The current study investigated differences in allocation of attention between good and poor readers, using dual-task methodology. For 54 undergraduates classified as Good Readers and 54 classified as Poor Readers, based on their Nelson-Denny reading comprehension scores, significant main effects and interactions were found for word frequency, lexicality, and stimulus onset asynchrony, but no significant group differences (either in the form of main effects or interaction effects) were found between Good and Poor Readers. Possible explanations include task demands in the conditions and speed-accuracy trade-offs made by some subjects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckA. T. (1967) Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York: Harper & Row.
2.
BruckM.WatersG. S. (1990) An analysis of component spelling and reading skills of good readers-good spellers, good readers-poor spellers, and poor readers-poor spellers. In CarrT. H.LeviB. A. (Eds.), Reading and its development. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp. 161–201.
KleimanG. M. (1985) Comparing good and poor readers: A critique of the research. In NelsonK. E. (Ed.), Children's language. Vol. 5. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 129–158.
5.
NelsonM. J.DennyE. C. (1973) The Nelson-Denny Reading Test—Form F. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
6.
SpielbergerC. D.GorsuchR. L.LusheneR. E. (1970) Manual for State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
7.
WechslerD. (1981) Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.
8.
WestR. F.StanovichK. E.MitchellH. R. (1993) Reading in the real world and its correlates. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 35–50.
