|
Κριτικές του άρθρου |
Analysis
and categorization of different types of errors in written texts of Greek
children with developmental dyslexia
The dyslexia studies examine the process of writing in children in order to explore the causal factors leading to dyslexia, the clarification of symptoms occurring in children and the attendant disorders that affect their course in school. The study results proclaim the existence of a close relationship between the symptoms of dyslexia and the abilities of processing input, processing of language, senses, perception, attention, memory, as well as the development of speech in pre-school years.
The present study aims at locating the errors in written texts that constitute the diagnostic criteria for the classification of dyslexia in 3 categories: acoustic, visual and linguistic dyslexia. The categorization of errors in groups leads to the location of the respective types of dyslexia.
The investigation uses the following methods: dictation of text, copy of text and free writing of text by description of a subject picture. To identify the types of errors in writing are generally studied 137 children with dyslexia from 2nd and 3rd grade who attend regular schools. For implementation of the experiment are used texts from the school textbooks for the 2nd and 3rd grade. Identification criteria are the errors of children admitted in writing.
The errors in text writing can be categorized in groups, according to the disorder in the acoustic-cognitive, visual-spatial or linguistic process of information. The errors in writing are associated with children’s gender and reading abilities; although, only children’s reading ability could predict the type of errors in writing of text and the weight of the pathology in writing.
Οι μελέτες σχετικά με την
δυσλεξία ερευνούν την διαδικασία της γραφής σε παιδιά προκειμένου να
διερευνηθούν οι αιτιακοί παράγοντες που οδηγούν στην δυσλεξία, την αποσαφήνιση
των συμπτωμάτων που εμφανίζονται στα παιδιά και τις συνοδές διαταραχές που
επηρεάζουν την πορεία τους στο σχολείο. Τα αποτελέσματα των ερευνών
καταδεικνύουν την ύπαρξη στενής σχέσης μεταξύ των συμπτωμάτων της δυσλεξίας και
των ικανοτήτων επεξεργασίας των εισερχόμενων πληροφοριών, γλωσσικής
επεξεργασίας, αισθήσεων, αντίληψης, μνήμης, καθώς και την εξέλιξη του
προφορικού λόγου στην παιδική ηλικία.
Η παρούσα μελέτη στοχεύει
στον εντοπισμό των λαθών κατά την γραφή κειμένου που αποτελούν διαγνωστικά
κριτήρια για την ταξινόμηση της δυσλεξίας σε 3 κατηγορίες: ακουστική, οπτική
και γλωσσική δυσλεξία. Η κατηγοριοποίηση των λαθών σε ομάδες οδηγεί στον
εντοπισμό των αντίστοιχων τύπων δυσλεξίας.
Για την έρευνα έχουν
χρησιμοποιηθεί οι εξής μέθοδοι: υπαγόρευση κειμένου, αντιγραφή κειμένου και
περιγραφή σύνθετης εικόνας. Για την ταυτοποίηση των λαθών γραφής εξετάστηκαν
137 παιδιά με δυσλεξία 2ης και 3ης τάξης που
παρακολουθούν κανονικό σχολείο. Για την εκτέλεση της έρευνας χρησιμοποιήθηκαν
κείμενα από τα σχολικά βιβλία της 2ης και 3ης τάξης. Τα
κριτήρια πιστοποίησης των λαθών είναι τα λάθη που παρουσιάζονται στην γραφή.
Τα λάθη στην γραφή
κειμένου μπορούν να κατηγοριοποιηθούν σε ομάδες, ανάλογα με την διαταραχή στην
ακουστική-γνωστική, οπτικο-χωρική και γλωσσική επεξεργασία των πληροφοριών. Τα
λάθη κατά την γραφή σχετίζονται με το φύλλο των παιδιών και τις ικανότητες
ανάγνωσης, όμως, μόνο η αναγνωστική ικανότητα επηρεάζει τα είδη των λαθών και
το βάρος της παθολογίας της γραφής.
The dyslexia has been an object of study for the global scientific community for more than a century. Current studies examine the process of writing in children in order to explore the causal factors leading to dyslexia, the clarification of symptoms occurring in children and the attendant disorders that affect the course of children in school. The study results proclaim the existence of a close relationship between the symptoms of developmental dyslexia and the abilities of processing input, processing of language, senses, perception, attention, memory, as well as the development of speech in pre-school years.
According to Boder (1), “it may be said that dyslexic children are found to be consistently more dysorthographic than dyslexic; the three reading-spelling patterns reveal that most of the errors made by dyslexic children do not occur at random, but in patterns of errors; identification of the three reading-spelling patterns helps to clarify why the classic dyslexic errors do not distinguish subtypes among dyslexic children and even tend to obscure their heterogeneity; all of the classic errors, notably the static and kinetic reversals, have been observed in all three of our subtypes; it would appear, therefore, that although the classic errors are valuable diagnostic signs, especially significant in older children, they are not invariable concomitants of developmental dyslexia; aside from the classic reversals, most of the dyslexic errors fall into two main groups-the intelligible phonetic errors and the unintelligible dysphonetic errors” (1).
