This study was designed to assess whether the effects of computer-assisted practice on visual word recognition differed for children with reading disabilities (RD) with or without aptitude—achievement discrepancy. A sample of 73 Spanish children with low reading performance was selected using the discrepancy method, based on a standard score comparison (i.e., the difference between IQ and achievement standard scores). The sample was classified into three groups: (1) a group of 14 children with dyslexia (age M = 103.85 months; SD = 8.45) who received computer-based reading practice; (2) a group of 31 “garden-variety” (GV) poor readers (age M = 107.06 months; SD = 6.75) who received the same type of instruction; and (3) a group of 28 children with low reading performance (age M = 103.33 months; SD = 9.04) who did not receive computer-assisted practice. Children were pre- and posttested in word recognition, reading comprehension, phonological awareness, and visual and phonological tasks. The results indicated that both computer-assisted intervention groups showed improved word recognition compared to the control group. Nevertheless, children with dyslexia had more difficulties than GV poor readers during computer-based word reading under conditions that required extensive phonological computation, because their performance was more affected by low-frequency words and long words. In conclusion, we did not find empirical evidence in favor of the IQ—achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability, because IQ did not differentially predict treatment outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alvarez, C.J., Carreiras, M., & de Vega, M. (1992). Estudios estadísticos de la ortografía castellana: (1) La frecuencia silábica [Statistical analysis of Spanish spelling: (1) Syllable frequency]. Cognitiva,4, 75—105.
2.
Backman, J., Bruck, M., Herbert, M., & Seidenberg, M. (1984). Acquisition and use of spelling—sound correspondences in reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 114—133.
3.
Bowers, P., Steffy, R., & Tate, E. (1988). Comparison of the effects of IQ control methods on memory and naming speed predictors of reading disability. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 304—319.
4.
Bowey, J.A., & Francis, J. (1991). Phonological analysis as a function of age and exposure to reading instruction. Applied Psycholinguistics , 12, 91—121.
5.
Bryson, S.E., & Werker, J.F. (1989). Toward understanding the problems in severely disabled readers: Part I. Vowel errors. Applied Psycholinguistics , 10, 1—12.
6.
Cattell, R.B., & Cattell, A.K.S. (1989). Tests de factor “g.” Escala 1 (Cordero, De la Cruz, & Seisdedos, Trans.). Madrid: TEA. (Original work published 1950)
7.
Cuetos, F. (1989). Lectura y escritura de palabras a través de la ruta fonológica [Reading and spelling using a phonological route]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 45, 71—84.
8.
Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., & Ruano, E., (1996). Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores de los niños de educación primaria (PROLEC) [Assessment test of reading skills for children in primary education]. Madrid: TEA.
9.
Hurford, D.P., Johnston, M., Nepote, P., Hampton, S., Moore, S., Neal, J., et al. (1994). Early identification and remediation of phonological processing deficits in first-grade children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 647—659.
10.
Jiménez, J.E. (1997). A reading-level design study of phonemic processes underlying reading disabilities in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 23—40.
11.
Jiménez, J.E., & García, I. (1999). Is IQ— achievement discrepancy relevant in the definition of arithmetic learning disabilities?Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 291— 301.
12.
Jiménez, J.E., Guzmán, R., & Artiles, C. (1997). Efectos de la frecuencia silábica posicional en el reconocimiento visual de palabras y aprendizaje de la lectura [Effects of positional syllable frequency in visual word recognition and learning to read]. Cognitiva, 1, 3—27.
13.
Jiménez, J.E., & Hernández-Valle, I. (2000). Word identification and reading disorders in the Spanish language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 267—275.
14.
Jiménez, J.E., & Rodrigo, M. (1994). Is it true that the differences in reading performance between students with and without LD cannot be explained by IQ?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 155— 163.
15.
Jones, K.M., Torgesen, J.K., & Sexton, M.A. (1987). Using computer guided practice to increase decoding fluency in learning disabled children: A study using the Hint and Hunt Program . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 122—128.
