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.
AaronP. G.JoshiR. M.MahboobehA.EllsberryA.HendersonJ.LindseyK. (1999). Decoding and sight-word naming: Are they independent components of word recognition skill?Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 89–127.
2.
AdolfS. M.ScogginsJ.BrazendaleA.BabbS.PetscherT. (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
3.
ApplegateM. D.QuinnK. B.ApplegateA. J. (2002). Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal inventories. Reading Teacher, 56, 174–180.
4.
BasarabaD.YovanoffP.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (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
CattsH. 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.
CattsH. W.HoganT.FeyM. 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.
ChuiY. 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.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (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.
DoleJ. A.DuffyG. G.RoehlerL. R.PearsonP. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61,(2) 239–264.
14.
DunlapW.CortinaJ. M.VaslowJ. B.BurkeM. 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.
EbertK. D.ScottC. 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.
ElkindJ.CohenK.MurrayC. (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.
FastingR. B.LysterS. 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.
FoormanB. R.KoonS.PetscherY.MitchellA.TruckenmillerA. (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.
FordL.SwartS.NegreirosJ.LacroixS.McGrewK. 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.
FrancisD. J.KuleszP. A.BenoitJ. 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.
FreelandJ. T.SkinnerC. H.JacksonB.McDanielC. E.SmithS. (2000). Measuring and increasing silent reading comprehension rates: Empirically validating a repeated readings intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 37(5), 415–429.
22.
GandhiA. G.OgutB.SteinL.BzuraR.DanielsonL. (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.
GarciaJ. R.CainK. (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.
GiustoM.EhriL. (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.
GonzalezM. (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.
GoughP. B.TunmerW. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
27.
GrimshawS.DungworthN.McknightC.MorrisA. (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.
HigginsE.RaskindM. 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.
HolmesA.SilvestriR.HarrisonA. (2011). Employment experience of Ontario’s postsecondary graduates with learning disabilities. Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario websitehttp://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/LD_ENG.pdf
30.
HooverW. A.GoughP. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 127–160.
31.
HooverW. A.TunmerW. 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.
HudsonR. F.HighL.OtaibaS. (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.
KintschW.RawsonK. A. (2005). Comprehension. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–226). Blackwell.
34.
KirbyJ. R.SavageR. S. (2008). Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading?Literacy, 42(2), 75–82.
LappD.FloodJ. (1983). Teaching reading to every child. MacMillan.
38.
LeongC. K. (1992). Enhancing reading comprehension with text-to-speech (DECtalk) computer system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4(2), 205–217.
39.
LiH. (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.
LundbergI. (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.
MacGinitieW. H.MacGinitieR. K. (1992). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (2nd ed.). Nelson Education.
42.
MackenzieG. B.WondersE. (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.
McCormickS. (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.
MeyerN. K.BouckE. 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.
MorseyL.KiefferM.SnowC. (2010). Measure for measure: A critical consumers’ guide to reading comprehension tests for adolescents. Carnegie Corporation of New York.
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.
OlsenR.FoltzG.WiseB. (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
PearmanC. 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.
PerfettiC. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.
52.
PerfettiC. A.LandhiN.OakhillJ. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Blackwell Publishing.
53.
RaskindM. H.HigginsE. L. (1998). Assistive technology for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(1), 27–40.
54.
ReinkingD. (1997). Me and hypertext: A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy. Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626–637.
55.
RupleyW. H.BlairT. R. (1983). Reading diagnosis and remediation: Classroom and clinic (2nd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
56.
SchmittA. J.HaleA. D.McCallumE.MauckB. (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
SnowC. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND.
60.
SorrellC. A.BellS. M.McCallumR. 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.
StaelsE.van den BroeckW. (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.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
63.
StanovichK. 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.
SwansonE.HairrellA.KentS.CiulloS.WanzekJ. A.VaughnS. (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.
SwansonH. L.HoskynM. (1998). Experimental intervention research with learning disabilities: A meta-analyses of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277–321.
66.
SwansonL. (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
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
69.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. 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.
TigheESchatschneiderC. (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.
TompkinsG. E. (2006). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach. Pearson Prentice Hall.
73.
TorgesenJ. K.RashotteC. A.AlexanderA. W. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In WolfM. (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and the brain (pp. 333–355). York Press.
74.
TorgesenJ. K.WatersM. D.CohenA. L.TorgesenJ. 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
VaccaJ. L.VaccaR. T.GoveM. K.BurkeyL. C.LenhartL. A.McKeonC. A. (2009). Reading and learning to read (7th ed.). Pearson.
77.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). The Psychological Corp.
78.
WoodS. G.MoxleyJ. H.TigheE. L.WagnerR. 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.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Riverside.
