Dyslexia and oral reading errors

Singleton, Chris

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00248.x

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are strikingly similar to what has been reported before in studies of younger participants with dyslexia (see, e.g. Thomson, 1978;Singleton, 2005), speaking to a continuity of problems in individuals with dyslexia. The great number of wordlevel errors indicates that university students with dyslexia still have decoding problems, and the process of applying the phonological and morphological principles to text while reading orally is not automatized (note that in Danish, similar Reading Processes of Students with Dyslexia to English, both levels are needed to arrive at the correct pronunciation).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The main measure was the number of oral errors during the text reading, including errors that were subsequently self-corrected (for further details on error (or miscue) analysis, see Goodman, 1969;Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 1987;Singleton, 2005;Thomson, 1978). If the reader made multiple unsuccessful attempts at a word, we counted only the last attempt as the error.…”

Section: Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only very few studies since Thomson (1978) have examined what kinds of reading errors readers with developmental dyslexia make while reading and how these errors might affect reading comprehension. All these studies have examined younger readers and shown, similar to Thomson (1978), that oral reading errors are mostly decoding (graphophonic or phonemic) errors with syntactic and semantic errors being rarer and possibly increasing with better reading skills (see Singleton, 2005, for an overview). Whether these results generalize to older readers with dyslexia is unknown and the semantic quality of the errors made by dyslexic readers (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reading Processes of University Students with Dyslexia – An Examination of the Relationship between Oral Reading and Reading Comprehension

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the quality of oral reading and how it relates to reading comprehension in students with dyslexia. A group of Danish university students with dyslexia (n = 16) and a comparison group of students with no history of reading problems (n = 16) were assessed on their oral reading performance when reading a complex text. Along with reading speed, we measured not only the number and quality of reading errors but also the extent and semantic nature of the self-corrections during reading. The reading comprehension was measured through aided text retellings. The results showed that, as a group, the dyslexics performed poorer on most measures, but there were notable within-group differences in the reading behaviours and little association between how well university students with dyslexia read aloud and comprehended the text. These findings suggest that many dyslexics in higher education tend to focus their attention on one subcomponent of the reading process, for example, decoding or comprehension, because engaging in both simultaneously may be too demanding for them. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Errorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reading Processes of University Students with Dyslexia – An Examination of the Relationship between Oral Reading and Reading Comprehension

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with this view, the recommended practice in the remedial teaching of poor readers is to focus on words that are read incorrectly (e.g., Bender, 2004; Martens, Witt, Daly, & Volmer, 1999). Insofar as reading errors offer a window on the reading process that children use to read words (Allen, 1976; Au, 1977; Goodman, 1969; Savage, Stuart, & Hill, 2001; Singleton, 2005; Weber, 1970), the analysis of errors and miscues may be important in determining directions in reading instruction (McKenna & Picard, 2006), and therefore is advocated in popular textbooks for reading instruction in the primary school (e.g., Beard, 1990; Graham & Kelly, 1997; Roberts, 1989). Hall (2003) showed that a study of reading errors can be very instructive and helps teachers to gain an understanding of children and their difficulties.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving word reading speed: individual differences interact with a training focus on successes or failures

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of two training procedures on the development of reading speed in poor readers is examined. One training concentrates on the words the children read correctly (successes), the other on the words they read incorrectly (failures). Children were either informed or not informed about the training focus. A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 79 poor readers. They repeatedly read regularly spelled Dutch consonant–vowel–consonant words, some children their successes, others their failures. The training used a computerized flashcards format. The exposure duration of the words was varied to maintain an accuracy rate at a constant level. Reading speed improved and transferred to untrained, orthographically more complex words. These transfer effects were characterized by an Aptitude-Treatment Interaction. Poor readers with a low initial reading level improved most in the training focused on successes. For poor readers with a high initial reading level, however, it appeared to be more profitable to practice with their failures. Informing students about the focus of the training positively affected training: The exposure duration needed for children informed about the focus of the training decreased more than for children who were not informed. This study suggests that neither of the two interventions is superior to the other in general. Rather, the improvement of general reading speed in a transparent orthography is closely related to both the children’s initial reading level and the type of words they practice with: common and familiar words when training their successes and uncommon and less familiar words with training their failures.

show abstract

“…Hundreds of studies have been conducted in the field of miscue analysis, with a main contribution being the provision of evidence that the reading process is related to a reader's use of his or her knowledge of a specific language (Brown, Goodman, & Marek, 1996). Other research on reading miscues has been conducted from perspectives that differ from those of the field's originators, shedding light on the types of miscues used by readers of differing ability levels and their implications for instructing people with dyslexia (Filippatou, 2004;Laing, 2002;Singleton, 2005;Thomson, 1978Thomson, /2005). This study examines readers' miscues in a different light: it focuses on the degree to which they interfere with the decoding of neighboring text and how they affect the comprehension of text that follow a reader's deviations from print.…”

Section: Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a reading error?

Labov

Baker

2010

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early efforts to apply knowledge of dialect differences to reading stressed the importance of the distinction between differences in pronunciation and mistakes in reading. This study develops a method of estimating the probability that a given oral reading that deviates from the text is a true reading error by observing the semantic impact of the given pronunciation on the child's reading of the text that immediately follows. A diagnostic oral reading test was administered to 627 children who scored in the 33rd percentile range and below on state-mandated assessments in reading in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Atlanta, Georgia, and California elementary schools. Subjects were African American, European American, and Latino, including Latinos who learned to read in Spanish and in English first. For 12 types of dialect-related deviations from the text that were studied, the error rates in reading the following text were calculated for correct readings, incorrect readings, and potential errors. For African Americans, many of these potential errors behaved like correct readings. The opposite pattern was found for Latinos who learned to read in Spanish first: most types of potential errors showed the high percentage of following errors that is characteristic of true errors. This article considers the question "What is a reading error?" based on a study of 627 struggling readers in inner city elementary schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Atlanta, Georgia, and California. 1 The work reported here is drawn from an initial assessment of reading skills in research on the effectiveness of an individualized reading program for raising reading levels. It provides a general answer to the question of how to define a reading error, and a method for determining the answer for any specific type. It also demonstrates differences in the profiles of reading errors of different groups who come to the task of reading English with different dialects and language backgrounds, and the probability that a given deviation from the standard reading of a text represents a failure to properly decode and comprehend that text.Early research on dialect differences in the pronunciation of English pointed to the consequence of these differences for reading research. Initial studies of The research problems addressed here spring from the observed difficulty in distinguishing differences in pronunciation from the wrong selections of the word intended in the text. To this end, we initially distinguish "clear errors," where the wrong word has clearly been identified, from "potential errors," which may only represent differences in pronunciation of the target word. We are particularly interested in potential errors that are related to dialect differences and classify them by the type of phonological or grammatical elements involved.Three research questions are addressed in the work described here. First, can reading errors be distinguished from differences in pronunciation in the oral productions of struggling readers? To answer this question, we argue...

show abstract

Dyslexia and oral reading errors

Cited by 6 publications

References 53 publications

Reading Processes of University Students with Dyslexia – An Examination of the Relationship between Oral Reading and Reading Comprehension

Reading Processes of University Students with Dyslexia – An Examination of the Relationship between Oral Reading and Reading Comprehension

Improving word reading speed: individual differences interact with a training focus on successes or failures

What is a reading error?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About