Visual and phonological spelling errors in subtypes of children with learning disabilities

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Lennox ◽  
Linda S. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Reading Disability ◽  
Scoring System ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Constrained System ◽  
Spelling Errors ◽  
Normally Achieving ◽  
System Inclusion ◽  
Poor Spellers ◽  
Correspondence Rules

ABSTRACTThis study investigated the hypothesis that children with a reading disability understand and use sound-spelling correspondence rules less frequently in spelling than children with other learning disabilities and normally achieving children. To test this hypothesis, spelling errors of children between the ages of 6 and 16 with a reading disability (RD), an arithmetic disability (AD), and normally achieving children (NA) were examined. Two groups of children with an arithmetic disability were included: those with good spelling skills (AD-good), and those with poor spelling skills (AD-poor). The accuracy of the spelling errors according to sound-spelling correspondence rules (phonological accuracy) of the children was determined using both a constrained system (inclusion of position cues) and an unconstrained system (in which positional cues were irrelevant). The visual similarity of the error to the target word was also determined. The RD group at all ages produced significantly fewer phonologically accurate misspellings than the children with normal achievement scores, whether the constrained or the unconstrained scoring system was used. The AD-poor spellers and the RD group produced significantly fewer phonologically constrained, accurate misspellings than the NA group. Using the unconstrained measure, the AD-poor spellers at the youngest age level displayed as much difficulty using rudimentary sound-symbol conversion rules as the RD group, while at the older age levels, they did as well as the NA group. AD-good spellers performed as well as the NA group on both measures at all age levels. Children who were good readers and spellers (Good RS) were compared with children who were poor readers and spellers (Poor RS) and with children who were good readers and poor spellers (Mixed RS). Mixed RS produced significantly more phonologically and visually accurate misspellings than Poor RS. In summary, subtypes of learning-disabled children use spelling strategies that are significantly different from each other. RD children have the most difficulty acquiring the knowledge of soundspelling correspondence rules that are necessary for English spelling skills. The performance of AD children depends on the complexity of the scoring system, age, and spelling ability. Those students whose knowledge of sound-spelling correspondence rules is sufficiently well developed for reading but not for spelling (good readers/poor spellers) develop their phonetic skills more slowly than the good readers/good spellers. The understanding and use of phonological rules varies according to the subtype of learning disability, with children with a reading disability performing the most poorly at all age levels.

scholarly journals Social biases toward children with speech and language impairments: A correlative causal model of language limitations

1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mabel L. Rice ◽  
Pamela A. Hadley ◽  
Amy L. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Scoring System ◽  
Causal Model ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Education Level ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Systematic Biases ◽  
Academic Consequences ◽  
Poor Spellers ◽  
Correspondence Rules ◽  
Spelling Strategies

ABSTRACTThis study explores adults' attitudes toward children with limited linguistic competency. Four groups of adult judges participated in this study: kindergarten teachers, women matched for age and education level with the teachers, undergraduate college students, and speech-language pathologists. The judges listened to audiotaped samples of preschool children's speech. Two triads of children were formed, matched for age, gender, and intelligence, but differing in communication abilities. The adults responded to questionnaire items addressing child attributes (e.g., intelligence, social maturity) and parental attributes (e.g., education level, SES). Systematic biases were revealed toward children with limited communication abilities. The biases are interpreted as reflective of adults' expectations for children's language.It is argued that adults call upon a correlative causal model of language acquisition to interpret individual differences in children's language abilities. Negative social and academic consequences of such misinterpretations are discussed. The visual similarity of the error to the target word was also determined. The RD group at all ages produced significantly fewer phonologically accurate misspellings than the children with normal achievement scores, whether the constrained or the unconstrained scoring system was used. The AD-poor spellers and the RD group produced significantly fewer phonologically constrained, accurate misspellings than the NA group. Using the unconstrained measure, the AD-poor spellers at the youngest age level displayed as much difficulty using rudimentary sound-symbol conversion rules as the RD group, while at the older age levels, they did as well as the NA group. AD-good spellers performed as well as the NA group on both measures at all age levels. Children who were good readers and spellers (Good RS) were compared with children who were poor readers and spellers (Poor RS) and with children who were good readers and poor spellers (Mixed RS). Mixed RS produced significantly more phonologically and visually accurate misspellings than Poor RS. In summary, subtypes of learning-disabled children use spelling strategies that are significantly different from each other. RD children have the most difficulty acquiring the knowledge of soundspelling correspondence rules that are necessary for English spelling skills. The performance of AD children depends on the complexity of the scoring system, age, and spelling ability. Those students whose knowledge of sound-spelling correspondence rules is sufficiently well developed for reading but not for spelling (good readers/poor spellers) develop their phonetic skills more slowly than the good readers/good spellers. The understanding and use of phonological rules varies according to the subtype of learning disability, with children with a reading disability performing the most poorly at all age levels.

