Preference for Visual Scanning Strategies Versus Phonological Rehearsal in University Students with Reading Disabilities

Abstract

This study investigated strategic preferences for visual scanning versus phonological rehearsal for recognizing words, pronounceable letter strings, and symbol strings by university students with reading disabilities (RD). Forty-seven subjects participated in this study: 20 students with reading disabilities who reported current difficulties in reading, as well as problems in learning to read at an early age; 15 students with learning disabilities (LD) who reported current difficulties in learning in areas other than reading but did not recall difficulties in learning to read; and 12 nondisabled readers (NR). The main dependent measures were response latency on a matching task for words, nonwords, and symbol strings, and posttest verbal reports of strategies used. Results showed that (a) most subjects in the NR group consistently used a strategy of phonological rehearsal for both words and nonwords, whereas most subjects with RD consistently used a strategy of visual scanning for these tasks, and (b) the NR group responded significantly faster than did the RD and LD groups to all three types of stimuli. The results indicate differences between university students who have a reading disability and nondisabled readers in strategic preferences for processing phonological information, with a clear preference by the former for using visual scanning rather than phonological rehearsal in matching tasks of words and nonwords.

The Assessment of Adults with Reading Disabilities: What Can We Learn from Experimental Tasks?

“…These adults with dyslexia differed from average readers on a measure of pseudoword reading and a measure of distinctness of oral pronunciation. These findings indicate that adults with reading disabilities have persistent deficits in phonemic awareness, as measured by experimental tasks designed to tap higher level phonological processing (see also Shafrir and Siegel, 1994).…”

“…Lyon, 1994). Researchers have examined possible causes of reading disabilities in children in great detail and have found core phonological processing deficits (Hatcher, Hulme and Ellis, 1994;Liberman and Shankweiler, 1985;Shankweiler, Crain, Brady and Macaruso, 1992;Siegel, 1993;Siegel and Ryan, 1988;Stanovich, 1988;Stanovich and Siegel, 1994). As a result of these findings, standardised measures of phonological processing have been developed for use with children (Lindamood and Lindamood, 1979;Torgesen, Bryant, Wagner and Pearson, in press).…”

“…On the other hand, the literature dealing with basic processes in adults with reading disabilities is less extensive (see Bruck, 1990Bruck, , 1992Pennington, van Orden, Smith, Green and Haith, 1990;Shafrir and Siegel, 1994). Pennington and his colleagues have attempted to determine the performance profile of adults with dyslexia in order to aid in the search for genetic causes.…”

Holistic word processing in dyslexia

“…Replicating many previous studies that show poorer phonological skills in dyslexia, this study also showed superior orthographic skills suggesting that dyslexic readers rely more on visual strategies and visual memory in learning to read. However, superior orthographic skills may not imply perceptual expertise in the sense of automatic or holistic recognition of word forms, e.g., while college students with dyslexia prefer a visual over a phonological strategy in matching words and non-words, this often includes a letter by letter visual scanning strategy [ 46 ]. And there is evidence that some aspects of orthographic knowledge, specifically letter position, is poorly developed in dyslexic children [ 43 ].…”

Confessions and reflections of the black sheep of the learning disabilities field

“…There was no attempt to differentiate subtypes -all students with an LD were lumped into one vague category. I published a number of papers advocating more precise definitions, based on achievement test scores and a recognition that there were at least two different subtypes (a reading disability and an arithmetic disability) and that not all children and adults with SLD were the same (Shafrir & Siegel, 1994a, 1994bSiegel, 1993Siegel, , 1999Siegel & Faux, 1989;Siegel & Linder, 1984;Siegel & Ryan, 1984, 1988, 1989a, 1989b.…”