Reading development

Question 1

Historical reading levels

Answer 1

deFrancesca 1972: 17,000 US at 18yo, RA: 9yo

Conrad 1979: N468 school leavers RA of 9yo, 2.4% read appropriately, 50% RA under 7yo

Question 2

Recent reading levels studies1

Walters, qi and mitchell, powers and gregory

Answer 2

Walters 2006: N404 dutch, 4% at expected RA
Qi and Mitchell 2011: retrospective ltnl at SAT scores predict deficit over 30 years
Powers and gregory (99): no improvement for deaf interventions over decades- gap between chron age and RA increases with age!

Question 3

Kyle and Harris 2010

Answer 3

N29, over 3 years, 7-10yo: every 12 months they were given a battery of literacy, cognitive, and language tasks;
- gap between chron and reading age increases with age, and reading development gives phonological awareness. most- age appropriate reading from children with least severe hearing

Question 4

Hulme and Snowling 2014

Answer 4

Reading development is ‘parasitic on language’- good language base leads to good reading skills, irrespective of modality

Question 5

Important factors for learning to read:

Answer 5

1) Phonological awareness
2) Letter-sound knowledge
3) Rapid automatized naming (RAN)
or Musselman (2000): phonological encoding, language-specific or language-general knowledge
- sign is a different LANG: grammar, syntax– limited from outset

Question 6

Phonological awareness:

Mutter (04); NIL (08); Bowyer-Crane (08)

Answer 6

*Mutter (04); NIL (08); Bowyer-Crane (08): causal impact of decoding skills; phoneme deletion and rhyme oddity.
and letter-sound knowledge– York ass. of reading and comprehension ie that ‘p’ is /p/
partial hearing is most helpful!- harris and moveno 2006

Question 7

Phonological encoding alternatives:

Answer 7

May base on more visual entities (better at visual stimuli (parasnis and samar 1982)

• Orthography (not as successful)
• Articulation (lip pattern: partial knowledge)- total communication; speech cues with sign, gesture, finger spelling- can help reading as more english
• Finger spelling: attention to letters
• sign: encoded print info to STM (Hanson 1982)
• – Lichenstein 1998: likely multiple strategies

Question 8

RAN abiltiies

Answer 8

ability to rapidly label items efficiently predicts reading ability cross-linguistically (Caravalos 2012)- unaffected by strange mappings

Question 9

• Conflicting evidence for PA as predictor!

Answer 9

NO link: McQuarrie 09: no r in 32 6-18yo with sever-profound RD
YES link: Cupples 13: PA accounts for 10% variance in word reading at 5yo (N101) (& MAs: Mayberry 2010 (11%), bus and van ijzendoorn 99 (12%))

Question 10

Why is there conflicting evidence for PA?

Answer 10

variation in type of tasks used, appropriateness of task for population, age range, langauge experience- causality?
Orthographic strategies used vary a lot in populations (Hirshorn 2014)
LTNL: Kyle and Harris 10: reading LEADS to PA; Colin 06: PA leads to reading!

Question 11

Normal reading comprehension

Answer 11

Gough and Turner: reading comp= decoding x language comprehension
Nation 2010: vocab knowledge, listening comprehension, grammatical knowledge
SO substantial L1 predicts reading in L2 (even if sign)

Question 12

Language skills predict reading dev in deaf

Mayberry 89/01
Lederberg 2013
kyle and harris

Answer 12

Deaf natives are best on reading test as language input is strong (Mayberry 89/01); although necessary not vital (Lederberg 2013),
Language ability accounts for 35% of variance for reading outcomes (much more than PA)- Kyle and harris 2010

Question 13

Cochlear implantation affects reading:

Answer 13

Improves speech production and perception (Niparko 2010)
Superior outcomes in reading (svirsky 2004)
Geers 2003: CI children have better syntax and english Vocab – matthew effect
Although catch up by 7yo (dunni 2014)
Early identification/implication: Pimperton 2014

Question 14

Reading interventions:

Answer 14

Hulme and Snowling 2015:RCT: letter-sound knowledge and PA is most reliable reading skills: = Rose review UK 2006, nat reading panel usa (2000)
OR differentiate instruction: mayer and trezek 2014
1) speech reading
2) cued speech
3) visual phonetics

Question 15

STAR project 2014

Answer 15

group (deaf) level deficit, increase little with age- speech reading training- computer intervention thenRCT: games with adaptive component. Visual word spoken, then click on item- adaptive reaidng to match letter- sound

• variation in speakers: accent, age, gender variation
• • variability in time played but seem to improve
• game needs some amendments

Question 16

Speech reading

Answer 16

Kyle and harris10.11: ltnl redictor of reading although impoverished route but helps. Amodal, support from Macsweeney 2009 – STAR project.

Question 17

Cued speech

Answer 17

Infro from visual confused by phoneme (V)(F): demonstrated by McGurk effect- cue words with specific sign gesture code: intensively learnt can be fast acquired
Lasasso and crain 2010/15- clear and visually complete, leads to superior phono and reading skills- BUT self selecting bias sample.

Question 18

Visual phonetics

Answer 18

multisensory strategy using fingerspelling, HS and M for each phoneme- eg ‘m’ from nose as it is nasal– NOT communication system; designed for reading.
-effective for phonics but nothing else- initial efficacy (tucci 2014) but need RCTs

Question 19

Lederberg 2011

Answer 19

Still significantly behind despite interventions, DOH children particularly weaknesses in grammatical development, language deficits have consequences for other areas of cognitive development- reading, ToM, literacy dev

Question 20

Recent reading levels studies2

Answer 20

Traxler 2000: cross-cultural 10% at appropriate RA
-Need for a parallel study to Conrad (1979)
Spencer 2010: still sig low despite intervention