Based on current studies on developmental dyslexia, the errors of children’s writing and reading a text are classified in three categories:1) acoustic errors (errors due to deficit in acoustic-cognitive processing of information), 2) visual errors (errors due to deficit in visual-spatial processing of information) and 3) linguistic errors (errors in linguistic processing of information). A review of studies helps us understand the findings lead to the conclusion of a complex etiology and pathology not only in children but in adults with dyslexia as well.
According to Snowling (2) “learning to read is an interactive process to which the child brings all of his or her linguistic resources; however, it is phonological processing that is most strongly related to the development of reading, and the source of most dyslexic problems in reading and spelling; the phonological representations hypothesis, therefore, provides a parsimonious explanation of the disparate symptoms of dyslexia that persist through school to adulthood; it also makes contact with theories of normal reading development and with scientific studies of intervention”. Beaton (3) explains that “since left posterior inferior temporal region has been implicated in phonological processing tasks, findings as consistent with dyslexia involve a core deficit in accessing phonological word forms”. The research of Martino, Espesser, Rey, & Habib (4) is on the same line: “dyslexics' performances, especially on the slowed condition, are found correlated with several tests of phonological processing; these results lend support to the general temporal deficit theory of dyslexia”. A core impairment in phonological processing in dyslexia is supporting from many studies (5),(6),(7),(8),(9), associated with a structural gray matter deficit involving a complex fronto-temporal network implicated in phonological processing (10). Spironelli & Angrilli (11) claim that “the functional lateralization of linguistic neural networks involved in automatic word recognition and in phonological processing is not yet developed in linguistically competent children aged 10 years, whereas the observed lateralization is relatively stable and not degraded in moderately aged subjects”.
Muter (12) supports that “dyslexic children typically
perform poorly on a wide range of measures of phonological awareness, verbal
short-term memory, rapid naming, speech perception, and verbal representation,
tasks which essentially tap children’s representation of, access to, and recall
of phonological information”.
Study by Boada
and Pennington (17) tested the
segmentation hypothesis of dyslexia and provide strong support for less mature
implicit phonological representations in children with dyslexia. According to Snowling (18)
“as well as dyslexic children who have difficulties using phonological
strategies for reading and spelling, it is possible to identify others who
appear to have mastered alphabetic skills and can use these proficiently; at
least when there are no time demands; such children have been referred to as
developmental ‘surface’ dyslexics”. Snowling
(19) also supports that “dyslexic children
are unable to abstract letter-sound correspondences from their experience with
printed words and therefore fail to develop phonological ('phonic') reading
strategies”.
There is evidence that “a particular visual magnocellular problem might independently contribute to the development of literacy problems in a subgroup of subjects” (24). According to Evans (25) “vision can be broadly classified into sensory and motor functions; sensory visual function refers to the flow of information into the brain; motor visual function refers to the control of the various muscles that move, coordinate, and focus the eyes”. He also accepts that “the evidence for visual factors causing reading difficulties is rather less compelling than the argument that phonological factors are major causes of reading problems” (25). Beaton supports that (3) “the claim that relatively low-level visual deficits of the magnocellular system are found in association with reading difficulties has often been seen as contradicting the view that phonological deficits constitute the core causal problem in dyslexia”. According to Kevan & Pammer (26) “the dorsal visual deficits observed in dyslexic readers are unlikely to be the result of reading failure”. Talcott, Hansen, Assoku, & Stein (27) conclude that “in addition to poor literacy skills, developmental dyslexia has been associated with multisensory deficits for dynamic stimulus detection; in vision these deficits have been suggested to result from impaired sensitivity of cells within the retino-cortical magnocellular pathway and extrastriate areas in the dorsal stream to which they project”.
Results from Arnett & Di Lollo (28) suggest that “poor readers did not differ from normal readers in the duration of visual persistence; owing to the fact that no differences in relative processing rates were found between good and poor readers, the result points to the improbability that the basis for reading disabilities might be found at such early stages of information processing as might be affected by backward masking”.
According to Bosse (29) “reading performance is highly correlated not only with phonological skills but also with the measures of visual attention span. Independently from phonological deficits, a visual attention span disorder – limiting the number of elements that can be processed in parallel from a brief visual display – also contributes to some dyslexic children’s reading difficulties”. Facoetti, Lorusso, Paganoni, Umilta, & Mascetti (30) “investigate the role of visuospatial attention in developmental dyslexia and find relationship between reading and inhibition mechanisms of visuospatial attention”. According to Sireteanu, Goertz, Bachert, & Wandert (31) “children with developmental dyslexia present selective deficits in visual attention, probably involving neural structures located in the right posterior parietal cortex”. Winner, et al. (32) claim that “there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to support the hypothesis that dyslexia is associated with enhancement of right-hemisphere, visual-spatial skills; however, the neurological evidence is neutral with respect to whether dyslexic visual-spatial abilities should be superior (a compensation model) or inferior (a deficit model)”. According to Chaix, et al. (33) “a significant association exists between attention deficit and motor involvement in dyslexia and these two symptoms have little influence on reading skills; different pathophysiological mechanisms come into play for reading and motor/attention disorders, respectively and that cytoarchitectonic abnormalities may concern different regions of the central nervous system”. According to Petkov, O’Connor, Benmoshe, Baynes, & Sutter (34) “dyslexics’ deficits may result from impaired attention control mechanisms; such deficits are neither modality nor language-specific and may help to reconcile differences between theories of dyslexia”.
