Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Investigating the effect of interesting figures for normal, ADHD, and dyslexic students. [•] ADHD group performed the worst in sustained attention in recognizing geometric-figure. [•] ADHD group got less improvement from interesting-figure in selective attention than others. [•] Selective attention of dyslexic group got significant improvement from interesting-figure. [•] Sustained attention of ADHD group got significant improvement from interesting-figure. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This study presents an examination of learner-generated drawing for different reading comprehension subtypes of dyslexic students and control students. The participants were 22 phonological dyslexic students, 20 orthographic dyslexic students, 21 double-deficit dyslexic students, and 45 age-, gender-, and IQ-matched control students. The major evaluation tools included word recognition task, orthographic task, phonological awareness task, and scenery texts and questions. Comparisons of the four groups of students showed differences among phonological dyslexia, orthographic dyslexia, double-deficit dyslexia, and the chronological age control groups in pre- and posttest performance of scenery texts. Differences also existed in relevant questions and the effect of the learner-generated drawing method. The pretest performance showed problems in the dyslexic samples in reading the scenery texts and answering relevant questions. The posttest performance revealed certain differences among phonological dyslexia, orthographic dyslexia, double-deficit dyslexia, and the chronological age control group. Finally, all dyslexic groups obtained a great effect from using the learner-generated drawing, particularly orthographic dyslexia. These results suggest that the learner-generated drawing was also useful for dyslexic students, with the potential for use in the classroom for teaching text reading to dyslexic students. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The present study presents a comparison of the cognitive inhibition abilities of dyslexic, dyscalculic, and control students. The participants were 45 dyslexic students, 45 dyscalculic students, and 45 age-, gender-, and IQ-matched control students. The major evaluation tools included six cognitive inhibition tasks which were restructured during principal component analysis into three categories: graph inhibition, number inhibition, and word inhibition. Comparisons of the 3 groups of students revealed that in graph inhibition, dyscalculic students performed worst of the 3 groups, with dyslexic students also performing worse than control students in this category. For number inhibition, the control students’ performances were equal to those of dyslexic students, with both groups performing better than dyscalculic students. For word inhibition, control students’ performances were equal to those of dyscalculic students; both groups had shorter response times and lower incorrect rates than dyslexic students. These results suggest the complexity of the different cognitive inhibition abilities displayed by dyslexic, dyscalculic, and control students. However, some regular patterns occurred. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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]