Response cost and impulsive word recognition errors in reading-disabled children

1978 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah E. Brent ◽  
Donald K. Routh
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Response Cost ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Recognition Errors ◽  
Reading Disabled

Training the word recognition skills of reading disabled children: Treatment and transfer effects.

1990 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 769-780 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen W. Lovett ◽  
Patricia M. Warren-Chaplin ◽  
Marilyn J. Ransby ◽  
Susan L. Borden
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Transfer Effects ◽  
Reading Disabled

Word recognition processes of poor and disabled readers: Do they necessarily differ?

1985 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark S. Seidenberg ◽  
Margaret Bruck ◽  
Gail Fornarolo ◽  
Joan Backman
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Reading Performance ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Actual Reading ◽  
Average Reader ◽  
Disabled Readers ◽  
Good And Poor Readers ◽  
Regular Patterns ◽  
Reading Disabled

ABSTRACTChildren assessed as reading disabled are often thought to use decoding processes that differ from those of nondisabled children. This assumption was examined in a study that compared the word recognition skills of a group of clinic-diagnosed reading disabled children with those of good and poor readers. Subjects read words and nonwords containing either regular or homographic spelling patterns. Regular patterns have a single pronunciation (e.g., -UST) while homographic patterns have multiple pronunciations (e.g., -ONE). Analyses of the errors, latencies, and types of pronunciations indicated that while the performance of the poor and disabled readers differed from that of the good readers, the two below-average reader groups were very similar. The reading disabled children exhibited decoding processes similar to those exhibited by younger nondisabled readers. The results suggest that many children who meet the diagnostic criteria for reading disability may be indistinguishable from nondisabled children in terms of actual reading performance.

Inferential Word-Decoding Weakness in Reading Disabled Children

1986 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peggy T. Ackerman ◽  
Jean M. Anhalt ◽  
Roscoe A. Dykman
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Recent Work ◽  
Direct Instruction ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Word Decoding ◽  
Phonological Sensitivity ◽  
Inferential Thinking ◽  
Carry Over ◽  
Reading Disabled

Evidence is presented that a large number of reading disabled (RD) children, especially younger ones, exhibit impaired inferential thinking in a head-fitted word-decoding task. This weakness is theorized to be linked to a lag in the development of phonological sensitivity. Recent work is reviewed that suggests phonological sensitivity can be enhanced by direct instruction, with carry-over benefits to word-recognition skill.

Televised classroom events as distractors for reading-disabled children

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Patton ◽  
Donald K. Routh ◽  
Stuart I. Offenbach
Keyword(s):  
Disabled Children ◽  
Reading Disabled

Event-Related Brain Potentials in Reading Disabled Children during an Inverse Serial Digit Detection Task

2008 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabiola R. Gómez-Velázquez ◽  
Andrés A. González-Garrido ◽  
Daniel Zarabozo ◽  
J. L. Oropeza de Alba
Keyword(s):  
Detection Task ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Brain Potentials ◽  
Reading Disabled

Defense of the syntactic deficit hypothesis: A reply to Goodluck

1985 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-193
Author(s):  
Cecile L. Stein ◽  
Edgar B. Zurif ◽  
Helen S. Cairns
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Theoretical Issues ◽  
Reading Disabled

At the outset we wish to thank the editors of Applied Psycholinguistics for inviting us to reply to Goodluck's criticisms of our paper, “Sentence Comprehension Limitations Related to Syntactic Deficits in Reading Disabled Children” (Vol. 5, No. 4). Our response can be summarized in two points: First, the theoretical questions raised by Goodluck are largely unresolved and premature. Second, and most important, is the point that however the theoretical issues are ultimately resolved, one of the basic conclusions of the Stein, Cairns, and Zurif article remains unassailed – viz., that the interpretation of temporal complement constructions in English reveals a deficit in the grammatical System of some reading disabled children. This note will bear an organization analogous to that of Goodluck.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document