Snowling (19) supports that “dyslexic children have associated difficulties with motor control; the difficulties are not central to dyslexia but nevertheless hinder the development of handwriting and related skills”. According to Berninger, Nielsen, Abbott, Wijsman, & Raskind (35) “graphomotor planning did not contribute uniquely to composition, showing that writing is not just a motor skill; students with dyslexia do have a problem in automatic letter writing and naming, which was related to impaired inhibition and verbal fluency and may explain their spelling problems”.
Bednarek, Tarnowski, & Grabowska (36) claim that “despite the data relating eye movements’ generation and the magnocellular channel, there is no research which considers both aspects of visual deficiency in dyslexia; the controversies over the attentional or magnocellular cause of erratic eye movements in dyslexia may be only apparent, as there are studies showing a relationship between the magnocellular channel and attention processes”. According to Brunyé, Mahoney, Augustyn, & Taylor (37) “there is increased interhemispheric brain activity induced by bilateral horizontal eye movements”. Blythe explains that (38) “if the infant fails to go through the crawling stage of motor development and obtain the necessary neural stimulus, perceptual maturation is impaired, and as this stage is not replicated in later life, the resulting perceptual problems become a permanent dysfunction”. According to Desroches, Joanisse, & Robertson (39) “the use of eyetracking task shows significant promise for revealing characteristics of phonological ability and disability that are not detectable using traditional measures”. Marschark acknowledges that (40) “imagery and concreteness effects appear not to be attributable to tactile knowledge, because they are just as readily obtained when the to-be-remembered items are things for which tactile experience is unlikely”.
According to
Muter (12) “there are two pathways by
which orthographic information can influence phonological information: a
phonological pathway and a semantic pathway; thus, from this connectionist
perspective, the task when learning to read is to learn the mappings between
the representations of written words (orthographic units), spoken words
(phonological units), and their meanings (semantic units); as the training
proceeds, the semantic pathway becomes increasingly specialized for the
pronunciation of exception words, while the phonological pathway becomes more
specialized for the pronunciation of words with consistent spelling patterns”. Bonifacci & Snowling (41) defines “dyslexia as specific cognitive
deficit that can arise in the context of normal IQ and normal speed of
processing”. According to Badzakova-Trajkov,
According to Kail & Saweikis (47) “working memory denotes a cognitive structure that includes ongoing information processing as well as the data required for those processes; memory improves during childhood and adolescence, due to age-related increases in use of memory strategies and age-related increases in knowledge; recognition and recall are both evident in the first year of life; young children can recall past events accurately during legal proceedings, but biased interviewers may alter children’s testimony; working memory increases with age and contributes to age related improvement in reasoning and problem solving”. Service & Tujulin claims that (48) “there was no suggestion of dyslexia being associated with specific problems to represent complex morphology in working memory; morphological processing in working memory appeared to depend on the task”.
Brosnan, Demetre, Hamill, Robson, Shepherd, & Cody (49) support that “dyslexic individuals show deficiencies in executive functions relating to inhibition of distractors and to sequencing of events, a set of tasks associated with left prefrontal cortex functioning in the acquired neuropsychology literature”. Buchanan, McEwen, Westbury, & Libben (50) describe “dissociations of implicit versus explicit access to semantic information in a patient with deep dyslexia”. Fawcett & Nicolson (51) illustrate “findings consistent with a model of lexical deficits that distinguishes between explicit and implicit access to lexical representations on the basis of inhibitory processes; theoretical review identifie three major frameworks: phonological deficit, magnocellular deficit and cerebellar deficit; the phonological deficit framework claims that children with dyslexia have problems in phonological processing, and that this leads to the initial reading problems; the magnocellular deficit framework argues for sensory processing problems derived from impairment in the magnocellular pathways for vision or audition; the cerebellar deficit framework argues that dyslexia is a problem in learning and automatization based on cerebellar deficits”. According to Johnston, et al. (52) “there is an abnormal adaptation response within the early precortical stages of the magnocellular pathway, occurring in tandem with a deficit in word-level cognitive processing, providing psychophysical evidence for anomalous cortico-thalamic circuits in dyslexia”. Nopola-Hemmi, Myllyluoma, Voutilainen, Leinonen, Kere, & Ahonen (53) argue that “the neurocognitive type of dyslexia segregating in this family consisted of deficits in phonological awareness, verbal short-term memory, and rapid naming”. According to McPhillips & Jordan-Black (54) “dyslexia is not a distinct category of poor reading, and it may be more valid to term all poor readers as dyslexic irrespective of IQ”. Sato, Tremblay, & Gracco (55) claim that “findings demonstrate a mediating role of the ventral premotor cortex in speech segmentation under normal listening conditions and are interpreted in relation to theories assuming a link between perception and action in the human speech processing system”. According to Schulte-Korne, Remschmidt, Scheuerpflug, & Warnke (56) “since, several cortical areas can be regarded as part of the magnocellular pathway and motion sensitive neurons have been found in these areas; it seems justified to argue that the neurophysiological correlates of motion perception in dyslexia are related to magnocellular function”. Skottun supports that (57) “there are clearly studies that are consistent with a magnocellular deficit, these studies are outnumbered both by the studies that have found no deficits and, by studies that have found deficits that are incompatible with magnocellular impairment; these observations contrast with earlier claims of consistent support for a magnocellular deficit among dyslexic readers”. According to Peleg & Eviatar (58) “orthography, phonology and semantics are fully interconnected in the left hemisphere, whereas in the right hemisphere, orthography and phonology are not directly connected, such that phonological processes are mediated by semantics”.
