Literature DB >> 1460383

An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia.

L S Siegel1.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether children with dyslexia, that is, children whose reading levels were significantly lower than would be predicted by their IQ scores, constituted a distinctive group when compared with poor readers, that is, children whose reading scores were consistent with their IQ scores. The performance of children with dyslexia, poor readers, and normally achieving readers was compared on a variety of reading, spelling, phonological processing, language, and memory tasks. Although the children with dyslexia had significantly higher IQ scores than the poor readers, these two groups did not differ in their performance on reading, spelling, phonological processing, or most of the language and memory tasks. In all cases, the performance of both reading disabled groups was significantly below that of nondisabled readers. The findings were similar whether absolute difference or regression scores were used. Reading disabled children, whether or not their reading is significantly below the level predicted by their IQ scores, experience significant problems in phonological processing, short-term and working memory, and syntactic awareness. On the basis of these data, there does not seem to be a need to differentiate between individuals with dyslexia and poor readers. Both of these groups are reading disabled and have deficits in phonological processing, verbal memory, and syntactic awareness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1460383     DOI: 10.1177/002221949202501001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Learn Disabil        ISSN: 0022-2194


  13 in total

1.  Cortical auditory signal processing in poor readers.

Authors:  S Nagarajan; H Mahncke; T Salz; P Tallal; T Roberts; M M Merzenich
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1999-05-25       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption.

Authors:  Christopher Schatschneider; Richard K Wagner; Elizabeth C Crawford
Journal:  Learn Individ Differ       Date:  2008

3.  Longitudinal stability of pre-reading skill profiles of kindergarten children: implications for early screening and theories of reading.

Authors:  Ola Ozernov-Palchik; Elizabeth S Norton; Georgios Sideridis; Sara D Beach; Maryanne Wolf; John D E Gabrieli; Nadine Gaab
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2016-10-17

4.  Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic Difficulties.

Authors:  Jack M Fletcher; Sharon Vaughn
Journal:  Child Dev Perspect       Date:  2009-04

5.  Gender Differences in Reading Impairment and in the Identification of Impaired Readers: Results From a Large-Scale Study of At-Risk Readers.

Authors:  Jamie M Quinn; Richard K Wagner
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2013-10-23

6.  IQ Is Not Strongly Related to Response to Reading Instruction: A Meta-Analytic Interpretation.

Authors:  Karla K Stuebing; Amy E Barth; Peter J Molfese; Brandon Weiss; Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  Except Child       Date:  2009-10-01

Review 7.  Why IQ is not a covariate in cognitive studies of neurodevelopmental disorders.

Authors:  Maureen Dennis; David J Francis; Paul T Cirino; Russell Schachar; Marcia A Barnes; Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  J Int Neuropsychol Soc       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.892

8.  The relationship between cerebral hemisphere volume and receptive language functioning in dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Authors:  Michelle Y Kibby; Shital P Pavawalla; Jill B Fancher; Angela J Naillon; George W Hynd
Journal:  J Child Neurol       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 1.987

9.  Perspectives on dyslexia.

Authors:  Linda S Siegel
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.253

10.  Global gray matter morphometry differences between children with reading disability, ADHD, and comorbid reading disability/ADHD.

Authors:  Audreyana C Jagger-Rickels; Michelle Y Kibby; Jordan M Constance
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 2.381

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.