Search

Research and clinical practitioners have mixed views whether reading and spelling difficulties should be combined or seen as separate. This study examined the following: (a) if double dissociation between reading and spelling can be identified in a transparent orthography (Finnish) and (b) the cognitive and noncognitive precursors of this phenomenon. Finnish-speaking children (n = 1963) were assessed on reading fluency and spelling in grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. Dissociation groups in reading and spelling were formed based on stable difficulties in grades 1–4. The groups were compared in kindergarten phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, letter knowledge, home literacy environment, and task-avoidant behavior. The results indicated that the double dissociation groups could be identified even in the context of a highly transparent orthography: 41 children were unexpected poor spellers (SD), 36 were unexpected poor readers (RD), and 59 were poor in both reading and spelling (RSD). The RSD group performed poorest on all cognitive skills and showed the most task-avoidant behavior, the RD group performed poorly particularly on rapid automatized naming and letter knowledge, and the SD group had difficulties on phonological awareness and letter knowledge. Fathers’ shared book reading was less frequent in the RD and RSD groups than in the other groups. The findings suggest that there are discernible double dissociation groups with distinct cognitive profiles. This further suggests that the identification of difficulties in Finnish and the planning of teaching and remediation practices should include both reading and spelling assessments. peerReviewed

Emerging phonological awareness was compared in two groups of 3.5-year-old children belonging to the Jyvaskyla Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia (JLD): children with familial risk of dyslexia (at-risk group n = 98) and children without such risk (control group n = 91). Four computer animated tasks were used: Word-level and Syllable-level Segment Identification, Synthesis, and Continuation of Phonological Units. The control group children manifested higher mastery than children in the at-risk group in phonological awareness, and the proportion of children with a low phonological awareness mean score was 2.5 times higher in the at-risk group than in the control group. In both groups, phonological awareness at 3.5 years was predicted by early language skills assessed between 14 and 26 months of age, and it was also associated with concurrent language. The difference between the at-risk and control group at 3.5-year in phonological awareness remained significant, even when the effect of other language skills such as productive and receptive vocabulary, and mastery of inflections, measured both at earlier ages and concurrently were controlled for. Our findings indicate that familial risk for dyslexia is reliably reflected in emerging phonological awareness already at this early age and it can be assessed independently of other language skills.

The present findings are drawn from the Jyväskylä Longitudinal Study of Dyslexia (JLD), in which approximately 100 children with familial risk of dyslexia and 100 control children have been followed from birth. In this paper we report data on the reading development of the JLD children and their classmates, a total of 1,750 children from four measurement points during the first two school years. In the total sample, we examined whether heterogeneous developmental paths can be identified based on profiles of word recognition and reading comprehension. Secondly, we studied what kind of early language and literacy skill profiles and reading experiences characterize the children with differing reading development in the follow-up sample. The mixture modeling procedure resulted in five subtypes: (1) poor readers, (2) slow decoders, (3) poor comprehenders, (4) average readers, and (5) good readers. The children with familial risk for dyslexia performed on average at a lower level in all reading tasks than both their classmates and the controls, and they were overrepresented in slow decoders subtype. Differences between the subtypes were found in the early language and literacy skill development, as well as in the reading experiences of the reading subtypes. peerReviewed