Search

When dyslexia is diagnosed late, the question is whether this is due to late-emerging (LE) or late-identified (LI) problems. In a random selection of dyslexia-diagnosis case files we distinguished early-diagnosed (Grade 1–3, n = 116) and late-diagnosed (Grade 4–6) dyslexia. The late-diagnosed files were divided into LE (n = 54) and LI dyslexia (n = 45). The LE group consisted of children whose national-curriculum literacy outcomes did not warrant referral for dyslexia diagnosis in Grades 1–2; the LI group of children whose literacy outcomes did, but who were referred for diagnostic assessment after Grade 3. At the time of diagnosis, the percentage of poor performers on word-level literacy measures generally did not differ between the groups. Only the LE group contained fewer poor performers than the early-diagnosed and LI group on some word-reading measures. All groups showed similar distributions of phonological difficulties. There were no indications of compensation through vocabulary, memory or IQ in either late-diagnosed group. Our diagnosis-based study confirms and extends previous research-based studies on LE dyslexia. Moreover, it shows that LI dyslexia exists, which can be regarded as the existence of instructional casualties. The findings speak to issues of identification, diagnosis and compensation and call for further efforts to improve the early identification of dyslexia.

Dyslexia is characterized by poor word reading. In research, education, and diagnosis, oral reading is commonly assessed, and outcomes are generalized to silent reading, although similarities and differences between oral and silent reading are poorly understood. We therefore compared oral word reading, oral text reading and silent text reading. Children (n = 40; aged 8–11) and adolescents (n = 54; aged 14–18) with dyslexia, and typical readers (n = 18, and n = 24 respectively), read a word-list and an age-appropriate text aloud, and silently read a text including instructions for simple tasks. Whereas oral and silent reading fluency were comparable for children, silent reading was more fluent than oral reading for adolescents. Importantly, the silent reading deficit of children and adolescents with dyslexia was as large as in oral reading or larger, highlighting the need for a focus on both reading modes in research, diagnosis and treatment of dyslexia.

The assumption that statistical learning is affected in dyslexia has generally been evaluated in children and adults with diagnosed dyslexia, not in pre-literate children with a family risk (FR) of dyslexia. In this study, four-to-five-year-old FR children (n = 25) and No-FR children (n = 33) completed tasks of emerging literacy (phoneme awareness and RAN). They also performed an online non-adjacent dependency learning (NADL) task, based on the Serial Reaction Time (SRT) task paradigm. Children's accuracy (hits), signal sensitivity (d′) and reaction times were measured. The FR group performed marginally more poorly on phoneme awareness and significantly more poorly on RAN than the No-FR group. Regarding NADL outcomes, the results were less straightforward: the data suggested successful statistical learning for both groups, as indicated by the hit and reaction time curves found. However, the FR group was less accurate and slower on the task than the No-FR group. Furthermore, unlike the No-FR group, performance in the FR group varied as a function of the specific stimulus presented. Taken together, these findings fail to show a robust difference in statistical learning between children with and without an FR of dyslexia at preschool age, in line with earlier work on older children and adults with dyslexia.

Veel kinderen met dyslexie en met een taalontwikkelingsstoornis (TOS) hebben moeite met spellen. Het is niet bekend of deze problemen hetzelfde zijn voor beide groepen,omdat er weinig directe spellingvergelijkingen tussen deze twee groepen kinderen zijn gemaakt. In deze studie vergeleken we de woorddictee-uitkomsten en foutenpatronen van kinderen (leeftijdsrange 8.2-10.4 jaar) met dyslexie (n=31), TOS (n=30) en een leeftijdsgematchtecontrolegroep (n=31). Daarnaast verdeelden we de TOS-groep in kinderen met TOS met leesproblemen (TOS+LP, n=18) en zonder leesproblemen (alleen-TOS, n=12). Tot slot voerden we regressieanalyses uit om te bepalen welke taal- en lees(gerelateerde) vaardigheden invloed hebben op spellingsuitkomsten.Zowel de dyslexie- als TOS-groep vertoonden spellingproblemen. Deze waren het meest uitgesproken voor de TOS+LP-groep. Wat betreft foutsoorten maakten de dyslexieenTOS-groepen meer fouten in alle categorieën dan de controlegroep. De dyslexie, alleen-TOS en TOS+LP-groepen lieten eenzelfde patroon zien wat betreft het spellen van woorden met foneem-grafeemassociaties die niet helemaal klankzuiver zijn (gauw als *gouw), met woorden waarin fonologie-orthografie-en morfologie moeten worden gecombineerd (pittig als *pitteg) en met regelwoorden (metro als *meetro). De dyslexieen TOS+LP-groepen lieten ook meer fouten zien in klankzuivere foneemgrafeemkoppelingen(boek als *beok) en met orthografische kennis (leenwoorden). De regressieanalyses lieten een sterke bijdrage zien van woordlezen en snelbenoemen aan woordspelling. Regressieanalyses zonder deze lees(gerelateerde) vaardigheden lieten een beperkte bijdrage van morfologie zien aan de spellingsuitkomsten.Deze resultaten bevestigen dat kinderen met dyslexie en TOS spellingprobemen hebben, zeker kinderen met TOS+LP. Ze wijzen naar de belangrijke bijdrage van woordleesvaardigheiden snelbenoemen voor spellen, en een beperktere bijdrage van morfologie. Samen geven ze de noodzaak weer van systematisch spellingonderwijs en ondersteuning voor kinderen met dyslexie en TOS, alsook het belang van mondelinge taalondersteuning.Trefwoorden: Spelling, Dyslexie, Taalontwikkelingsstoornis, Lezen, Taal.

