The Interaction of Cognitive Profiles and Text-to-Speech Software on Reading Comprehension of Adolescents With Reading Challenges

Abstract

This study utilized the Simple View of Reading (SVR) model cognitive subtypes to determine the impact of text-to-speech (TTS) software on the reading comprehension of 94 grade 8 students with reading difficulties.

Method:

paired samples t tests for all four SVR groups were conducted to examine reading comprehension scores under TTS and no-TTS conditions.

Results:

only those participants with a dyslexic profile (listening comprehension greater than decoding skills), demonstrated significant gains in reading comprehension in the TTS compared to the no-TTS condition; a large effect size (1.58 grade level increase) was found. Furthermore, this group’s literal comprehension improved much more than their inferential comprehension when utilizing TTS.

Implications:

a one-size fits all approach for the selection of TTS for struggling readers is not recommended. SVR subtyping incorporated into psychoeducational assessments can inform appropriate assignment of TTS to struggling readers.

Keywords

text-to speech software assistive technology dyslexia reading comprehension simple view of reading

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaron

P. G.

Joshi

R. M.

Mahboobeh

Ellsberry

Henderson

Lindsey

(1999). Decoding and sight-word naming: Are they independent components of word recognition skill? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 89–127.

Adolf

S. M.

Scoggins

Brazendale

Babb

Petscher

(2017). Identifying children at risk for language impairment or dyslexia with group administered measures. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 60(2), 3507–3522. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-16-0473

Applegate

M. D.

Quinn

K. B.

Applegate

A. J.

(2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal inventories. Reading Teacher, 56, 174–180.

Basaraba

Yovanoff

Alonzo

Tindal

(2013). Examining the structure of reading comprehension: Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehensive truly exist? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26(3), 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9

Bizier

Till

Nicholls

(2015). Canadian survey on disability: Learning disabilities among Canadians aged 15 years and older, 2012 (Catalogue no. 89-654-X2014003). Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2014003-eng.htm

Buzick

Stone

(2014). A meta-analysis of research on the read aloud accommodation. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 17–30.

Carnine

D. W.

Silbert

Kame’enui

E. J.

Tarver

S. G.

(2010). Direct instruction reading (5th ed.). Merrill.

Castles

(2006). The dual route model and the developmental dyslexias. London Review of Education, 4(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110600574454

Catts

H. W.

(2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518767563

10.

Catts

H. W.

Hogan

Fey

M. E.

(2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600208

11.

Chui

Y. D.

(2018). The simple view of reading across development: Prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension from prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762055

12.

Coltheart

Rastle

Perry

Langdon

Ziegler

(2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.1.204

13.

Dole

J. A.

Duffy

G. G.

Roehler

L. R.

Pearson

P. D.

(1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61,(2) 239–264.

14.

Dunlap

Cortina

J. M.

Vaslow

J. B.

Burke

M. J.

(1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.170

15.

Ebert

K. D.

Scott

C. M.

(2016). Bringing the simple view of reading to the clinic: Relationships between oral and written language skills in a clinical sample. Journal of Communication Disorders, 62, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2016.07.002

16.

Elkind

Cohen

Murray

(1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02928184

17.

Fasting

R. B.

Lyster

S. H.

(2005). The effects of computer technology in assisting the development of literacy in young struggling readers and spellers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625042000319061

18.

Foorman

B. R.

Koon

Petscher

Mitchell

Truckenmiller

(2015). Examining general and specific factors in the dimensionality of oral language and reading in 4th-10th grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 884–889. http://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026

19.

Ford

Swart

Negreiros

Lacroix

McGrew

K. S.

(2010). Use of the woodcock-Johnson III NU tests of cognitive abilities and tests of achievement with Canadian Populations (Woodcock Johnson III Assessment Service Bulletin No. 12). Riverside Publishing.

20.

Francis

D. J.

Kulesz

P. A.

Benoit

J. S.

(2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVRi). Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904

21.

Freeland

J. T.

Skinner

C. H.

Jackson

McDaniel

C. E.

Smith

(2000). Measuring and increasing silent reading comprehension rates: Empirically validating a repeated readings intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 37(5), 415–429.

22.

Gandhi

A. G.

Ogut

Stein

Bzura

Danielson

(2018). Enhancing accessibility for students with decoding difficulties on large-scale reading assessments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417714774

23.

Garcia

J. R.

Cain

(2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616

24.

Giusto

Ehri

(2019). Effectiveness of a partial read-aloud test accommodation to assess reading comprehension in students with a reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418789377

25.

Gonzalez

(2014). The effect of embedded text-to-speech and vocabulary ebook scaffolds on the comprehension of students with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 29(3), 111–125.

26.

Gough

P. B.

Tunmer

W. E.

(1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.

27.

Grimshaw

Dungworth

Mcknight

Morris

(2007). Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00640.x

28.

Higgins

Raskind

M. H.

(2005). The compensatory effectiveness of the quicktionary reading pen II on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(1), 31–40.

29.

Holmes

Silvestri

Harrison

(2011). Employment experience of Ontario’s postsecondary graduates with learning disabilities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario website http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/LD_ENG.pdf

30.

Hoover

W. A.

Gough

P. B.

(1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160.

31.

