Do the Effects of Computer-Assisted Practice Differ for Children with Reading Disabilities With and Without IQ—Achievement Discrepancy?

Abstract

This study was designed to assess whether the effects of computer-assisted practice on visual word recognition differed for children with reading disabilities (RD) with or without aptitude-achievement discrepancy. A sample of 73 Spanish children with low reading performance was selected using the discrepancy method, based on a standard score comparison (i.e., the difference between IQ and achievement standard scores). The sample was classified into three groups: (1) a group of 14 children with dyslexia (age M = 103.85 months; SD = 8.45) who received computer-based reading practice; (2) a group of 31 "garden-variety" (GV) poor readers (age M = 107.06 months; SD = 6.75) who received the same type of instruction; and (3) a group of 28 children with low reading performance (age M = 103.33 months; SD = 9.04) who did not receive computer-assisted practice. Children were pre- and posttested in word recognition, reading comprehension, phonological awareness, and visual and phonological tasks. The results indicated that both computer-assisted intervention groups showed improved word recognition compared to the control group. Nevertheless, children with dyslexia had more difficulties than GV poor readers during computer-based word reading under conditions that required extensive phonological computation, because their performance was more affected by low-frequency words and long words. In conclusion, we did not find empirical evidence in favor of the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability, because IQ did not differentially predict treatment outcomes.

Are Phonological Processes Separate from the Processes Underlying Naming Speed in a Shallow Orthography?

“…Differences between good readers and the reading disabled become more apparent when pseudowords or words with low frequency are used. For this reason, pseudoword reading is the most commonly used task in Spanish to select dyslexic children characterized by difficulties in using the phonological route (Guzmán et al, 2004;Jiménez et al, 2003).…”

Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders

“…An IQ cutpoint of 80 was chosen because the WISC-III manual defines normal to above normal intelligence as an IQ of 80 or above (Wechsler, 1991) and because this is the cutoff used in most LD research studies (Anderson et al, 2001;Casey, Rourke, & Del Dotto, 1996;Fletcher et al, 1998;Graham, 1990;Hall et al, 1997;Jimenez et al, 2003;Kershner, 1990;Kupietz, 1990;Mayes, Calhoun, & Crowell, 1998Shaywitz et al, 1990). Children with IQs of 80 or higher were categorized as having or not having a specific learning disability in reading (either reading decoding or reading comprehension), math, and written expression.…”

Processing speed in children with clinical disorders

“…A cutoff age of 8 years was used because the WIAT Written Expression subtest cannot be administered to younger children. An IQ cutpoint of 80 was chosen because the WISC-III manual defines normal to abovenormal intelligence as an IQ Ն 80 (Wechsler, 1991) and because this is the cutoff used in most LD research studies (Anderson, Kutash, & Duchnowski, 2001;Casey, Rourke, & Del Dotto, 1996;Fletcher et al, 1998;Hall, Halperin, Schwartz, & Newcorn, 1997;Jimenez et al, 2003;Mayes et al, 1998a;Mayes, Calhoun, & Crowell, 2000). The WISC-III and the WIAT were used to compare IQ and achievement because these tests have a co-normed linking sample allowing for direct comparison of standard scores on the two tests (vs. comparing IQ and achievement test scores on different tests normed on different samples at different times).…”