This study of the reading of text found that despite their lower reading speed on a reading-comprehension task, the children with low vision comprehended texts at least as well as did the sighted children. Children with low vision need more time to read and comprehend a text, but they seem to use this time with enough efficiency to process the semantic, as well as the syntactic, information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbrahamR. G., & ChapelleC. A. (1992). The meaning of cloze test scores: An item difficulty perspective. Modern Language Journal, 76, 468–479.
2.
BaddelyA., & WilsonB. (1988). Comprehension and working memory: A single case neuropsychological study. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 479–498.
3.
BeckerC. A., & KillionT. H. (1977). Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 389–401.
4.
BouchardD., & TetraultS. (2000). The motor development of sighted children and children with moderate low vision aged 8–13. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94, 564–573.
5.
BullimoreM. A., & BaileyI. L. (1995). Reading and eye movement in age-related maculopathy. Optometry and Vision Science, 72, 125–138.
6.
FineE. M., & PeliE. (1996). The role of context in reading with CFL. Optometry and Vision Science, 73, 533–539.
7.
FineganE. (1999). Language: Its structure and use (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace.
8.
GompelM., JanssenM. A., van BonW. H. J., & SchreuderR. (2003). Visual input and orthographic knowledge in word reading of children with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 273–284.
9.
GompelM., van BonW.H.X., SchreuderR., & AdriaansenJ. J. M. (2002). Reading and spelling competence of Dutch children with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 435–747.
10.
HartleyI, & TruemanM. (1986). The effects of the typographic layout of cloze-tests on reading comprehension scores. Journal of Research in Reading, 9, 116–124.
11.
KingJ., & JustM. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602.
12.
KoenenM., BosnianA. M. T., & GompelM. (2000). Kijk eens hoe ik lees; Een on-derzoek naar het leesgedrag van slechtziende en normaalziende kinderen [Watch me reading: A study of the reading behavior of children with low vision and of sighted children]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 39, 95–106.
13.
MassaroD. W., JonesR. D., LipscombC., & ScholzR. (1978). Role of prior knowledge on naming and lexical decisions with good and poor stimulus information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 498–512.
14.
NationK., & SnowlingM. J. (1998). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011.
15.
PerfettiC. A., GoldmanS. R., & HogaboamT. W. (1979). Reading skill and the identification of words in discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 7, 273–282.
16.
RubinG. S., & TuranoK. (1994). Low vision reading with sequential word presentation. Vision Research, 34, 1723–1733.
17.
SanfordA. J., GarrodS., & BoyleJ. M. (1977). An independence of mechanism in the origins of reading and classification-related semantic distance effects. Memory and Cognition, 5, 214–220.
18.
SperberR. D., McCauleyC., RagainR. D., & WeilC. M. (1979). Semantic priming effects on picture and word processing. Memory and Cognition, 7, 339–345.
19.
StanovichK. E., & WestR. F. (1979). Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: Automatic activation and conscious attention. Memory and Cognition, 7, 77–85.
20.
StanovichK. E., & WestR. F. (1981). The effect of sentence context on ongoing word recognition: Tests of two-process theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 658–672.
21.
StanovichK. E., WestR. F., & FeemanD. J. (1981). A longitudinal study of sentence context effects in second-grade children: Tests of an interactive-compensatory model. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 185–191.
22.
van BonW.H.X., AdriaansenL., GompelM., & KouwenbergI. (2000). The reading and spelling performance of visually impaired Dutch elementary schoolchildren. Visual Impairment Research2(1), 17–31.
23.
VerhoevenL. (1995). Drie minuten toets [Three-minute test]. Arnhem, the Netherlands: Cito.
24.
VerhoevenL., & VermeerA. (1993). Taaltoest Alle Kinderen [Language test for all children]. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Zwijsen.
25.
WestR. F., & StanovichK. E. (1978). Automatic contextual facilitation in readers of three ages. Child Development, 49, 717–727.
