A. THE PROBLEMT h e relationship of lateral dominance, or sidedness, to reading disability has been a problem area in research for many years. O n the one hand, research workers like Dearborn (2) and Marion Monroe ( 7 ) have reported significant relationships. O n the other hand, there have been many studies with negative results, such as those of Bennett ( l ) , Gates and Bond ( 3 ) , Johnston ( 6 ) , and Witty and Kopel ( 1 1). Among the recent studies, Smith's finding (9) that Van Riper's Critical Angle-Board Test ( 10) showed significant relationships with reading disability while other measures of hand and eye dominance did not, provides an inference that with better tests we will get more significant results, So does the recent very extensive German research of Nutzhorn ( S ) , who concluded that the incompletely left-sided tended to show more difficulties of many kinds than either the right-sided or the strongly left-sided. This paper will present evidence that when appropriate tests are used, there is a significant relationship between certain aspects of lateral dominance and reading disability.
B. THE TESTST h e Harris Tests of Lateral Dominance ( 4 ) were first assembled in an experimental edition in 1941, were published with a manual of directions and record form in 1947, and slightly revised in 1956, after 10 additional years of clinical try-out. They include a test of knowledge of left and right, five tests of hand dominance, two tests of eye dominance, and a test (now two tests) of foot dominance. T w o additional tests in the original battery, one of hand dominance and one of eye dominance, have been dropped. T h e tests can be given from age six up and the complete series takes from 10 15 minutes.
Describes 13 reading vocabulary lists and draws comparisons between the Harris-Jacobson Basic Elementary Reading Vocabularies and the other 12 lists. A high degree of agreement was found on the most common 2,000 words, corresponding to the H-J words for the first 3 grades. For grades 4 through 6 the overlapping among lists drawn from children's materials was a little lower, but still high. However, nearly half of the words in a sample of the Kucera-Francis adult list at frequencies corresponding to upper sixth grade are quite uncommon in elementary reading materials. There is considerably less agreement on the reading levels and relative frequencies of specific words than on their presence or absence. The data presented are discussd both for what they show about each of the 12 comparison lists, and as casting light on the validity of the H-J list which served as the criterion. Quelques comparisons entre les Vocabulaires Fondamentaux de la Lecture Eledmentaire et d'autres glassaires DECRIT 13 LISTES de vocabulaire et compare le Harris-Jacobson Vocabulaire de la Lecture fondamentale rimnentaire a 12 autres glossaires. On constate un haut degr6 de conformite parmi ces divers listes lorsqu'il s'agit des 2.000 mots les plus communement usit6s. Ces mots correspondent A ceux que l'on trouve dans le glossaire de H-J et on les recontre surtout dans les classes primaires (1-3). Quant aux classes qui vont de la 4eme " la 6"me, la conformite reste importante bien que sensiblement moins grande. Cette observation a 6te faite d'apres une etude 87
This paper reviews the recent research bearing on the single cause/multiple cause controversy in regard to reading disabilities. The inadequacy of the common practice of comparing a group of disabled readers with a control group is noted. A number of single-factor theories are reviewed, including those of Orton, Levinson, Delacato, Bender, Frostig, and Vellutino. Recent research pointing to multiple causation is summarized, including clinically based studies and those employing statistical techniques such as cluster analysis and Q technique. There seem to be at least three main types of reading disability and possibly several less common ones, with great individual variations in constitutional, environmental, and motivational handicaps.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.