Non-specific Reading Research Articles

On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs

This paper is about the semantic analysis of referentially opaque verbs like seek and owe that give rise to nonspecific readings. It is argued that Montague's categorization (based on earlier work by Quine) of opaque verbs as properties of quantifiers runs into two serious difficulties: the first problem is that it does not work with opaque verbs like resemble that resist any lexical decomposition of the seek ≈ try to find kind; the second one is that it wrongly predicts de dicto (i.e. narrow scope) readings due to quantified noun phrases in the object positions of such verbs. It is shown that both difficulties can be overcome by an analysis of opaque verbs as operating on properties.

Development of Immunoglobulin Class-Specific Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays for Measuring Antibodies against Avian Rotavirus

Immunoglobulin class-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were developed for detecting antibodies against avian rotavirus in serum, intestinal contents, and bile from experimentally infected specific-pathogen-free (SPF) chickens. Both indirect and antibody-capture (AbC) assays were developed based on monoclonal antibodies specific for chicken IgG, IgM, and IgA. Treatment of purified rotavirus with sodium thiocyanate before coating the plate improved the rotavirus-specific reading in the indirect assay. Use of Immunolon 2 plates facilitated attachment of monoclonal antibodies to the plate in the AbC assay. Addition of 5% powdered skim milk to the diluent buffer reduced nonspecific background readings. The indirect assay was superior for detecting rotavirus-specific IgG, whereas the AbC assay was better for detecting rotavirus-specific IgM and IgA. The presence of intestinal contents in the assay wells did not reduce the measurable titers of IgG, IgM, or IgA. These assays showed that SPF chickens produced systemic and mucosal antibodies against avian rotavirus.

Qualitative and quantitative differences among dyslexic, normal, and nondyslexic poor readers

This study tested the hypothesis that when a stringent criterion of normal IQ is applied in the selection of dyslexic readers, and when dyslexics, nondyslexic poor readers, and normal readers are matched on reading comprehension — rather than word reading — significant differences among these groups can be demonstrated. Two groups of poor readers from primary grades, one with normal IQ (dyslexics) and the other with below-average IQ (nonspecific reading disabled, NSRD) were matched for reading comprehension with a group of younger normal readers. The dyslexic group was found to be inferior to the other two groups in tests of decoding and spelling. The dyslexic readers were more context-dependent for word recognition than the other two groups. The NSRD group did not differ from the normal readers in these aspects but had the worst performance on a test of inferential comprehension. It was concluded that dyslexics differ from normal readers and low-IQ poor readers in word and nonword reading skills and context-dependency for reading. A group of six adult dyslexics were also found to be deficient in decoding skills. A lack of unanimity in the use of certain terminology, a substantial age difference between low-IQ poor readers and normals, and the difference in the criteria used for matching the different groups could be factors that can explain the disagreements seen between the findings of the present study and those reported by some other studies. Potential problems associated with reading-age matched experimental design are discussed.

Developmental Dyslexia Subtypes and the Boder Test of Reading-Spelling Patterns

The Boder Test of Reading-Spelling Patterns (BTRSP) purports to classify underachieving readers into categories of nonspecific reading retardation or one of three dyslexia subtypes that indicate problems in processing phonics and analytic-sequential stimuli (dysphonetic), problems learning sight-words and in processing simultaneous-gestalt stimuli (dyseidetic), or a third subtype with mixed processing difficulties. This study compared the performance of dysphonetics, nonspecifics, and normal readers on “gestalt” tasks of facial memory, tactile-visual recognition, Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices, and Benton Visual Retention test, and on “analytic-sequential” tasks of auditory sequential memory, visual sequential memory, sound blending, and Lindamood Auditory Conceptualization Test. The construct validity of the dysphonetic and nonspecific categories received support; however, a large proportion of cases consisting of classification error, “false negatives,” was suspected. The BTRSP classification criteria of reading level, spelling level, and application of phonics were judged useful dimensions in distinguishing two subtypes of disabled readers and reflective of other cognitive abilities.

4. Developmental dyslexia—prevailing diagnostic concepts and a new diagnostic approach

There is growing interest in differentiating developmental dyslexia,1 as a specific psychoneurological learning disorder, from nonspecific reading retardation. Such differentiation has immediate practical bearing since spe cific dyslexia calls for remedial reading techniques that are not required in the management of nonspecific reading disorders. Moreover, early diag nosis of developmental dyslexia is essential for successful remediation and to prevent school failure with concomitant loss of self-esteem. The need for practical direct diagnostic criteria that would facilitate the early identification of developmental dyslexia has come into the fore front. This need is felt especially by physicians and psychologists, who are often the first to be consulted about the child's inability to read. It is also recognized that the diagnosis cannot be relevant to the educator unless it has immediate implications for remediation. The objectives of this paper are: (1) to present a critical review of pre vailing diagnostic concepts of developmental dyslexia and (2) to briefly describe three atypical patterns of reading and spelling, revealed through

THE WASSERMANN REACTION TEST AND NON‐SPECIFIC POSITIVE READINGS

Medical Journal of AustraliaVolume 2, Issue 21 p. 643-644 Correspondence THE WASSERMANN REACTION TEST AND NON-SPECIFIC POSITIVE READINGS First published: 01 November 1932 https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1932.tb90047.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume2, Issue21November 1932Pages 643-644 RelatedInformation