double Trouble task reflects inhibitory control (Lehto et al., 2003; Miyake et al., 2000; Wild et al., 2008). Students see colour words displayed in conflicting ink colours and must select the correct colour name rather than read the word itself. Correct answers earn points, while incorrect answers result in a point deduction. Students have 1 minute and 30 seconds to complete as many items as possible.
Shifting
Shifting, also referred to as flexibility, is the ability to shift attention quickly and appropriately from one focus to another. It reflects how well a student can adapt to changing situations, rules, or task demands.
Examples from school settings include:
- A student moves flexibly from one task to another or changes their problem-solving strategy when the first approach does not work.
- While completing exercises, a student notices when addition problems change to subtraction problems.
- A student can adapt to situational demands, such as moving between Finnish and English when required.
When shifting is less developed, a student may become fixated on a single approach to solving a problem, even when it is clear that the strategy needs to be changed.
Featured match
The Feature Match task reflects shifting skills (Lehto et al., 2003; Miyake et al., 2000; Wild et al., 2008). Students compare two pictures containing shapes that vary in colour, size, or orientation and decide whether they are the same or different. Correct answers earn points, and incorrect answers result in a point deduction. Students have 1 minute and 30 seconds to complete as many items as possible.
References
Aro, M., Eklund, K., Leppänen, P., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2011). Lukivaikeusriskin arviointi ja lukivaikeuden tunnistaminen suomen kielessä [Assessment of risk for dyslexia and identification of dyslexia in Finnish]. NMI-bulletin, 21(1), 3–14.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
Endlich, D., Lenhard, W., Marx, P., & Richter, T. (2025). Measuring spelling skills: A meta-analysis of the convergence of dictation and error detection tasks. Educational Research Review, 48, 100706.
De Smedt, B., Noël, M.-P., Gilmore, C., & Ansari, D. (2013). How do symbolic and nonsymbolic numerical magnitude processing skills relate to individual differences in children’s mathematical skills? A review of evidence from brain and behavior. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2(2), 48–55.
Di Blasi, F. D., Vizzi, F., Stimoli, M. A., Buono, S., Iaia, M., Zoccolotti, P., & Angelelli, P. (2023). Spelling deficits in children with intellectual disabilities: Evidence from a regular orthography. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1065525. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1065525
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799
Jacobson, C. (1995). Word Recognition Index (WRI) as a quick screening marker of dyslexia. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.1995.10558054
Jordan, N. C., & Hanich, L. B. (2003). Characteristics of children with moderate mathematics deficiencies: A longitudinal perspective. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 213–221
Keenan, J. M. (2016). Assessing the assessments: Reading comprehension tests. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 42(2), 17–21.
Lehto, J. E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive functioning: Evidence from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–80
Lehto, J. E., Scheinin, P., Kupiainen, S., & Hautamäki, J. (2001). National survey of reading comprehension in Finland. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00134
Li, Y., Zhang, M., Chen, Y., Deng, Z., Zhu, X., & Yan, S. (2018). Children’s non-symbolic and symbolic numerical representations and their associations with mathematical ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1035.
Lindeman, J. (1998). Ala-asteen lukutesti ALLU [Primary school reading test ALLU]. Turun yliopisto, Oppimistutkimuksen keskus.
Marcotte, A. M., Rick, F., & Wells, C. S. (2018). Investigating the reliability of the Sentence Verification Technique. International Journal of Testing, 19(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1464451
Meixner, J. M., Warner, G. J., Lensing, N., Schiefele, U., & Elsner, B. (2019). The relation between executive functions and reading comprehension in primary-school students: A cross-lagged-panel analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.05.004
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.
Mynttinen, S., & Lahti, P. (1999). Hiljainen lukeminen [Silent reading] (Proseminar thesis). Helsingin yliopisto, Kasvatustieteellinen tiedekunta.
Nevala, J., & Lyytinen, H. (2000). Sanaketjutesti [Word chain test]. Niilo Mäki Instituutti.
Nouwens, S., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). How working memory relates to children’s reading comprehension: The importance of domain-specificity in storage and processing. Reading and Writing, 30(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9665-0
Pichette, F., Béland, S., de Serres, L., & Lafontaine, M. (2014). Psychometric validation of the Sentence Verification Technique to assess L2 reading comprehension ability. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 10(2), 95–106.
Petrill, S. A., Logan, J. A. R., Hart, S. A., Vincent, P. A., Thompson, L. A., Kovas, Y., & Plomin, R. (2012). Math fluency is etiologically distinct from untimed math performance, decoding fluency, and untimed reading performance: Evidence from a twin study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 371–381.
Puolakanaho, A. (2008). Jo 3,5-vuotiaiden fonologiset, kielelliset ja kirjaintuntemuksen taidot ennakoivat toisen luokan lopun lukemisen taitoja [Phonological, language, and letter knowledge skills at age 3.5 predict reading skills at the end of second grade]. NMI-bulletin, 18(1), 4–16. Niilo Mäki -säätiö.
Robinson-Kooi, S., & Hammond, L. (2020). The Spelling Detective Project: A Year 2 Explicit Instruction Spelling Intervention. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2020v45n3.5
Royer, J. M. (2001). Developing reading and listening comprehension tests based on the Sentence Verification Technique (SVT). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(1), 30–41.
Royer, J. M., Hastings, C. N., & Hook, C. (1979). A Sentence Verification Technique for measuring reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(4), 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967909547332
Räsänen, P. (2012). Laskemiskyvyn häiriö eli dyskalkulia [Disorders of calculation ability, i.e., dyscalculia]. Lääketieteellinen Aikakauskirja Duodecim, 128(11), 1168–1177b.
Ståhlberg, L., Hotulainen, R., & Lehto, J. E. (2020). Lukuseulan toimivuus ja luotettavuus peruskoululaisten lukutaidon arvioinnissa [Validity and reliability of Read Grader in evaluating pupils’ reading skills]. NMI-bulletin, 30(3), 67–84.
Ståhlberg, L., Uusitalo, L., & Hotulainen, R. (2023). Lukutaidon yhteys suomi toisena kielenä ja kirjallisuus (S2) -oppimäärän valitsemiseen toisella ja seitsemännellä luokalla [The relationship between literacy skills and the choice of the Finnish as a second language and literature (S2) curriculum in second and seventh grades]. Oppimisen ja oppimisvaikeuksien erityislehti, 33(1), 54–72.
Takala, M., & Kuusela, J. (2009). Tarzan helps to find dyslexics: A pseudo-word test. Support for Learning, 24(2), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2009.01300.x
Vainikainen, M.-P., Hienonen, N., & Hotulainen, R. (2017). Class size as a means of three-tiered support in Finnish primary schools. Learning and Individual Differences, 56, 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.10.018
Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 407–423.
Wild, C. J., Nichols, E. S., Battista, M. E., Stojanoski, B., Sutherland, J., & Owen, A. M. (2008). Towards a standardized test battery for online cognitive assessment. Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.07.013
Xu, C., Lafay, A., Douglas, H., Di Lonardo Burr, S., LeFevre, J.-A., Osana, H. P., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Wylie, J., Simms, V., & Maloney, E. A. (2021). The role of mathematical language skills in arithmetic fluency and word-problem solving for first- and second-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.