Hoover

W. A.

Tunmer

W. E.

(2018). The simple view of reading: Three assessments of its adequacy. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518773154

32.

Hudson

R. F.

High

Otaiba

(2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell us? Reading Teacher, 60(6), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.6.1

33.

Kintsch

Rawson

K. A.

(2005). Comprehension. In Snowling

M. J.

Hulme

(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Blackwell.

34.

Kirby

J. R.

Savage

R. S.

(2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42(2), 75–82.

35.

Knezek

Christensen

Miyashita

(1998). Computer attitude questionnaire. http://courseweb.unt.edu/gknezek/studies/survey/caq514.pdf

36.

Kurzweil 3000 [Computer software]. Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products.

37.

Lapp

Flood

(1983). Teaching reading to every child. MacMillan.

38.

Leong

C. K.

(1992). Enhancing reading comprehension with text-to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4(2), 205–217.

39.

(2014). The effects of read aloud accommodations for students with and without disabilities: A meta analysis. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(3), 3–16.

40.

Lundberg

(1995). The computer as a tool of remediation in the education of students with reading disabilities—A theory-based approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18(2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511197

41.

MacGinitie

W. H.

MacGinitie

R. K.

(1992). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (2nd ed.). Nelson Education.

42.

Mackenzie

G. B.

Wonders

(2016). Rethinking intelligence quotient exclusion criteria practices in the study of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(794), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00794

43.

McCormick

(1992). Disabled readers’ erroneous responses to inferential comprehension questions: Description and analyses. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/747833

44.

Meyer

N. K.

Bouck

E. C.

(2014). The impact of text-to-speech on expository reading for adolescents with LD. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(1), 21–33.

45.

Morsey

Kieffer

Snow

(2010). Measure for measure: A critical consumers’ guide to reading comprehension tests for adolescents. Carnegie Corporation of New York.

46.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). The nation’s report card: Reading 2019; national center for educational statistics. http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading?grade=4

47.

National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Teaching students to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instructions. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf

48.

Olsen

Foltz

Wise

(1986). Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 18(2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201007

49.

Ontario Ministry of Education (2012). Reading and writing with your child, kindergarten to grade 6: A parent guide. Ontario Ministry of Education website http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/parentguideliten.pdf

50.

Pearman

C. J.

(2008). Independent reading of CD-ROM storybooks: Measuring comprehension with oral retellings. Reading Teacher, 61(8), 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.8.1

51.

Perfetti

C. A.

(1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.

52.

Perfetti

C. A.

Landhi

Oakhill

(2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In Snowling

M. J.

Hulme

(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Blackwell Publishing.

53.

Raskind

M. H.

Higgins

E. L.

(1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 27–40.

54.

Reinking

(1997). Me and hypertext: A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy. Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626–637.

55.

Rupley

W. H.

Blair

T. R.

(1983). Reading diagnosis and remediation: Classroom and clinic (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.

56.

Schmitt

A. J.

Hale

A. D.

McCallum

Mauck

(2011). Accommodating remedial readers in the general education setting: Is listening-while reading sufficient to improve factual and inferential comprehension. Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20540

57.

Schnotz

Kurschner

(2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 469–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9053-4

58.

Shaywitz

(2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57(11), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/10.1016

59.

Snow

C. E.

(2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND.

60.

Sorrell

C. A.

Bell

S. M.

McCallum

R. S.

(2007). Reading rate and comprehension as a function of computerized versus traditional presentation mode: A preliminary study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(1), 1–12.

61.

Staels

van den Broeck

(2015). Orthographic learning and the role of text-to-speech software in Dutch disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413487407

62.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.

63.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(10), 590–604.

64.

Swanson

Hairrell

Kent

Ciullo

Wanzek

J. A.

Vaughn

(2014). A synthesis and meta-analysis of reading interventions using social studies content for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412451131

65.

Swanson

H. L.

Hoskyn

(1998). Experimental intervention research with learning disabilities: A meta-analyses of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321.

66.

Swanson

(1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 504–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949903200605

67.

Sweller

(1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

68.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.

69.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

70.

Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, P.L. 100-47, 29 U.S.C. 2201, 2202. (1988).

71.

Tighe

Schatschneider

(2014). A dominance analysis approach to determining predictor importance in third, seventh, and tenth grade reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9435-6

72.

Tompkins

G. E.

(2006). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. Pearson Prentice Hall.

73.

Torgesen

J. K.

Rashotte

C. A.

Alexander

A. W.

(2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In Wolf

(Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and the brain (pp. 333–355). York Press.

74.

Torgesen

J. K.

Waters

M. D.

Cohen

A. L.

Torgesen

J. L.

(1988). Improving sight word recognition skills in learning disabled children: An evaluation of three computer program variations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510990

75.

Tunmer

Greaney

(2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409345009

76.

Vacca

J. L.

Vacca

R. T.

Gove

M. K.

Burkey

L. C.

Lenhart

L. A.

McKeon

C. A.

(2009). Reading and learning to read (7th ed.). Pearson.

77.

Wechsler

(2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). The Psychological Corp.

78.

Wood

S. G.

Moxley

J. H.

Tighe

E. L.

Wagner

R. K.

(2018). Does use of text-to-speech and related read-aloud tools improve reading comprehension for students with reading disabilities? A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416688170

79.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Riverside.