16.
Kavale, K. (1989). The long-term consequence of learning disabilities . In M. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 303—344). Toronto: Pergamon Press.
17.
Kershner, J.R. (1990). Self-concept and IQ as predictors of remedial success in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 368—374.
18.
Lundberg, I. (1995). The computer as a tool of remediation in the education of students with reading disabilities: A theory-based approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 89—99.
19.
Morais, J. (1995). Do orthographic and phonological peculiarities of alphabetically written languages influence the course of literacy acquisition?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 1—7.
20.
Olofsson, A. (1992). Synthetic speech and computer aided reading for reading disabled children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 165—178.
21.
Olson, R., & Wise, B. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback: An overview of the Colorado remediation project. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 107—144.
22.
Olson, R.K., Kliegl, R., Davidson, B.J., & Foltz, G. (1985). Individual and developmental differences in reading disability. In G. E. MacKinnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 4, pp. 1—64). New York: Academic Press.
23.
Olson, R.K., Wise, B., Conners, F., Rack, J., & Fulker, D. (1989). Specific deficits in component reading and language skills: Genetic and environmental influences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 339— 348.
24.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
Rack, J.P., Snowling, M.J., & Olson, R.K. (1992). The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 29—53.
26.
Rodrigo, M., & Jiménez, J.E. (2000). IQ vs. phonological decoding skill in explaining differences between poor readers and normal readers in word recognition: Evidence from a naming task. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 129—142.
27.
Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concepts of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181— 197.
28.
Share, D.L., McGee, R., & Silva, P.S. (1989). IQ and reading progress: A test of the capacity notion of IQ. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 97—100.
29.
Siegel, L.S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201-—215 .
30.
Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469—478.
31.
Siegel, L.S. (1990). IQ and learning disabilities: R.I.P. In H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 111—128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
Siegel, L.S. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618—629.
33.
Siegel, L.S., & Faux, D. (1989). Acquisition of certain grapheme—phoneme correspondences in normally achieving disabled readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 37—52.
34.
Siegel, L.S., & Ryan, E.B. (1988). Development of grammatical sensitivity, phonological, and short term memory skills in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28—37.
35.
Stanovich, K.E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and garden variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590—612.
36.
Stanovich, K.E. (1989). Has the learning disabilities field lost its intelligence?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 487—492.
37.
Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Are discrepancy-based definitions of dyslexia empirically defensible? In K. P. Van den Bos, L. S. Siegel, D. J. Bakker, & D. L. Share (Eds.), Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 15—30). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
38.
Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24—53.
39.
Swanson, H.L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 32, 504—532.
40.
Torgesen, J.K., & Barker, T.A. (1995). Computers as aids in the prevention and remediation of reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 76—87.
41.
Treiman, R. (1992). The role of intrasyllabic units in learning to read and spell. In P. B. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 65—106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1988). Units in reading and spelling. Journal of Memory andLanguage, 27, 466—477.
43.
Van Daal, V.H.P., & Reitsma, P. (1993). The use of speech feedback by normal and disabled readers in computer-based reading practice. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 243—259.
44.
Van den Bos, K.P., & Spelberg, H.C.L. (1994). Word identification routes and reading disorders. In K. P. Van den Bos, L. S. Siegel, D. J. Bakker, & D. L. Share (Eds.). Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 201—219). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
45.
Van der Leij, A. (1994). Effects of computer-assisted instruction on word and pseudo-word reading of reading-disabled students. In K. P. Van den Bos, L. S. Siegel, D. J. Bakker, & D. L. Share (Eds.), Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 251— 267). Lisse , The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
46.
Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33, 223—238.
47.
Venezky, R.L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
48.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin,101, 192—212.
49.
Werker, J.F., Bryson, S.E., & Wassenberg, K. (1989). Toward understanding the problem in severely disabled readers. Part II: Consonant errors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 13—30.
50.
Wise, B.W., Ring, J., & Olson, R. (1999). Training phonological awareness with and without explicit attention to articulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72, 271—304.
