Ways in which Pontius' rejoinder to the criticisms raised earlier about her 1982 study of white and Aboriginal Australians fall short of success are enumerated.
ColeM., & BrunerJ. S.Cultural differences and inferences about cognitive processes. American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 867–876.
3.
DavidsonG.Australian Aboriginal spatial cognition and dyslexia: A criticism of Pontius (1982). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, 58, 627–634.
4.
DuaneD.Neurobiological correlates of reading disorders. Journal of Educational Research, 1983, 77, 5–15.
5.
HungD. L., & TzengO. J. L.Orthographic variations and visual information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 90, 377–414.
6.
KeddieN. (Ed.) Tinker, tailor: The myth of cultural deprivation. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
7.
MayesJ.The implications of “neolithic” face representation: An indicator of “spatial” dyslexia or a case of “scientific” dyslexia. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, 59, 634.
8.
PontiusA. A.Representation of spatial relations on the specific test, Draw-a-person-with-face-in-front, as indicative of literacy skills in Australian Aboriginals and “Westerners.”Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, 59, 275–284.
9.
ScribnerS., & ColeM.Unpackaging literacy. Social Science Information, 1978, 17, 19–40.
VellutinoF.Alternative conceptualizations of dyslexia: Evidence in support of a verbal-deficit hypothesis. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 334–354.
13.
VellutinoF. R.Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1981.
