Search

Abstract: This study focused on a comparison of the visuo-spatial abilities (correct rate and speed) between dyslexic and normal students in Taiwan and Hong Kong. There were a total of 120 10–12 year old students. Thirty students had been diagnosed as dyslexic in Taiwan (T.W. dyslexia) and thirty students had been diagnosed as dyslexic in Hong Kong (H.K. dyslexia). Overall, 30 of the Taiwanese participants (T.W. normal) and 30 of the Hong Kong participants (H.K. normal) had received no special education. Dyslexic individuals were diagnosed by the doctors’ clinical determination. The material was designed using Autodesk 3ds Max. The participants rotated 3D figures by themselves to find a ball. The results indicated that there was very little difference between dyslexic and normal students. However, the most significant difference between dyslexic and normal student was answering speed, especially in the combined data and the male data. An one-way ANOVA test indicated that in terms of rate and answering speed there was no difference between the H.K. and the T.W. dyslexics. Similar results were also found for the students with normal reading abilities in T.W. and H.K. The criterions for defining the visuo-spatial abilities of dyslexia students appear to be similar in Taiwan and Hong Kong. In addition, there is no difference between students’ visuo-spatial abilities even though Chinese literacy instructions differed in the two areas. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This present study focuses on classifying developmental dyslexia by combining two famous models, the dual-route model and the triangle model of Chinese reading, re-examining validity of the subtypes, and observing the error types of word recognition for each subtype. Sixty-sixth graders with dyslexia in Chinese and 45 sixth graders who were matched by age and IQ with the dyslexic group were involved in the present study. Twelve (20%) sixth graders from the dyslexic group were classified as having phonological dyslexia, 11 (18.3%) were classified as surface dyslexia, 12 (20%) were classified as deep dyslexia, and five (8.3%) of them were classified as displaying more than one kind of deficit. Besides, still more than half (31; 51.7%) of the dyslexic group did not belong to any subtypes here. These subtypes had a good validity based on comparison of their phonological awareness, orthography, and semantics. Finally, for their error types of word recognition, both children with multiple-deficit dyslexia and children with non-subtype dyslexia showed a proportional pattern of six kinds of errors. Children with phonological dyslexia showed more phonetic errors and analogy errors, children with surface dyslexia showed more visual errors and analogy errors, and children with deep dyslexia showed more semantic errors and selective errors., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)