The present study aims at locating the errors in written texts that constitute the diagnostic criteria for the classification of dyslexia in 3 different categories: acoustic, visual and linguistic dyslexia. The categorization of errors in groups of acoustic, visual and linguistic errors leads to the location of the respective types of dyslexia, which are analyzed according to the gender and grade of the children and their specific characteristics such as reading abilities and handwriting.
The investigation uses the following methods: dictation of text, copy of text and free writing of text by description of a subject picture.
To identify the
types of errors in writing are generally studied 137 children with dyslexia
from 2nd and 3rd grade who attend regular schools, 77 of
which are boys and 60 girls, 72 children in 2nd and
For implementation of the experiment are used texts from the school textbooks for the 2nd and 3rd grade. Periods of the experiment were chosen so that the texts have already been taught to the children.
The first text is given to the child for dictation with the instruction to write the text that will be dictated by the examiner. Examiner dictates every time no more than 3-4 words. Second text is given to the child in printed form with the instruction to copy it. For the description a black and white picture is selected, which depicts a playground and the child is given the instruction to write what he/she sees.
The time of the study was set at 15 minutes for each text, but some of the children needed more time for the copy from dictation or description of the picture, so the examination time differs from child to child.
Identification criteria are the errors of children admitted in writing. Written texts are checked and the errors that have been described in each table are labeled in a certain way. Errors are grouped according to their individual characteristics, based on sound, visual or linguistic deficiency etiology.
In this particular experiment, therefore, that the data follow a regular distribution for the analysis used the distribution of χ2 (non parametric statistics). Errors of children are classified each into 2, 3 or more categories according to a property (59). For implementation of this analysis the number of errors that children made for different types of text are collected and analyzed by gender, class and age of children during the study. For gender analysis a random number of 54 boys and girls is used. For education level analysis a random number of 60 children in 2nd and 60 children in 3rd grade is used. Children who have no data in the three texts are not included in the analysis.
For further investigation about the strength of the associations between the children’s errors in writing and children’s gender, grade, age, reading problems and handwriting SPSS Bivariate Correlation (Pearson correlation) and Linear Regression statistics are used.
The experiment includes data from the texts of 137 children in 2nd and 3rd grade. From total 77 boys and 60 girls, 72 boys and 55 girls have valid cases for acoustic errors (AE), 42 boys and 25 girls have valid cases for visual errors (VE) and 76 boys and 57 girls have valid cases for linguistic errors (LE). For AE the boys’ mean is 10.28 and the girls’ 7.13; for VE the boys’ mean is 2.76 and the girls’ 2.76; for LE the boys’ mean is 13.63 and the girls’ 9.07. From total 72 2nd grade children and 65 3rd grade children, 66 2-grade and 61 3-grade have valid cases for AE, 39 2-grade and 28 3-grade have valid cases for VE and 69 2-grade and 64 3-grade have valid cases for LE. For AE the 2-grade mean is 9.42 and the 3-grade 8.36; for VE the 2-grade mean is 3.21 and the 3-grade 2.14; for LE the 2-grade mean is 10.86 and the 3-grade 12.56. From total 57 children with reading problems (RP) and 80 without RP, 56 children with RP and 71 without have valid cases for AE, 31 children with RP and 36 children without have valid cases for VE and 57 children with RP and 76 children without have valid cases for LE. For AE the RP mean is 12.41 and the RP-not 6.15; for VE the RP mean is 3.32 and the RP-not 2.28; for LE the RP mean is 15.68 and RP-not 8.67. From total 96 children with bad handwriting (HW) and 41 children with good HW, 94 children with bad HW and 33 with good HW have valid cases for AE, 54 children with bad HW and 13 with good HW have valid cases for VE and 95 children with bad HW and 38 with good HW have valid cases for LE. For AE the bad HW mean is 10.29 and the good HW 5.00; for VE the bad HW mean is 2.59 and the good HW 3.46; for LE the bad HW mean is 13.49 and the good HW 7.13.
From total 137 children, 127 have valid cases for AE, 67 have valid cases for VE and 133 have valid cases for LE. AE are acoustic changes of letters, omission of letters, syllables or words, metathesis and antimetathesis of letters and syllables, errors in letter writing [j] and addition of letters, syllables or words. VE are visual changes of letters, repetition of letters, syllables or words, mirroring of letters, syllables or letter sequences, omission and repetitions of sequences. LE are errors in syntax and language usage, union and disunion of words, errors in use of punctuation marks and capital letters. Others errors (OE) in writing of text are mixed acoustic-visual changes of letters, grammatical-orthographical errors and errors in use of stresses.
