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

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.

1983 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty C. Holmes

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the question answering of good and poor readers when their prior knowledge for the answers to questions was determined before reading to be accurate, inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. Fifty-six fifth-grade students with equivalent I.Q.'s, but varying in reading ability and extent of general prior knowledge for the passage topics, participated in the study. Subjects read an expository passage written on their approximate instructional reading level. The results indicated that poor readers did not use prior knowledge to the same extent as did good readers. This was especially true when students were learning new information. The results also suggest that poor readers have difficulty answering text implicit questions even if they possess adequate prior knowledge for passage topics.


1989 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 429-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne T. Smith ◽  
Paul Macaruso ◽  
Donald Shankweiler ◽  
Stephen Crain

ABSTRACTChildren with specific reading disability fail to understand some complex spoken sentences as well as good readers. This investigation sought to identify the source of poor readers' comprehension difficulties. Second-grade good and poor readers were tested on spoken sentences with restrictive relative clauses in two experiments designed to minimize demands on working memory. The methodological innovations resulted in a high level of performance by both reader groups, demonstrating knowledge of relative clause structure. The poor readers' performance closely paralleled that of the good readers both in pattern of errors and in awareness of the pragmatic aspects of relative clauses. The findings suggest that limitations in processing account for comprehension difficulties displayed by some poor readers in previous investigations.


1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Zabrucky ◽  
Hilary Horn Ratner

Good and poor readers in the sixth grade ( M age = 11.92 years) were videotaped reading inconsistent stories presented one sentence at a time. Children's comprehension evaluation was assessed with on-line (reading times) and verbal report measures; comprehension regulation was assessed by examining look-backs during reading. All children read inconsistencies more slowly than consistent control information but good readers were more likely than poor readers to look back at inconsistencies during reading, to give accurate verbal reports of passage consistency following reading, and to recall text inconsistencies. Results highlight the importance of using multiple comprehension monitoring measures in assessing children's abilities and of treating comprehension monitoring as a multidimensional process.


1981 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 201-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Byrne

ABSTRACTGroups of good and poor readers at second-grade level were tested for comprehension of adjectival constructions of the John is eager/easy to please types and of center-embedded relative clause constructions. The poor readers were inferior to good readers in understanding O-type adjectives (easy) but not S-type (eager). As well, they were poorer at comprehending embedded sentences, but only when the sentences described improbable events, ones which reversed the normal subject/object roles. When either noun could, on pragmatic grounds, assume either role, both groups fared equally well. The results are interpreted as casting doubt on recent assertions that deficient use of a phonetic memory code underlies the syntactic inferiority often seen in poor readers. A more pervasive linguistic immaturity is suggested as being involved.


1985 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne T. Amlund ◽  
Janet Gaffney ◽  
Raymond W. Kulhavy

Two experiments evaluated the effect of map feature content on recall of text auded by subjects of varying reading skill levels. In Experiment 1, elementary students with below average reading skill studied a map with features represented by labels, symbols with labels, or mimetic drawings with labels before listening to text. Students who studied the mimetic map recalled significantly more map-featured text information than students who studied label or symbol maps. In Experiment 2, good and poor readers studied a mimetic or a label map prior to listening to text. While good readers recalled more map-featured and nonfeatured information than poor readers, no differences were found between map feature content conditions. Map-featured information was better recalled than nonfeatured information by all groups in both experiments. Data from both experiments provide support for the conjoint retention hypothesis.


1977 ◽  
Vol 45 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1163-1168
Author(s):  
Dwight W. Curtis ◽  
Wallace Elkins

10 good and 10 poor Grade 6 readers judged tachistoscopically presented word pairs to be “same” or “different” when the words making up the pairs were both normally oriented, both mirrored, or one was oriented and the other was mirrored. Good readers made fewer errors than poor readers on normally oriented “same” pairs but showed no advantage on other configurations. Poor readers were more accurate in detecting mismatches than good readers. These results were discussed in terms of the mechanism that may have been implicated.


1985 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind Horowitz ◽  
S. Jay Samuels

Poor reading comprehension may result from a general comprehension problem, a decoding problem, or a combination of these problems. Using a counterbalanced design, 38 good and poor sixth-grade readers read aloud and listened to easy and hard texts. Immediately after reading and listening, students orally retold what they had read or heard. Their recalls were scored for number of idea units produced. Results indicated no difference in listening comprehension between good and poor readers for either easy or hard texts, but a significant difference in oral reading comprehension in favor of good readers on both easy and hard texts. The finding of no difference in listening suggests that the poor readers in this sample did not have a general comprehension problem, while their poor oral reading performance indicates that they did have a decoding problem. These findings support a more complex comprehension process model of listening and reading than has typically been described in the literature.


1981 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea M. Mcgee

The effects of a cloze procedure developed from transfer feature theory of processing in reading on immediate and delayed recall of good and poor readers were studied. Easy cloze passages were generated so all cloze deletions were successfully supplied by approximately 75% of 78 students used in a norming process. Twenty third-grade good and twenty fifth-grade poor readers read and recalled an easy cloze and a normal, non-cloze version of two expository passages. Recalls were scored according to an analysis of discourse procedure. Results indicated that fifth-grade poor readers remember more than third-grade good readers immediately after reading and after a one-week delay. Moreover, fifth-grade poor readers remember more from reading an easy cloze passage than from reading a normal passage in immediate recall. Implications for the use of this cloze procedure as an instructional technique are discussed.


1993 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Lennox ◽  
Linda S. Siegel

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.


1980 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Garner

Good and poor junior high readers were directed to process two expository passages as editors. Each passage had been divided into four segments, and in two of the four segments of one passage, material had been altered to introduce inconsistency with the overall message. Comprehension-miscomprehension monitoring was assessed after each segment; the readers were asked to rate each chunk as “very easy to understand,” “ok,” or “difficult to understand,” and to explain instances of the latter two ratings after completion of the entire passage at hand. A material × segment × reader repeated-measures ANOVA revealed numerous significant main and interaction effects. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis of data supported the original hypothesis of good reader/poor reader differences in comprehension-miscomprehension monitoring. It seems that good readers noticed the disruptive effect of the altered material and poor readers did not.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document