The Application of the Boder Test of Reading-Spelling Patterns To the Assessment of Learning Disabilities in French Immersion Poor Readers

1988 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-70
Author(s):  
Corrinne A. Wiss ◽  
Wendy Burnett
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
French Immersion ◽  
Poor Readers ◽  
Reading Problems ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Spelling Errors ◽  
Assessment Of Learning ◽  
Good And Poor Readers

The Boder Test of Reading-Spelling Patterns (Boder & Jarrico, 1982) is a widely used method for screening and defining reading problems at the level of the word. In order to apply this method in another language, in this case French, criteria for determining what constitutes a good phonetic equivalent for a misspelled word are required. It is essential to know which errors differentiate good and poor readers since errors that are commonly made by good readers are not diagnostic. This paper reports guidelines which have been developed by analyzing spelling errors in a sample of good and poor French immersion readers. These criteria for good phonetic equivalents can be applied, along with the method outlined in the Boder test manual, and used as an assessment tool for screening decoding and encoding problems in French immersion children. When used in conjunction with the English test, the assessment provides bilingual comparisons and guidelines for remedial programming.

An analysis of the spelling errors of children who differ in their reading and spelling skills

1988 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Bruck ◽  
Gloria Waters
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Visual Memory ◽  
Reading Ability ◽  
Good Readers ◽  
Spelling Errors ◽  
Distinct Subgroup ◽  
Spelling Test ◽  
Poor Spellers ◽  
Reading And Spelling

ABSTRACTResults of recent studies comparing the spelling errors of children with varying discrepancies between their reading and spelling skills have yielded conflicting results. Some studies suggest that good readers-poor spellers (mixed) are characterized by a set of deficits that differentiates them from poor readers-poor spellers (poor). Other studies fail to find differences between groups of poor spellers who differ in their reading skills. The present study attempted to determine the degree to which these discrepant results reflected differences in methods of subject selection and of error analysis. Two different sets of criteria were used to identify poor spellers-good readers. Subjects were selected on the basis of standardized reading comprehension and spelling test scores or on the basis of standardized single-word-recognition and spelling-test scores. The phonetic accuracy of the spelling errors was assessed using two different scoring systems – one that took positional constraints into account and one that did not. In addition, children were identified at two different age levels, allowing for developmental comparisons. Regardless of age or reading ability, poor and mixed spellers had difficulty converting sounds into positionally appropriate graphemes. Only older children with good word recognition but poor spelling skills provided some evidence for a distinct subgroup of poor spellers. These children had relatively good visual memory for words and, unlike other poor spellers, showed relatively good use of rudimentary sound-letter correspondences.

Relation of Spelling and Writing in Learning Disabilities

1987 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Søvik ◽  
Oddvar Arntzen ◽  
Ragnar Thygesen
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Laboratory Study ◽  
Orthogonal Design ◽  
Type Structure ◽  
Spelling Errors ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Psychomotor Functions ◽  
Writing Accuracy ◽  
The Relationship

The paper describes a study in which the relationship between the cognitive and psychomotor aspects of children's spelling and writing performances was investigated. By comparing data from various categories of children the relationship between the semantic and psychomotor functions could be examined, and differences between the skill performances of the three groups of students were predicted. A four-way 3 × 3 × 2 × 2 orthogonal design with categories of subjects, type, structure, and length of task as independent variables was used in the laboratory study, with 24 “normal”, 24 dyslexic, and 24 dysgraphic nine-year-old children as subjects. Most of the 16 hypotheses were verified by data identifying some of the spelling and writing characteristics of the three groups of children and the effects of contextual parameters on their performances. Dyslexic children, for example, seemed to write more slowly than the others, and their mean score of spelling errors was the highest one, whereas the dysgraphic children had the lowest mean score in writing accuracy and rhythm.

