Search

Twenty-one dyslexic children, ages 9-15, were administered a battery of tests on two occasions separated by 2 years to assess the development of word recognition and spelling. The majority of the subjects were receiving intensive small-group instruction and one-on-one tutoring in reading and writing. Correlational and regression analyses supported the assumption that phonological and orthographic processing are distinct but reciprocally related components of word recognition and spelling. However, phonological skill appeared to capture most of the unique variance in word identification for dyslexics and younger normal readers matched on word identification skill. Although the dyslexic children made significant gains over 2 years in overall word identification skill and in aspects of phonological and orthographic processing, they failed to show significant "catch-up" in any component skills relative to age- and reading-level-matched normal readers. In addition, dyslexics made little or no progress on a measure of phonemic analysis, on a decoding task requiring processing at the level of the phoneme, and at spelling words with unusual and irregular orthography. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that dyslexic children have primary deficits in phonological processing of speech and print and secondary deficits in orthographic processing.

The goal of the present study was to ascertain whether developmental dyslexics and their affected parents evinced similar patterns of deficits in word recognition skills. Forty dyslexic children and both their biological parents were administered a battery of experimental measures of phonological and orthographic processing. Deficits in component skills were defined in terms of deviations from the performance of normal readers matched on reading achievement level. Four distinct patterns of deficits were found among both the dyslexics and their parents: a subgroup with a specific deficit in processing phonological codes; a subgroup with a specific deficit in processing orthographic codes; a subgroup with deficits in processing both phonological and orthographic codes; and a subgroup of individuals who did not significantly differ from normal readers at the same reading level in either processing domain. Although limited evidence for familial subgroup concordance was obtained in both the phonological and combined phonological subgroups, no concordance was observed among families classified into the orthographic or reading-achievement equivalent subgroups. It was concluded that all affected family members shared a propensity for a phonological deficit, and that some family members share a fundamental problem in processing orthographic information as well.

Two experiments examined whether normal and disabled readers differed in the utilization of rules in a paired associate learning task. Experiment 1 required children to learn symbol-word associates. Children were assigned to one of three conditions: nonrule, consistent rule, or inconsistent rule. When present, the rule was based on semantic opposites. Subjects benefited from having the rule, but disabled readers showed less improvement across four test blocks than both chronological age (CA) controls and reading age (RA) controls, particularly in the inconsistent condition. Experiment 2 required subjects to learn symbol-symbol associations in one of three conditions: nonrule, consistent rule, or inconsistent rule. When present, the rule specified the locations of a subsidiary figure in each symbol according to the pattern top-right, bottom-left. Disabled and normal readers did not differ in the nonrule condition where reliance on visual memory would be an effective strategy. Normal readers were superior to disabled readers in both rule conditions. In addition, disabled readers in the inconsistent rule condition were less able than normal readers to apply the rule in a generalization task where memory demands were reduced. Results supported the hypothesis that disabled readers have greater difficulty than normal readers inducing and/or using rules, particularly when they are inconsistent. It is suggested that difficulties in acquiring or using complex and inconsistent rules may be one important source of problems learning spelling-sound correspondence rules, which in English are complex and inconsistent.

In this paper we apply a developmental model of reading to the question of dyslexic subtypes. Groups of normal readers (n=40) and dyslexic children (n=50), matched on reading level and IQ, were given a comprehensive test battery measuring level of development of visual, phonological, and orthographic skills. As a group, dyslexics deviated from normal readers of equivalent reading achievement primarily in phonological skills (spelling-to-sound translation and phonemic analysis), although limited differences in knowledge of word-specific spellings were also observed. Dyslexics were superior to the younger normal readers in visual processing of print. Analysis of individual data by reference to the reading level control group revealed three major subgroups: a group with a specific deficit in phonological processing of print (52 percent), a group with deficits in processing both the phonological and orthographic features of printed words (24 percent), and a group with phonological deficits in language (8 percent). The remainder of the sample (16 percent) had specific deficits in visual or orthographic processing of print, in spelling, or did not differ from the control group. The data support the view that most developmental dyslexics have a specific language disorder involving some aspect of phonological processing. However, small subgroups with very different configurations of reading and nonreading difficulties may exist as well.

This study addressed the question of whether dyslexic children use qualitatively different word identification processes as compared to normal readers at the same stage of reading acquisition. Fifty-two dyslexic children and reading-age matched normal readers were required to pronounce words and pseudowords designed to tap several word recognition and decoding processes. Performance profiles were compared for the two reading groups at two reading ages. Although an invariant acquisition sequence was observed across reading groups, differences in level of performance between dyslexics and reading-age controls varied as a function of reading age. The performance of the more advanced dyslexics was virtually indistinguishable from normal readers on all measures. In contrast, the younger reading age dyslexics differed from normal readers on several measures of spelling-sound correspondences. However, no reading group differences were observed on measures of word recognition. The results indicated that dyslexics and normal readers at the same reading age use essentially the same processes to recognize words, but may differ in knowledge of correspondence rules.