阅读水平匹配设计揭示了透明矫形术中特定阅读障碍的含义以及我们对它的信任程度

IF 2.9 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Natalia V. Rakhlin, Catalina Mourgues, T. Logvinenko, Alexander N. Kornev, E. Grigorenko
{"title":"阅读水平匹配设计揭示了透明矫形术中特定阅读障碍的含义以及我们对它的信任程度","authors":"Natalia V. Rakhlin, Catalina Mourgues, T. Logvinenko, Alexander N. Kornev, E. Grigorenko","doi":"10.1080/10888438.2022.2095279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Purpose To assess strengths and weaknesses of the reading level (RL) match approach and its potential to generate insights regarding the cognitive foundations of reading ability and disability. Method We applied RL-match design to a sample of 2nd – 6th graders reading a consistent orthography, Russian, using an “extreme phenotype” approach. Readers with suspected specific reading disability (sSRD, n = 538) and high-performing readers (HPR; n = 806) were matched via propensity Scores, using IQ and each of the alternatives: accuracy of word decoding, pseudoword decoding, word unitization, or paragraph reading fluency. In each case, two groups were compared on the remaining literacy tasks as well as phonological processing, orthographic processing, and rapid serial naming. Results When matched on word or pseudoword decoding (288 and 313 pairs, respectively), readers with sSRD and HPR differed on all remaining indicators. When matched on word unitization (173 pairs), the differences disappeared or had substantially diminished effect sizes. When matched on paragraph reading fluency (57 pairs), no significant differences remained. Thus, none of the componential skills appeared antecedent to the observed difficulties assessed via the number of correctly orally read words per minute. However, certain inherent limitations of RL-match design preclude us from considering this to be a definitive outcome.","PeriodicalId":48032,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Studies of Reading","volume":"27 1","pages":"101 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Reading-Level Match Design Reveals about Specific Reading Disability in a Transparent Orthography and How Much We Can Trust It\",\"authors\":\"Natalia V. Rakhlin, Catalina Mourgues, T. Logvinenko, Alexander N. Kornev, E. Grigorenko\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10888438.2022.2095279\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Purpose To assess strengths and weaknesses of the reading level (RL) match approach and its potential to generate insights regarding the cognitive foundations of reading ability and disability. Method We applied RL-match design to a sample of 2nd – 6th graders reading a consistent orthography, Russian, using an “extreme phenotype” approach. Readers with suspected specific reading disability (sSRD, n = 538) and high-performing readers (HPR; n = 806) were matched via propensity Scores, using IQ and each of the alternatives: accuracy of word decoding, pseudoword decoding, word unitization, or paragraph reading fluency. In each case, two groups were compared on the remaining literacy tasks as well as phonological processing, orthographic processing, and rapid serial naming. Results When matched on word or pseudoword decoding (288 and 313 pairs, respectively), readers with sSRD and HPR differed on all remaining indicators. When matched on word unitization (173 pairs), the differences disappeared or had substantially diminished effect sizes. When matched on paragraph reading fluency (57 pairs), no significant differences remained. Thus, none of the componential skills appeared antecedent to the observed difficulties assessed via the number of correctly orally read words per minute. However, certain inherent limitations of RL-match design preclude us from considering this to be a definitive outcome.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48032,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Studies of Reading\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"101 - 118\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Studies of Reading\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2095279\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Studies of Reading","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2095279","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

【摘要】目的评估阅读水平匹配方法的优缺点,并探讨其对阅读能力和阅读障碍认知基础的影响。方法采用“极端表型”方法,采用rl匹配设计,对阅读俄语统一正字法的二、六年级学生进行研究。怀疑有特殊阅读障碍的读者(sSRD, n = 538)和高绩效读者(HPR;n = 806)通过倾向得分匹配,使用智商和每个选项:单词解码的准确性,伪单词解码,单词统一,或段落阅读流畅性。在每种情况下,两组被试在其余的识字任务、语音处理、正字法处理和快速序列命名方面进行比较。结果在单词和伪单词解码配对(分别为288对和313对)时,sSRD组和HPR组在其余指标上均存在差异。当在单词统一(173对)上匹配时,差异消失或显著减小效应大小。在段落阅读流畅性方面(57对),没有显著差异。因此,没有任何组成技能出现在通过每分钟正确口头阅读单词的数量来评估观察到的困难之前。然而,rl匹配设计的某些固有限制使我们无法将其视为确定的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What Reading-Level Match Design Reveals about Specific Reading Disability in a Transparent Orthography and How Much We Can Trust It
ABSTRACT Purpose To assess strengths and weaknesses of the reading level (RL) match approach and its potential to generate insights regarding the cognitive foundations of reading ability and disability. Method We applied RL-match design to a sample of 2nd – 6th graders reading a consistent orthography, Russian, using an “extreme phenotype” approach. Readers with suspected specific reading disability (sSRD, n = 538) and high-performing readers (HPR; n = 806) were matched via propensity Scores, using IQ and each of the alternatives: accuracy of word decoding, pseudoword decoding, word unitization, or paragraph reading fluency. In each case, two groups were compared on the remaining literacy tasks as well as phonological processing, orthographic processing, and rapid serial naming. Results When matched on word or pseudoword decoding (288 and 313 pairs, respectively), readers with sSRD and HPR differed on all remaining indicators. When matched on word unitization (173 pairs), the differences disappeared or had substantially diminished effect sizes. When matched on paragraph reading fluency (57 pairs), no significant differences remained. Thus, none of the componential skills appeared antecedent to the observed difficulties assessed via the number of correctly orally read words per minute. However, certain inherent limitations of RL-match design preclude us from considering this to be a definitive outcome.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
2.70%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: This journal publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and, occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature, papers focused on theory development, and discussions of social policy issues. Papers range from very basic studies to those whose main thrust is toward educational practice. The journal also includes work on "all aspects of reading and its related areas," a phrase that is sufficiently general to encompass issues related to word recognition, comprehension, writing, intervention, and assessment involving very young children and/or adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信