Aryan van der Leij

Effects of Phonological Abilities and Linguistic Comprehension on the Development of Reading

Specific effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of word-decoding ability and reading comprehension, respectively, were examined in a longitudinal study with 141 Dutch children from the end of first grade to the end of third grade. In first grade, measures were administered for phonological awareness and serial rapid naming and for vocabulary and listening comprehension. Word-decoding speed and reading comprehension were assessed at the end of Grades 1 and 3. Results indicate that phonological abilities were highly associated with word decoding but did not have an additional influence on the further development of word decoding after first grade. For reading comprehension, word decoding, vocabulary, and listening comprehension appeared to exert additional influences on its further development after first grade. The results indicate that partly different determinants underlie the development of word-decoding ability and reading comprehension.Specific effects of phonological abilities and linguistic comprehension on the development of word-decoding ability and reading comprehension, respectively, were examined in a longitudinal study with 141 Dutch children from the end of first grade to the end of third grade. In first grade, measures were administered for phonological awareness and serial rapid naming and for vocabulary and listening comprehension. Word-decoding speed and reading comprehension were assessed at the end of Grades 1 and 3. Results indicate that phonological abilities were highly associated with word decoding but did not have an additional influence on the further development of word decoding after first grade. For reading comprehension, word decoding, vocabulary, and listening comprehension appeared to exert additional influences on its further development after first grade. The results indicate that partly different determinants underlie the development of word-decoding ability and reading comprehension.

Word processing in dyslexics: An automatic decoding deficit?

Dyslexic children (n=21, mean age=10.2 years) were compared with normal readers of the same age, normal readers of the same reading-age, and poor readers of the same reading-age on measures of phonological decoding and automatic word processing. Three different tasks, varying in phonological demand, were used: a naming task, an auditory-visual matching task, and a lexical decision task. On each task, word-pseudoword profiles were obtained to test phonological decoding skills and unspeeded-speeded profiles were assessed to test automaticity in word processing. Main results indicated that dyslexics have a deficit in automatic phonological decoding skills. The results are discussed within the framework of the phonological deficit and the automatization deficit hypothesis.

Working Memory in Dutch Children with Reading- and Arithmetic-Related LD

The aim of the two studies presented in this article was to examine working memory performance in Dutch children with various subtypes of learning disabilities. The performance of children with reading disabilities (RD) was compared to that of children with arithmetic disabilities (AD), children with both reading and arithmetic disabilities (RAD), and chronological age-matched controls (CA). Measures covered the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the central executive. In both studies, the children with RD showed no working memory deficits whatsoever. Children with AD showed a single impairment on the task tapping working memory for dynamic visual information. Children with RAD performed lower only on the digit span backward task. The failure to replicate the expected working memory deficits in children with reading-related disabilities is discussed.The aim of the two studies presented in this article was to examine working memory performance in Dutch children with various subtypes of learning disabilities. The performance of children with reading disabilities (RD) was compared to that of children with arithmetic disabilities (AD), children with both reading and arithmetic disabilities (RAD), and chronological age—matched controls (CA). Measures covered the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the central executive. In both studies, the children with RD showed no working memory deficits whatsoever. Children with AD showed a single impairment on the task tapping working memory for dynamic visual information. Children with RAD performed lower only on the digit span backward task. The failure to replicate the expected working memory deficits in children with reading-related disabilities is discussed.

Automatization Aspects of Dyslexia Speed Limitations in Word Identification, Sensitivity to Increasing Task Demands, and Orthographic Compensation

A study is presented in which three characteristics of dyslexia were examined: (a) speed limitations in word identification, (b) sensitivity to increasing task demands, and (c) orthographic compensation. Ten students with dyslexia (10 years old) were compared to 10 chronological-age controls and 20 reading-age controls on their performance in reading. Response latencies of the students with dyslexia were slower when familiar words, letter clusters, and nonwords had to be named. A larger word-frequency effect and a larger word-length effect in the these students indicates that they have difficulty with increasing task demands. In addition, a subword-frequency effect was found to be larger in the students with dyslexia. These differences among the three groups of students are interpreted in terms of automatization. Furthermore, it is suggested that students with dyslexia may have a preference for large orthographic units, which is used as a compensatory tool in reading.A study is presented in which three characteristics of dyslexia were examined: (a) speed limitations in word identification, (b) sensitivity to increasing task demands, and (c) orthographic compensation. Ten students with dyslexia (10 years old) were compared to 10 chronological-age controls and 20 reading-age controls on their performance in reading. Response latencies of the students with dyslexia were slower when familiar words, letter clusters, and nonwords had to be named. A larger word-frequency effect and a larger word-length effect in the these students indicates that they have difficulty with increasing task demands. In addition, a subword-frequency effect was found to be larger in the students with dyslexia. These differences among the three groups of students are interpreted in terms of automatization. Furthermore, it is suggested that students with dyslexia may have a preference for large orthographic units, which is used as a compensatory tool in reading.

Testing the Automatization Deficit Hypothesis of Dyslexia Via a Dual-Task Paradigm

Fourteen children with dyslexia were compared with controls matched for age and reading age on automatic processing under a dual-task paradigm. The primary task was a motor balance one, and the secondary task was an auditory-choice task. Main results show that the dyslexic group was more impaired in the dual-task condition compared to the single-task condition. The findings support the automatization deficit hypothesis of dyslexia.