95 children have valid cases for acoustic changes of letters (M=4.25), 104 children have valid cases for omission of letters, syllables or words (M=4.84), 37 children have valid cases for metathesis and antimetathesis of letters and syllables (M=1.84), 56 children have valid cases for addition of letters, syllables or words (M=2.00) and 34 children have valid cases for errors in letter writing [j] (M=1.32). 42 children have valid cases for visual changes of letters (M=2.21), 20 children have valid cases for repetition of letters, syllables or words (M=1.50), 29 children have valid cases for mirroring of letters, syllables or letter sequences (M=1.79), 9 children have valid cases for omission and repetitions of sequences (M=1.11). 90 children have valid cases for errors in syntax and language usage (M=2.60), 88 children have valid cases for union and disunion of words (M=6.40), 94 children have valid cases for errors in use of punctuation marks (M=4.32) and 79 children have valid cases for errors in use of capital letters (M=3.49). 41 children have valid cases for mixed acoustic-visual changes of letters (M=1.83), 131 children have valid cases for grammatical-orthographical errors (M=25.20) and 123 children have valid cases for errors in use of stresses (M=26.26).
Statistical analysis of acoustic, visual and linguistic errors in the writing of text depending on the gender of the children shows that there are statistically significant differences (χ2=6.65, df=2, N=54, p=.038), so that gender affects the types of errors in writing of text, and specifically the acoustic errors, with the boys to do most of them. Differences in boys and girls are significant and the boys have approximately 2 times more errors when writing a text than the girls. Visual and acoustic errors of boys have the same proportion. In writing of text the boys are expected to make many more errors. The acoustic errors have biggest frequency, which is almost as visual and linguistic errors together. However, this is not depending of the gender, because the sum of visual and linguistic errors in the girls was close to the number of acoustic errors, something which appears in boys too.
Statistical analysis of acoustic, visual and linguistic errors in the writing of text depending on the education level of children shows that there are no statistically significant differences (χ2=1.80, df=2, N=60, p=.405), so that the education level does not affect the types of errors in writing of text by the children. Errors of children at 2nd and 3rd grade do not have significant differences. Children while writing a text are expected to make the same mistakes as children in 2nd and 3rd grade. The sum of errors changes very little during increase of the level of education.
Table 1
To investigate the associations among acoustic errors (AE), visual errors (VE) and linguistic errors (LE), a correlation was computed. The results show that all values were significantly correlated. The strongest positive correlations was between AE and VE (r(52)=.630,p<.001) and AE and LE (r(52)=.680,p<.001). This means that children who had many acoustic errors in writing had also many linguistic and visual errors. VE was also positively correlated with LE, (r(52)=.533,p<.001). The mean for AE is 8.46, for VE is 2.13 and for LE 11.79. This indicates the big difference between VE and the other types of errors.
Table 2
Simultaneous multiple regression was conducted to investigate the best predictors of AE. When the combination of variables to predict AE included VE and LE, F(2,49)=31.58,p<.001. R2 is .563. This indicates that 56.3% of the variance in AE was explained by VE and LE. Simultaneous multiple regression was conducted to investigate the best predictors of VE. When the combination of variables to predict AE included LE and LE, F(2,49)=17.56,p<.001. R2 is .418. This indicates that 41.8% of the variance in VE was explained by AE and LE. Simultaneous multiple regression was conducted to investigate the best predictors of LE. When the combination of variables to predict AE included VE and LE, F(2,49)=22.67,p<.001. R2 is .481. This indicates that 48.1% of the variance in LE was explained by VE and AE.
Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s gender predicts AE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,102)=3.21,p=.076. The adjusted R2 value was .021. This indicates that 2.1% of the variance in AE was explained by the children’s gender. Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s gender predicts VE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,52)=3.04,p=.087. The adjusted R2 value was .037. This indicates that 3.7% of the variance in VE was explained by the children’s gender. Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s gender predicts LE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,110)=1.46,p=.230. The adjusted R2 value was .004. This indicates that 0.4% of the variance in LE was explained by the children’s gender.
Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s grade predicts AE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,102)=1.004,p=.319. The adjusted R2 value was 0. This indicates that 0% of the variance in AE was explained by the children’s grade. Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s grade predicts VE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,52)=.504,p=.481. The adjusted R2 value was negative (R2=-.009). Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s grade predicts LE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,110)=1.06,p=.305. The adjusted R2 value was .001. This indicates that 0.1% of the variance in LE was explained by the children’s grade.
Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s reading problems (RP) predicts AE. The results were statistically significant F(1,102)=4.383,p=.039. The adjusted R2 value was .032. This indicates that 3.2% of the variance in AE was explained by RP. Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well RP predicts VE. The results were statistically significant F(1,52)=8.406,p=.005. The adjusted R2 value was .123. This indicates that 12.3% of the variance in VE was explained by RP. Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well RP predicts LE. The results were statistically significant F(1,110)=13.02,p<.001. The adjusted R2 value was .098. This indicates that 9.8% of the variance in LE was explained by RP.
