Proximal Analysis of Developmental Dyslexia in Adulthood: The Cognitive Mosaic Model.

Abstract

Dyslexic students may be disadvantaged in their use of written language, impeding academic achievement, and requiring remediation and concessions. A proximal analysis assessed the operations of the 3 major pathways (orthography to semantics, orthography to phonology, and phonology to orthography) within models of reading and spelling through lexical decision, reading aloud, and spelling aloud. No dyslexic individual exactly matched the group outcomes on all of the indicators, and no 2 dyslexic individuals presented identical profiles. A multicomponent mosaic model is supported whereby dyslexic difficulties relate to functions that require manipulation of orthographic and phonological units. A documented history and cognitive indicators of orthographic processing may offer a viable approach to the diagnosis, remediation, and concession of adult dyslexia in higher education.

Trajectories of Reading Development: A Follow-up From Birth to School Age of Children With and Without Risk for Dyslexia

“…The composite was formed by calculating a grand mean of scores. The battery of tests included computerized tests (Cognitive Workshop, Universities of Dundee and Jyväskylä; see Erskine & Seymour, 2005, for extensive implementation), tests with national norms (Lindeman, 2000), and specially designed group Rapid serial naming of objects RSN using RAN Rapid naming Automatized Naming Test; see Denckla & Rudel (1974, 1976 tests (Nevala & Lyytinen, 2001). The assessments (type and time point) are detailed in Table 2.…”

“…In consistent orthographies with low levels of ambiguity in the relationship between letters and sounds, the focus leans toward dysfluent reading (Wimmer, 1993) as the primary characteristic, with a more secondary emphasis placed on errors. The degree of individual variation and overlap with regard to the deficits displayed by dyslexic individuals has made the categorical separation of distinct patterns difficult ; see Erskine & Seymour, 2005, for their Cognitive Mosaic Model). Alongside this individual variation, the preparatory skills for a multifactorial ability such as reading are unlikely to vary dichotomously but continuously.…”

Cognitive Constructs and Individual Differences Underlying ADHD and Dyslexia

“…In addition to attention and executive function deficits, processing speed impairments found in dyslexic children (e.g., Kirby, Georgiou, Martinussen, & Parrila, 2010) also extend to adults with dyslexia (Parrila, Georgiou, & Corkett, 2007;Stoet, Markey, & Lopez, 2007). However, in addition to group differences on the constructs identified, there may be substantial individual differences within groups, as suggested by the Cognitive Mosaic Model of Erskine and Seymour (2005; see also Parrila & McQuarrie, this volume). They observed that no dyslexic adult in their sample followed the group profile that they had found on a variety of measures.…”

“…Whereas latent traits are often termed "monolithic" (i.e., made of the same rock), the types of traits we are discussing, by analogy, could be more like conglomerate rock (i.e., different types of rock cemented together) or a cognitive mosaic. This has been discussed by Erskine and Seymour (2005) and by Parrila and McQuarrie (this volume).…”

“…Then, each difference was divided by the control group standard deviation of each corresponding factor to indicate how much each individual deviated in standard deviation units from the control mean; that is, (FS i À FSM C )/SD C . Deviation scores were then compared to those in a normal distribution table, following Erskine and Seymour (2005). Deviations of 2.3 or more were deemed significant at the .01 level, those of 1.6 at the .05 level.…”