Supporting teachers’ relationships with disruptive children: the potential of relationship-focused reflection

A relationship-focused reflection program (RFRP) was developed that targeted teachers’ mental representations of relationships with specific children. Relative effectiveness was examined in a randomized comparative trial with repeated measures. Thirty-two teachers were assigned to the RFRP or the comparison intervention directly aimed at teacher behavior. Per teacher, two children (N = 64) were selected with above-median levels of externalizing behavior. Multilevel growth modeling was used to explore intervention effects on teacher-reported Closeness and Conflict, and observed Teacher Sensitivity and Behavior Management Quality. Teaching Efficacy was included as a moderator. The RFRP yielded changes over time in closeness for about half of the teacher–child dyads. In addition, teachers with high efficacy beliefs were more likely to report declines in conflict than low-efficacy teachers. Lastly, significant increases were found in observed sensitivity. These effects were different from those found in the comparison condition and provided preliminary evidence for the potential of in-depth reflection on specific relationships to promote teacher–child relationships.

Child and parental literacy levels within families with a history of dyslexia.

BACKGROUND The present study concerns literacy and its underlying cognitive skills in Dutch children who differ in familial risk (FR) for dyslexia. Previous studies with FR-children were inconclusive regarding the performance of FR-children without dyslexia as compared to the controls. Moreover, van Bergen et al. (2011) recently showed that FR-children with and without dyslexia differed in parental reading skills, suggesting that those who go on to develop dyslexia have a higher liability. The current study concerned 1) the comparison of three groups of children at the end of second grade and 2) the intergenerational transfer of reading and its underlying cognitive skills from parent to child. METHOD Three groups of children were studied at the end of second grade: FR-dyslexia (n = 42), FR-no-dyslexia (n = 99), and control children (n = 66). Parents and children were measured on naming, phonology, spelling, and word and pseudoword reading. RESULTS The FR-dyslexia children were severely impaired across all tasks. The FR-no-dyslexia children performed better than the FR-dyslexia children, but still below the level of the controls on all tasks; the only exception was rapid naming (RAN), on which they were as fast as the controls. Focusing on the FR subsample, parental reading and RAN were related to their offsprings reading status. CONCLUSIONS We replicated and extended van Bergen et al.s study in showing that the FR-children who develop dyslexia are likely to have a higher liability. Both the group comparisons and the parent-child relations highlight the importance of good RAN skills for reading acquisition.

Enhancing the Reading Fluency and Comprehension of Children with Reading Disabilities in an Orthographically Transparent Language.

Breznitz (2006) demonstrated that Hebrew-speaking adults with reading disabilities benefited from a training in which reading rate was experimentally manipulated. In the present study, the authors examine whether silent reading training enhances the sentence reading rate and comprehension of children with reading disabilities and whether results found in Hebrew equally apply to an orthographically transparent language. Training results of 59 Dutch children with reading disabilities and normally achieving children show that children with reading disabilities are able to increase their sentence reading rate with high comprehension levels when pushed to do so with accelerated reading training. Posttest results show that transfer to routine reading is less strong for both accelerated and unaccelerated reading. Only accelerated training allows children with reading disabilities to read at high speed while maintaining high comprehension levels.

Precursors of developmental dyslexia : An overview of the longitudinal dutch dyslexia programme study

Converging evidence suggests that developmental dyslexia is a neurobiological disorder, characterized by deficits in the auditory, visual, and linguistic domains. In the longitudinal project of the Dutch Dyslexia Programme, 180 children with a familial risk of dyslexia (FR) and a comparison group of 120 children without FR (noFR) were followed from the age of 2 months up to 9 years. Children were assessed on (1) auditory, speech, and visual event-related potentials every half year between 2 and 41 months; (2) expressive and receptive language, motor development, behaviour problems, and home-literacy environment by questionnaires at the age of 2 and 3; (3) speech-language and cognitive development from 47 months onwards; and (4) preliteracy and subskills of reading, and reading development during kindergarten and Grades 2 and 3. With regard to precursors of reading disability, first analyses showed specific differences between FR and noFR children in neurophysiological, cognitive, and early language measures. Once reading tests administered from age 7 to 9 years were available, the children were divided into three groups: FR children with and without dyslexia, and controls. Analyses of the differences between reading groups yielded distinct profiles and developmental trajectories. On early speech and visual processing, and several cognitive measures, performance of the non-dyslexic FR group differed from the dyslexic FR group and controls, indicating continuity of the influence of familial risk. Parental reading and rapid naming skills appeared to indicate their offsprings degree of familial risk. Furthermore, on rapid naming and nonverbal IQ, the non-dyslexic FR group performed similarly to the controls, suggesting protective factors. There are indications of differences between the FR and control groups, irrespective of reading outcome. These results contribute to the distinction between the deficits correlated to dyslexia as a manifest reading disorder and deficits correlated to familial risk only.

Core Deficits and Variable Differences in Dutch Poor Readers Learning English

To examine phonological core deficits and variable orthographic competence, Dutch poor readers were investigated as they began instruction in reading in English (at about 14 years of age). A subgroup of poor readers with good orthographic competence in English (Poor/Good) and a subgroup with poor orthographic competence in English (Poor/Poor) were identified. Verbal and reading tasks in Dutch and English were assessed twice within a 10-month interval, and the scores of the two measurements were combined to gain stability. For both subgroups, we found indications that phonological core deficits and variable differences in orthographic competence transferred across the two languages. However, the Poor/Good subgroup did not show the weaknesses in serial rapid naming and semantic fluency of the Poor/Poor subgroup in both languages. Moreover, the Poor/Good readers were relatively good in reading skills and verbal learning in English. They had a specific reading disability at the phonemic level but also had compensatory skills at the level of syllables and words that help them to acquire English as second language. In contrast, the Poor/Poor subgroup had a more general reading disability, most prominently present in L2. The results are discussed in terms of orthographic differences between Dutch and English, the phonological-core variable-differences model, and “subtypes” of dyslexia.