One hundred five participants from a random sample of elementary and middle school children completed measures of reading achievement and cognitive abilities presumed, based on a synthesis of current dyslexia research, to underlie reading. Factor analyses of these cognitive variables (including auditory processing, phonological awareness, short-term auditory memory, visual memory, rapid automatized naming, and visual processing speed) produced three empirically and theoretically derived factors (auditory processing, visual processing/speed, and memory), each of which contributed to the prediction of reading and spelling skills. Factor scores from the three factors combined predicted 85% of the variance associated with letter/sight word naming, 70% of the variance associated with reading comprehension, 73% for spelling, and 61% for phonetic decoding. The auditory processing factor was the strongest predictor, accounting for 27% to 43% of the variance across the different achievement areas. The results provide practitioner and researcher with theoretical and empirical support for the inclusion of measures of the three factors, in addition to specific measures of reading achievement, in a standardized assessment of dyslexia. Guidelines for a thorough, research-based assessment are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Adams. M. J., & Treadway, J. (2000, March). Informing reading/writing instruction in grades K—3 through assessment. Paper presented to the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA.
3.
Badian, N.A. (1998). A validation of the role of preschool phonological and orthographic skills in the prediction of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 472— 481.
4.
Ball, E.W., & Blachman, B.A. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling?Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49—66.
5.
Bell, N., & Worthington, P. (2002, November). The double deficit hypothesis: Is symbol imagery a factor?Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Dyslexia Assocation, Atlanta, GA.
6.
Berninger, V.A. (2001). Understanding the “lexia” in dyslexia: A multidisciplinary team approach to learning disabilities . Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 23—48.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1996). Comprehensive test of basic skills. Monterrey, CA: Author.
9.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1997). The case for early intervention . In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 243—264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
10.
Ganske, K. (1993). Developmental spelling analysis. Barboursville, VA: Author.
11.
Hammill, D.D., Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (2001). Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
12.
Henry, M., Ganschow, L., & Miles, T.R. (2000). The issue of definition: Some problems. Perspectives: The International Dyslexia Association, 26(4), 38—43.
13.
International Dyslexia Association. (2002, January). Response to OSEP summit on learning disabilities: The nature of learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
14.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2002, July). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Research to Practice.
15.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory—3. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Lyon, G.R. (1996). Learning disabilities. In K. L. Freiberg (Ed.), Annual editions: Educating exceptional children (pp. 49—71). Guilford, CT: Dushkin /McGraw-Hill.
18.
Manis, F.R., Doi, L.M., & Bhadha, B. (2000). Naming speed, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 33, 325—333.
19.
Markwardt, F.C. (1989). Peabody individual achievement test—Revised . Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
20.
Mather, N. (1999). Interpretation of the WJ-R cognitive and achievement batteries. Workshop presented at the Knox County Schools, Knoxville, TN.
21.
McCallum, R.S., & Bell, S.M. (2001). Test of dyslexia. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
22.
McGrew, K.S., & Flanagan, D.P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon .
Padget, S.Y., Knight, D.F., & Sawyer, D.J. (1996). Tennessee meets the challenge of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 51—72.
25.
Psychological Corp. (2002). Wechsler individual achievement test (2nd ed.). New York: Author.
26.
Sawyer, D.J. (1987). Test of awareness of language segments. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
27.
Schatschneider, C., Carlson, C.D., Francis, D.J., Foorman, B.R., & Fletcher, J.M. (2002). Relationship of rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness in early reading development: Implications for the double deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 35, 245—256. Shaywitz , S.E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 275, 78—84.
28.
Shaywitz, S.E. (1998). Dyslexia. Current Concepts, 338, 307-312.
29.
Siegel, L.S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304—319.
30.
Speece, D. & Shekitka, L. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 118— 123.
31.
Stone, B., & Brady, S. (1995). Evidence for phonological processing deficits in less-skilled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 51— 77.
32.
Torgesen, J.K., Morgan, S.T., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364—370.
33.
Torgesen, J.K., & Wagner, R.K. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approach for specific developmental reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 220—232.
34.
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.
35.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
36.
Watson, C., & Willows, D.M. (1993). Evidence for a visual-processing—deficit subtype among disabled readers. In D. M. Willows , R. S. Kruk, & E. Corcos (Eds.), Visual processes in reading and reading disabilities (pp. 287—310). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
Wolf, M. (1997). A provisional, integrative account of phonological and naming-speed deficits in dyslexia: Implications for diagnosis and intervention . In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia—Implications for early intervention (pp. 67—92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Wolf, M. (1999). What time may tell: Towards a new conceptualization of developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 3—28.
39.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P.G. (2000). Naming-speed deficits in developmental reading disabilities: An introduction to the special series on the double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 322— 324.
40.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P.G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387—407.
41.
Woodcock, R.W. (1987). Woodcock reading mastery tests—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
42.
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive abilities and tests of achievement (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Riverside.
