2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of working memory components at 6years of age as predictors of reading achievements a year later

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
51
0
6

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
(55 reference statements)
3
51
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Concerning reading, the Backward DS was the most robust predictor for the three reading measures (particularly reading fluency, with 15.1% of unique variance), whereas the Forward DS (PL) contributed to only a small but significant proportion of the unique variance in reading fluency alone. In a sample of firstgraders, Nevo and Breznitz (2011) also found that the Backward DS task made the largest contribution to the explanation of unique variance in reading accuracy and in reading fluency, whereas the Forward DS task was a non-significant predictor. Similar to the VSSP tasks, the Trail B-A (CE) did not account for a significant degree of unique variance, suggesting that variance in reading is related to the storage and processing of verbal information rather than to shifting or visuospatial STM capacity.…”
Section: Predictive Effect Of Working Memory On Reading and Spelling mentioning
confidence: 81%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Concerning reading, the Backward DS was the most robust predictor for the three reading measures (particularly reading fluency, with 15.1% of unique variance), whereas the Forward DS (PL) contributed to only a small but significant proportion of the unique variance in reading fluency alone. In a sample of firstgraders, Nevo and Breznitz (2011) also found that the Backward DS task made the largest contribution to the explanation of unique variance in reading accuracy and in reading fluency, whereas the Forward DS task was a non-significant predictor. Similar to the VSSP tasks, the Trail B-A (CE) did not account for a significant degree of unique variance, suggesting that variance in reading is related to the storage and processing of verbal information rather than to shifting or visuospatial STM capacity.…”
Section: Predictive Effect Of Working Memory On Reading and Spelling mentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Furthermore, the presence of intact CE functioning in children with DD has also been reported (Kibby & Cohen, 2008;Landerl et al, 2009;van der Sluis, van der Leij, & de Jong, 2005). Numerous studies have found that CE predicted variance in reading decoding (Gathercole et al, 2006;Jerman et al, 2012;Nevo & Breznitz, 2011;Swanson & Ashbaker, 2000), reading comprehension (Sesma, Mahone, Levine, Eason, & Cutting, 2009;Swanson & Jerman, 2007), reading fluency (Berninger et al, 2006;Nevo & Breznitz, 2011;Swanson & Jerman, 2007), and mathematical ability (Andersson, 2008;Jerman et al, 2012). Conversely, some studies have not found a predictive effect of CE on reading accuracy and/or reading comprehension (Berninger et al, 2006;Sesma et al, 2009).…”
Section: Working Memory Impairments In Developmental Dyslexiamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Asimismo, la lectura es descrita como un dominio complejo que, según diferentes estudios, se relaciona con procesos neuropsicológicos y cognitivos, entre los que se encuentran las habilidades de procesamiento, la memoria de trabajo, las habilidades lingüísticas (Canet-Juric, Urquijo, Richard's & Burin, 2009;Nevo & Breznitz, 2011), la denominación automatizada rápida, la memoria a cortoplazo (Savage et al, 2005), la atención (Rosselli, Matute & Ardila, 2006) y las funciones ejecutivas (Sesma, Mahone, Levine, Eason & Cutting, 2009). …”
Section: Introductionunclassified