The AE mean is 8.35 for children with RP and 5.84 for children without RP. The VE mean is 2.91 for children with RP and 1.65 for children without RP. The LE mean is 13.91 for children with RP and 8.05 for children without RP. This indicates that children with RP have bigger mean values than children without RP.
Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well children’s handwriting (HW) predicts AE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,102)=3.58,p=.061. The adjusted R2 value was .024. This indicates that 2.4% of the variance in AE was explained by HW. Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well (HW) predicts VE. The results were not statistically significant F(1,52)=1.083,p=.303. The adjusted R2 value was .002. This indicates that 0.2% of the variance in VE was explained by HW. Simple regression was conducted to investigate how well HW predicts LE. The results were statistically significant F(1,110)=6.126,p=.015. The adjusted R2 value was .044. This indicates that 4.4% of the variance in LE was explained by HW.
The AE mean is 7.57 for children with bad HW and 5.07 for children with good HW; the VE mean is 2.26 for children with bad HW and 1.82 for children with good HW; the LE mean is 11.62 for children with bad HW and 7.52 for children with good HW. This indicates that children with bad HW have bigger mean values than children without bad HW.
Acoustic, visual and linguistic errors in writing of text represent categories of errors that are used to determine the forms of dyslexia. It is these errors to be identified as dyslexic. Therefore, they are analyzed in relation to gender and education level.
According to the definition of dyslexia, it is not the result of the absence of stimuli, sensory dysfunction and insufficient training and environmental factors, however, they can co-exist. Therefore, the symptoms of dyslexia (in this case errors when writing a text), are not a result of these causes. The education level and the quality of the training process are causal factors and dyslexic errors in writing of text are not their results. So, errors during writing of text to be identified as dyslexic must demonstrate that they have connection with the gender of children and have no connection with the level of education.
Analysis of different types of errors in relation with gender shows that there are significant differences between the sum of acoustic, visual and linguistic errors. Although, an analysis of children’s gender as predictor of different types of errors in writing reveal that there is no possibility of children’s gender affects the weight of the pathology in writing. Boys show bigger pathology in writing of text than the girls; although, we cannot conclude what will be the pathology in boys’ writing and the count and type of their errors.
Analysis of different types of errors in relation with education level shows that there are no significant differences between the sum acoustic, visual and linguistic errors. Also, an analysis of children’s grade as predictor of different types of errors in writing reveals that there is no possibility of children’s grade affects the weight of the pathology in writing. We cannot conclude what will be the pathology in 2nd grade or 3rd grade children and the count and type of their errors.
In conclusion we say that:
The errors in text writing of children of pre-school years can be categorized in groups of acoustic, visual and linguistic errors, according to their specific characteristics, which lead us to the categorization of the errors in acoustic, visual and linguistic errors, according to the disorder in the acoustic-cognitive, visual-spatial or linguistic process of incoming information.
Acoustic errors in writing of text are acoustic changes of letters, omission of letters, syllables or words, metathesis and antimetathesis of letters and syllables, errors in letter writing [j] and addition of letters, syllables or words. Visual errors in writing of text are visual changes of letters, repetition of letters, syllables or words, mirroring of letters, syllables or letter sequences, omission and repetitions of sequences. Linguistic errors in writing of text are errors in syntax and language usage, union and disunion of words, errors in use of punctuation marks and capital letters.
These types of errors are associated with children’s gender and reading abilities; although, only children’s reading ability could predict the type of errors in writing of text and the weight of the pathology in writing.
Further research and analysis needs to be done in order to clarify the appearance of different errors in text writing according to the type of text before any categorization of the types of developmental dyslexia appearance. Further research is necessary in order to discover a possible relation of the errors in text writing with errors in text reading of children with developmental dyslexia. We would expect that the children present the same errors in both writing and reading, but this research cannot possibly provide such a conclusion.
1. Boder, Elena. Developmental Dyslexia: a
Diagnostic Approach Based on Three Atypical Reading-spelling Patterns. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology. 8 1973, Vol. 15, 5, pp. 663-687.
http://www.scopus.com/scopus/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0015900561&partnerID=40.
2. Snowling, Margaret J. The Science of
Dyslexia: A Review of Contemporary Approaches. [book auth.] Martin Turner and
John Rack. The Study of Dyslexia.
3. Beaton, Alan A. The Neurobiology of
Dyslexia. [book auth.] Martin Turner and John Rack. The Study of Dyslexia.
4. Martino, Sonia De, et al.
The "Temporal Processing
Deficit" Hypothesis in Dyslexia: New Experimental Evidence. Brain and
Cognition. 6-7 2001, Vol. 46, 1-2, pp. 104-108.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WBY-4NY65XR-1C/2/eaabe1aacf77d606e321445ba20946e2.
5. Stewart, Lauren. Universal dyslexia? Trends
in Cognitive Sciences. 5 1, 2001, Vol. 5, 5, p. 188.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VH9-42VM8XR-8/2/c6500b8efce4389079c1afb5aa197cbc.
6. Shaywitz, Sally E. and Shaywitz, Bennett A.
Dyslexia (Specific
7. Perfetti, Charles A., Tan, Li Hai and Siok, Wai
Ting. Brain-behavior relations in reading and dyslexia: Implications of
Chinese results. Brain and Language. 9 2006, Vol. 98, 3, pp. 344-346.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WC0-4KBVV36-1/2/486e10afb5e5ff896c61586e75577ed9.