Availability of orthography during word learning has been found to facilitate learning the word’s spelling and pronunciation and has been proposed to facilitate learning its meaning. This has not been studied in second language (L2) learning yet, in which word learning often corresponds to translation learning. Therefore, an L2 word learning experiment was carried out. Grade 6 Dutch students (n = 92) were taught English words, with orthography available or absent. Words were divided into those that are spelled entirely like they sound (consistent, e.g., lilt) and those that are not (inconsistent, e.g., budgie). Students learned the words using forward translation (Dutch to English) or backward translation (English to Dutch). At post-test spelling, reading and forward as well as backward translation were measured. Results indicate that availability of orthography mainly facilitated word spelling and reading. There was a trend for orthography to affect learning the translation. Learning consistent words benefited most from orthography, especially when the post-test demanded forward translation. As forward translation requires retrieval of the word’s pronunciation, it is likely that students used orthographic mapping to better remember the pronunciations of the English words. Forward translation was easier if words were learned in the same direction, but backward translation was not affected by learning direction. Together, these results imply that orthography supports translation learning, although this is likely caused by learning the word’s pronunciation and not by establishing a direct link between orthography and word meaning.

Contains fulltext : 234366.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) L1 studies show that the paired-associate learning (PAL) of novel pronunciations, verbal learning, contributes to the prediction of individual differences in vocabulary, reading, and spelling development. The present study examined whether verbal learning predicts vocabulary and literacy development in English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Dutch Grade 7 students (N = 455) completed a PAL task in which they learned to associate known Dutch words with their unknown English (spoken and written) translation. Both verbal and orthographic learning were assessed. Additionally, vocabulary, and reading and spelling skills were measured at the beginning of Grade 7 and five months later. The results showed that verbal learning contributed to development in vocabulary and reading accuracy. The contribution of orthographic learning was limited to development in spelling and pseudoword reading fluency. Overall, these findings are in line with findings in L1, indicating that especially verbal learning adds to the prediction of EFL development. 10 p.

This study investigated how gifted children with dyslexia might be able to mask literacy problems and the role of possible compensatory mechanisms. The sample consisted of 121 Dutch primary school children that were divided over four groups (typically developing [TD] children, children with dyslexia, gifted children, gifted children with dyslexia). The test battery included measures of literacy (reading/spelling) and cognitive abilities related to literacy and language (phonological awareness [PA], rapid automatized naming [RAN], verbal short-term memory [VSTM], working memory [WM], grammar, and vocabulary). It was hypothesized that gifted children with dyslexia would outperform children with dyslexia on literacy tests. In addition, a core-deficit model including dyslexia-related weaknesses and a compensational model involving giftedness-related strengths were tested using Bayesian statistics to explain their reading/spelling performance. Gifted children with dyslexia performed on all literacy tests in between children with dyslexia and TD children. Their cognitive profile showed signs of weaknesses in PA and RAN and strengths in VSTM, WM, and language skills. Findings indicate that phonology is a risk factor for gifted children with dyslexia, but this is moderated by other skills such as WM, grammar, and vocabulary, providing opportunities for compensation of a cognitive deficit and masking of literacy difficulties.