Search

Purpose:Written and spoken language abilities are closely connected, and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) can play important roles in the development of children's word reading. However, SLPs may have less knowledge about word reading assessment and intervention than they do about oral language. Therefore, in this tutorial, we describe the skills required for successful word reading and outline evidence-based approaches to word reading assessment and intervention within a response to intervention (RTI) framework, with a focus on the role of the SLP.Conclusions:Written language abilities clearly fall within an SLP's scope of practice. SLPs can be involved in collaborative teams working together to design word reading instruction, intervention, and assessment. They can also be directly involved in word reading intervention and assessment with children on their caseload. Consequently, knowledge about word reading development, assessment, and intervention can enable an SLP to take advantage of the reciprocal connections between written and spoken language, in order to help achieve the best outcomes for their clients.Supplemental Material:https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24001953

People with aphasia often have difficulties with writing (spelling) as part of their language impairment. In this paper, we focus on a type of spelling difficulty that is caused by an impairment to a particular part of the spelling process: a component of orthographic working memory, the graphemic output buffer. We describe the function of the graphemic buffer within the process of spelling, and present the characteristics of impairment to this component. Furthermore, we provide guidelines for assessment of spelling performance to enable identification of the source of spelling difficulties in clinical practice, and give an overview of different approaches to treatment of spelling difficulties as a result of buffer impairment.

Surface dyslexia is characterised by poor reading of irregular words while nonword reading can be completely normal. Previous work has identified several theoretical possibilities for the underlying locus of impairment in surface dyslexia. In this study, we systematically investigated whether children with surface dyslexia showed different patterns of reading performance that could be traced back to different underlying levels of impairment. To do this, we tested 12 English readers, replicating previous work in Hebrew (Gvion & Friedmann, 2013; 2016; Friedmann & Lukov, 2008; Friedmann & Gvion, 2016). In our sample, we found that poor irregular word reading was associated with deficits at the level of the orthographic input lexicon and with impaired access to meaning and spoken word forms after processing written words in the orthographic input lexicon. There were also children whose surface dyslexia seemed to be caused by impairments of the phonological output lexicon. We suggest that further evidence is required to unequivocally support a fourth pattern where the link between orthography and meaning is intact while the link between orthography and spoken word forms is not functioning. All patterns found were consistent with dual route theory while possible patterns of results, which would be inconsistent with dual route theory, were not detected.

The focus of this paper is on the assessment of the two main processes that children must acquire at the single word reading level: word recognition (lexical) and decoding (nonlexical) skills. Guided by the framework of the dual route model, this study aimed to (1) investigate the impact of item characteristics on test performance, and (2) determine to what extent widely used reading measures vary in their detection of lexical and nonlexical reading difficulties. Thirty children with reading difficulties were administered selected reading subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson III, the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Second Edition, the Castles and Coltheart Reading Test 2 (CC2), as well as a measure of nonverbal IQ. Both within-subjects analyses and descriptive data are presented. Results suggest that in comparison to a pure measure of irregular word reading, children with reading difficulties perform better on word identification subtests containing both regular and irregular word items. Furthermore, certain characteristics (e.g., length, similarity to real words) appear to influence the level of difficulty of nonword items and tests. The CC2 subscales identified the largest proportions of children with reading difficulties. Differences between all test scores were of statistical and clinical significance. Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed.

AbstractResponse to Intervention (RTI) models of reading instruction have received much attention in the literature (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Hosp & Ardoin, 2008; Justice, 2006). Such models call for frequent and high-quality assessment of students' skills. One skill that is vital in the process of learning to read is the ability to sound out letters and blend these sounds together to produce a word. According to Dual Route models of reading (e.g., Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001), these skills comprise the sublexical route to reading. This is best assessed by tests of nonword reading. In this article, 17 tests of nonword reading were reviewed in light of RTI and Dual Route models. The aim of the review was to determine the best available nonword reading tests for use at the Tier One and Tier Two levels of intervention, and the best available nonword reading test for diagnostic (Tier Three) purposes. The review determined that several good-quality tests of nonword reading, suitable for assessing the general functioning of the sublexical route to reading (at the Tier One and Tier Two level), are available, but that no test of nonword reading is available that fulfils all of the desirable criteria for a Tier Three, diagnostic assessment.

AbstractThe aim of this article is to provide clinical and practical guidance for the provision of one-on-one intervention for children with spelling difficulties. We briefly discuss the requirements of theoretically guided assessment and suggest some norm-based assessment tools in this light. The main focus of this article is on teaching children with spelling difficulties in a one-on-one context. Previous research has shown that children present with spelling difficulties of different types and that intervention is most effective when targeted at the specific difficulty. Hence, we outline different interventions for different subtypes of developmental spelling difficulties.