8. Lavidor, Michal, Johnston, Rhona and Snowling,
Margaret J. When phonology fails: Orthographic neighbourhood effects in
dyslexia. Brain and Language. 3 2006, Vol. 96, 3, pp. 318–329.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WC0-4GVGTC2-1/2/e37b6787b71e215c0e332b2461cb34ca.
9. Ramus, Franck. Developmental dyslexia:
specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction? Current
Opinion in Neurobiology. 4 2003, Vol. 13, 2, pp. 212–218.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VS3-487V2KN-2/2/b1f3e3529344129f1590bf6db5a3ce36.
10. Vinckenbosch, E., Robichon, F. and Eliez, S.
Gray matter alteration in dyslexia: converging evidence from volumetric and
voxel-by-voxel MRI analyses. Neuropsychologia. 2005, Vol. 43, 3, pp. 324–331.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0D-4D99B7V-1/2/fe35781f6215866c313cf62e25235b23.
11. Spironelli, Chiara and
Angrilli, Alessandro. Developmental
aspects of automatic word processing: Language lateralization of early ERP
components in children, young adults and middle-aged subjects. Biological
Psychology. 1 2009, Vol. 80, 1, pp. 35-45. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T4T-4RSJF01-1/2/095688ef598e4fbdf7dedb14d48569cf.
12. Muter, Valerie. Phonological Skills,
Learning to Read, and Dyslexia. [book auth.] Martin Turner and John Rack. The
Study of Dyslexia.
13. Pickering, Susan J. Verbal Memory in the
Learning of Literacy. [book auth.] Martin Turner and John Rack. The Study of
Dyslexia.
14. Nikolopoulos, Dimitris, et al. The cognitive
bases of learning to read and spell in Greek: Evidence from a longitudinal
study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 5 2006, Vol. 94, 1, pp.
1–17.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WJ9-4HYV0D1-1/2/14609a2172ee17cc5f09a4bbeefb9292.
15. Sperling, Anne J., et al. Selective
magnocellular deficits in dyslexia: a 'phantom contour' study. Neuropsychologia. 2003, Vol. 41, 10, pp.
1422-1429.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0D-48DXMPG-2/2/e7f37b1531c2bb67dd0603ada7a7c616.
16. Shaywitz, Sally E., et al.
Functional disruption in the
organization of the brain for reading in dyslexia. Neurobiology. 3 1998,
Vol. 95, pp. 2636–2641.
17. Boada, Richard and Pennington, Bruce F.
Deficient implicit phonological representations in children with dyslexia. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology. 11 2006, Vol. 95, 3, pp. 153–193.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WJ9-4KJDX5R-1/2/9bff93cc3502c3af0425668bb2fcaeca.
18. Snowling, Margaret J. Dyslexia: Diagnosis
and Training. [book auth.] Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
19. —. Developmental dyslexia. Current
Paediatrics. 6 1995, Vol. 5, 2, pp. 110-113.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WDB-4FXPP84-9/2/c3c25e782c8038bb700aebefe7adaef8.
20. Santos, Andreia, et al.
Combining phonological and
audio–visual training in dyslexic children: A brain event-related potential
study. Brain and Cognition. 2006, Vol. 60, pp. 304–323.
21. Spironelli, Chiara, Penolazzi, Barbara and
Angrilli, Alessandro. Dysfunctional hemispheric asymmetry of theta and beta
EEG activity during linguistic tasks in developmental dyslexia. Biological
Psychology. 2 2008, Vol. 77, 2, pp. 123-131.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T4T-4PT7X79-1/2/10411e573a9ebef565527c56e4c6f548.
22. Tree, Jeremy J. and Kay, Janice.
Phonological dyslexia and phonological impairment: An exception to the rule? Neuropsychologia. 2006, Vol. 44, 14, pp.
2861–2873.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0D-4KJ5TBW-2/2/01252e873490eddba29c9590813080d5.
23. Zoccolotti, Pierluigi, et
al. Delayed naming cancels
the word length effect in developmental dyslexia.
24. Boets, Bart, et al. Auditory processing,
speech perception and phonological ability in pre-school children at high-risk
for dyslexia: A longitudinal study of the auditory temporal processing theory. Neuropsychologia.
2007b, Vol. 45, 8, pp. 1608–1620.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0D-4MV0MFF-3/2/51e9753742ca0d8d71470f3766c71b01.
25. Evans, Bruce J. W. Visual Factors in
Dyslexia. [book auth.] Martin Turner and John Rack. The Study of Dyslexia.
26. Kevan, Alison and Pammer,
Kristen. Visual deficits
in pre-readers at familial risk for dyslexia. Vision Research. 12 2008,
Vol. 48, 28, pp. 2835–2839.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0W-4TT7103-1/2/ce6ff318db0b3f7357d6196305fc5df7.
27. Talcott, Joel B., et al.
Visual motion sensitivity in
dyslexia: evidence for temporal and energy integration de®cits. Neuropsychologia.
