Reading Disabilities: Diagnosis and Component Processes 1993
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-1988-7_1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Problems in the Differential Diagnosis of Reading Disabilities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 129 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, although the ANOVA repeated measures analysis on the language measures yielded significant main effects for measurement point for both tests, indicating that over the one-month period, in kindergarten, both the PREP and the control group had advanced in their language skills alike, neither the group x measurement point interaction, nor the group effect was significant. Thus, the present findings seem to favor a version of the phonological deficit explanation (e.g., Stanovich, 1993) that would posit a dysfunction of the phonological module that has little to do with segmental and blending awareness difficulties as well as short-term memory deficits. Most likely, a combined deficit in phonemic awareness and speech rate, in accord with Porpodas (1999) might be the dominant cognitive deficit of the Greek children who are at-risk to develop reading difficulties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Indeed, although the ANOVA repeated measures analysis on the language measures yielded significant main effects for measurement point for both tests, indicating that over the one-month period, in kindergarten, both the PREP and the control group had advanced in their language skills alike, neither the group x measurement point interaction, nor the group effect was significant. Thus, the present findings seem to favor a version of the phonological deficit explanation (e.g., Stanovich, 1993) that would posit a dysfunction of the phonological module that has little to do with segmental and blending awareness difficulties as well as short-term memory deficits. Most likely, a combined deficit in phonemic awareness and speech rate, in accord with Porpodas (1999) might be the dominant cognitive deficit of the Greek children who are at-risk to develop reading difficulties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…It has been constantly confirmed that strong phonics or decoding programs produce higher reading achievement compared to programs with a less direct instruction in systematic sound-spelling patterns even with weaker readers (e.g., Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shankweiler, Katz, Liberman, Stuebing, Francis, Fowler, & Shaywitz, 1994;Poorman, Francis, & Fletcher, 1998;Torgesen, 1997;Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denckla, 1996). This conclusion derives mostly from the evidence supporting a strong connection between children's awareness of the constituent sounds in words and their success in learning to read, which seems to be indisputable for many researchers (Bradley & Bryant, 1985;Kirtley, Bryant, MacLean, & Bradley, 1989;Stanovich, 1993). Moreover, research findings reveal that children who are better at detecting syllables, rhymes, or phonemes are quicker to learn to read (i.c., decode words), and this relation is present even after variability in reading skill due to intelligence, receptive vocabulary, memory skills, and social class is partialed out (Bryant, MacLean, Bradley, & Crossland, 1990;MacLean, Bryant, & Bradley, 1987;.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Siegel, 1992), whereas in the 'garden variety' poor readers, the phonological deficit is suggested to coexist with deficiencies in other information processing strategies (Stanovich, 1988). This approach is developed into an explicit model of reading difficulties in Stanovich's (1988Stanovich's ( , 1991Stanovich's ( , 1993 phonological core variable difference model, which states that the vast majority 1 of children with reading disability have phonological deficits but may vary considerably in other information processing characteristics.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%