Phonological representations of adult poor readers: An investigation of specificity and stability

Abstract

The phonological representations of adult less skilled readers (n = 25) were studied in comparison to those of adult skilled readers (n = 25) and adolescent reading-age controls (n = 25). Participants were tested on a paired confrontation naming and spelling test, given two times to evaluate consistency of performance, and a pseudoword repetition task. On confrontation naming, less skilled readers were less accurate and less consistent, and they made more phonological errors. Likewise, their spellings were less accurate and consistent than those of the control groups; inaccurate naming influenced their spelling significantly more often than it did the spelling of adult skilled readers. They also had fewer correct responses on the pseudoword repetition task. The results confirm that there are weaknesses in the phonological representations of known and new words for adult less skilled readers, with observable consequences for spelling.

Effects of Visual and Phonological Distinctness on Visual–verbal Paired Associate Learning in Dutch Dyslexic and Normal Readers

“…Phonological representations of dyslexics have been described as poor, less segmentalized, underspecified, and indistinct (Dietrich & Brady, 2001;Elbro, 1996;Metsala & Walley, 1998). Such impoverished phonological representations have been hypothesized to have direct and indirect effects on the development of accurate and fluent reading (e.g., Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004).…”

Improving the spelling ability of Grade 3 learners through visual imaging teaching strategies

“…Other researchers (e.g. Dietrich & Brady, 2001;Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990) hold the opinion that lexical and phonological systems interact, suggesting the pre-eminence of a single route for spelling (i.e. the connectionist theory).…”

Early phonological and lexical markers of reading disabilities

“…Children with reading disability are often reported to have subtle impairments in expressive phonology and vocabulary (Masterson & Kamhi, 1992;Olofsson & Niedersøe, 1999;Scarborough, 1990aScarborough, , 2001Shankweiler et al, 1995;Speece, Roth, Cooper, & De La Paz, 1999). Such impairments become apparent with a variety of language tasks including confrontation naming (e.g., Dietrich & Brady, 2001) and speeded repetition (e.g., Catts, 1989;Fawcett & Nicholson, 2002). A number of explanations have been offered to account for these subtle impairments including differences in perceptual abilities (Lyytinen, 1997;Molfese et al, 2002;Treiman, 1992) and problems with perceiving, storing, and retrieving phonological information (Bowey, 2001;Dietrich & Brady, 2001;Griffiths & Snowling, 2001;Thomas & Sénéchal, 2004).…”

“…Such impairments become apparent with a variety of language tasks including confrontation naming (e.g., Dietrich & Brady, 2001) and speeded repetition (e.g., Catts, 1989;Fawcett & Nicholson, 2002). A number of explanations have been offered to account for these subtle impairments including differences in perceptual abilities (Lyytinen, 1997;Molfese et al, 2002;Treiman, 1992) and problems with perceiving, storing, and retrieving phonological information (Bowey, 2001;Dietrich & Brady, 2001;Griffiths & Snowling, 2001;Thomas & Sénéchal, 2004). Regardless of the underlying cause of the impairment, it remains uncertain when production difficulties first emerge in children with reading disability and how they may influence early language production.…”