Visual-Field Restrictions in Cases of Reading Disability

1971 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1215-1217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl A. Rubino ◽  
Harold A. Minden
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Reading Disability ◽  
Reading Disabilities ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Summer Camp ◽  
Peripheral Visual Field ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Central Visual Field ◽  
Visual Field Deficits

23 children who were attending a summer camp for children with learning disabilities and who demonstrated a reading disability at least one grade level below that expected on the basis of chronological age were selected for study. Peripheral visual-field limits were tested for both nasal and temporal fields in both eyes. Testing also took place for central visual field deficits. With very few exceptions the visual field limits were in the range of the accepted norm. 10 randomly selected Ss were retested and the results proved to be reliable as there were no significant differences on first and second testing. It was suggested that an additional study is required which should include a group of children with no reading disabilities.

Performance of Students with Learning Disabilities on Validity Indexes of the Perception of Ability Scale for Students

1992 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. Chapman ◽  
Frederic J. Boersma
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Learning Problems ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Students With Learning Disabilities ◽  
Regular Form ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Normally Achieving ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Response Biases

The present study examined the performance of 78 students with learning disabilities and 71 normally achieving students in regular Form 1 (Grade 6) classes on three validity indexes of the Perception of Ability Scale for Students, a measure of academic self-concept. The three indexes assess consistency of responding, negative or positive response biases, and misrepresentation of self-perceptions in terms of unrealistic perceptions of perfection in school. Analysis showed that learning disabled students obtained significantly lower Full Scale scores than the normal students, but no significant differences appeared on the three validity indexes. Users of the test can be confident that learning disabled students respond to items in as valid a manner as other students. Having specific learning problems in school should not interfere with response patterns on this scale.

Dynamic Assessment of Learning Potential: Inter-Rater Reliability of Deficient Cognitive Functions, Types of Mediation, and Non-Intellective Factors

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Tzuriel ◽  
Marilyn T. Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Cognitive Functions ◽  
Dynamic Assessment ◽  
General Tendency ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
Learning Potential ◽  
Testing Situation ◽  
Normally Achieving ◽  
Assessment Of Learning ◽  
Mental Handicaps

The objective of this study was to investigate the reliability of three major domains of individual dynamic assessment (DA): (a) deficient cognitive functions (DCF), (b) types of mediation given during DA, and (c) non-intellective factors. A sample of 35 young adolescents was administered eight tests from the Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD) (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). The sample was composed of children diagnosed with learning disabilities and educable mental handicaps, and normally achieving children. The DA procedure for each case was videotaped for 8 to 15 hours and later rated for the three main domains. Results in general showed moderate reliability scores for DCF and mediational strategies and lower reliability scores for the non-intellective factors (NIF). Separate analyses were carried out for ratings which include a 0 category (examiners could not observe a behavior) and ratings without a 0 category. The results showed a general tendency for higher agreement among raters when the 0 category was removed. In type of mediation, ratings were similar with or without the 0 rating only in the training phase, when agreement was higher in approximately 10% of categories when 0 ratings were included than when not. These results were explained by referring to the interaction of type of task and phase of testing (situation) interaction.

Links among Social Status, Service Delivery Mode, and Service Delivery Preference in LD, Low-Achieving, and Normally Achieving Elementary-Aged Children

2000 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Le Mare ◽  
Marie de la Ronde
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Social Status ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Delivery Mode ◽  
Educational Programming ◽  
Students With Learning Disabilities ◽  
Older Students ◽  
Normally Achieving ◽  
Elementary Aged Children

Relations among social status, current service delivery, and service delivery preferences were examined in 42 students with learning disabilities (LD), 40 low-achieving (LA) and 42 average/high-achieving (A/HA) students in grades 2–4 and 6–7. Service delivery preferences were assessed via forced choice (in-class vs. pullout) and ratings. Participants and classmates completed sociometric rating scales asking how much they liked to work and play with each classmate and how much classmates liked to work and play with them. Most students chose pullout service and rated pullout higher than in-class service. Current service was related to service preference only in the LA group. Only among LD students were self- and peer-rated social status related. Social status was lowest for LD, followed by LA and A/HA children. Among older students, those who preferred pullout service had lower sociometric status than those who preferred in-class service. Implications for educational programming decisions are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document