Abstract

BackgroundIt is well established that phonological awareness, print knowledge and rapid naming predict later reading difficulties. However, additional auditory, visual and motor difficulties have also been observed in dyslexic children. It is examined to what extent these difficulties can be used to predict later literacy difficulties.MethodAn unselected sample of 267 children at school entry completed a wide battery of tasks associated with dyslexia. Their reading was tested 2, 3 and 4 years later and poor readers were identified (n = 42). Logistic regression and multiple case study approaches were used to examine the predictive validity of different tasks.ResultsAs expected, print knowledge, verbal short‐term memory, phonological awareness and rapid naming were good predictors of later poor reading. Deficits in visual search and in auditory processing were also present in a large minority of the poor readers. Almost all poor readers showed deficits in at least one area at school entry, but there was no single deficit that characterised the majority of poor readers.ConclusionsResults are in line with Pennington's (2006) multiple deficits view of dyslexia. They indicate that the causes of poor reading outcome are multiple, interacting and probabilistic, rather than deterministic.

Highlights

  • Prospective studies of developmental dyslexia are useful for at least two reasons

  • The poor readers (PR) showed significantly poorer performance than good readers in each area, except postural stability and speech rate (PA: t(139.60) = 7.73, p < .001; VSTM: t(257) = 4.81, p < .001; motor skills: t(258) = À3.52, p = .001; print knowledge (PK): t(167.21) = 9.97, p < .001; rapid naming: t(53.61) = À5.30, p < .001; vocabulary: t(263) = 3.92, p < .001; sound order: t(88.93) = 4.35, p < .001; nonverbal IQ: t(260) = 2.59, p = .01; visual search: t(59.92) = À3.43, p = .001; postural stability: t(239) = 0.18, ns; speech rate: t(244) = À1.48, ns). This pattern largely replicates the group differences found in previous research and confirms the validity of selecting these tasks to predict literacy difficulties

  • In order to select those children with a reading score significantly below what would be predicted given nonverbal ability, regression analysis was carried out predicting word reading with Ravens Matrices score

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Prospective studies of developmental dyslexia are useful for at least two reasons. The first is a practical one: they can help to establish which measures would be useful screening tools to predict future difficulties. Several studies have shown a consistent set of predictors of reading difficulties, including phonological awareness (PA), letter and print knowledge (PK), and rapid naming (Muter, Hulme, Snowling, & Taylor, 1998; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Burgess, & Hecht, 1997; Wagner et al, 1997) It is less certain whether these measures accurately predict which children will show later reading difficulties. Elbro, Borstrom, and Peterson (1998) achieved a prediction rate of between 84% and 79% in a sample of children at family risk of dyslexia, depending on the cut-off value used Their predictors included letter knowledge and multiple measures of phonological processing.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call