6 2000, Vol. 38, 7, pp. 935-943.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0D-402K6HH-4/2/e867959ebb10b80ececb0e4b29751d70.
28. Arnett, John L. and Di Lollo, Vincent.
Visual Information Processing in Relation to Age and to Reading Ability. Journal
of experimental child psychology. 2 1979, Vol. 27, 1, pp. 143-152.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WJ9-4D60H2Y-47/2/35240b1623307391969003c27c4af320.
29. Bosse, Marie-Line,
Tainturier, Marie Josèphe and Valdois, Sylviane. Developmental dyslexia: The visual
attention span deficit hypothesis. Cognition. 8 2007, Vol. 104, 2, pp.
198–230.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T24-4KFV3J0-1/2/4320fa939e427b00fe9a83f22a363c54.
30. Facoetti, Andrea, et al. The role of
visuospatial attention in developmental dyslexia: evidence from a
rehabilitation study. Cognitive Brain Research. 1 2003b, Vol. 15, 2, pp.
154–164.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6SYV-45NY649-1/2/ceb822e40040f59acff88f6a062cd4c1.
31. Sireteanu, Ruxandra, et al. Children with
developmental dyslexia show a left visual 'minineglect'. Vision Research. 11
2005, Vol. 45, 25-26, pp. 3075-3082.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0W-4H21K4G-1/2/89ccab350339a5649f2ad403c406ad87.
32. Winner, Ellen, et al. Dyslexia and
Visual-Spatial Talents: Compensation vs Deficit Model. Brain and Language. 2
2001, Vol. 76, 2, pp. 81–110.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WC0-45B5951-3N/2/6d195a34a45c3dbe526d97aa24adaae8.
33. Chaix, Yves, et al. Motor impairment in
dyslexia: The influence of attention disorders. European Journal of
Paediatric Neurology. 11 2007, Vol. 11, 6, pp. 368 – 374.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WF2-4NKJ1P9-1/2/452a29f6d4f352730e2f67720d5d652b.
34. Petkov, Christopher I., et
al. Auditory perceptual
grouping and attention in dyslexia. Cognitive Brain Research. 7 2005,
Vol. 24, 2, pp. 343-354.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6SYV-4G2BG71-1/2/c82e3979c5e385cb269ad6401d6dc716.
35.
36. Bednarek, Dorota B., Tarnowski, Adam and
Grabowska, Anna. Latencies of stimulus-driven eye movements are shorter in
dyslexic subjects. Brain and Cognition. 2 2006, Vol. 60, 1, pp. 64–69.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WBY-4HVF10P-1/2/a8715b384dd0f67dede99c9d606e6db6.
37. Brunyé, Tad T., et
al. Horizontal saccadic
eye movements enhance the retrieval of landmark shape and location information.
Brain and Cognition.
38. Blythe, Peter. Minimal brain dysfunction
and the treatment of psychoneuroses. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1978,
Vol. 22, 4, pp. 247-255.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T8V-45XSVGY-M1/2/9181de59ba739a328da14153dbcec51a.
39. Desroches, Amy S., Joanisse, Marc F. and
Robertson, Erin K. Specific phonological impairments in dyslexia revealed
by eyetracking. Cognition. 7 2006, Vol. 100, 3, pp. B32–B42.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T24-4HHH60D-3/2/d7cdbc9a4dccf9ab46cafb5ceceefe7f.
40. Marschark, Marc. Coding Processes. Imagery. [book auth.]
John H. Byrne. Learning and Memory, Second Edition.
41. Bonifacci, Paola and Snowling, Margaret J.
Speed of processing and reading disability: A cross-linguistic investigation of
dyslexia and borderline intellectual functioning. Cognition. 6 2008,
Vol. 107, 3, pp. 999–1017.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T24-4RTKMTS-1/2/ddc098399ec7e525841d3fac1a1cde74.
42. Badzakova-Trajkov, Gjurgjica,
43. Lalain, M., et al. Dyslexia: The articulatory hypothesis
revisited. TENNET XIII. Brain and Cognition. 11 2003, Vol. 53, 2, pp.
253–256.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WBY-49H6XVC-1F/2/93195a42fc8348bf3bfb4811a3dc57ca.
44. Monaghan, Padraic and Shillcock, Richard.
Hemispheric dissociation and dyslexia in a computational model of reading. Brain
& Language. 12 2008, Vol. 107, 3, pp. 185–193.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WC0-4RN4DH2-1/2/934ce96847c1012403d4f331652abf56.
45. Shalev, Lilach, Mevorach,
46. Sotozaki, Hiroko and Parlow, Shelley.
Interhemispheric communication involving multiple tasks: A study of children
with dyslexia. Brain and Language. 7 2006, Vol. 98, 1, pp. 89-101.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WC0-4JXPS24-1/2/db2e89d01b2f2d545db1f62c252ee13f.
47. Kail, Robert V. and Saweikis, Meghan.
Development of Memory in Children. [book auth.] John H. Byrne. Learning and
Memory, Second Edition.
48. Service, Elisabet and Tujulin, Anna-Mari.
Recall of Morphologically Complex Forms Is Affected by Memory Task but Not
Dyslexia. Brain and Language. 4 2002, Vol. 81, 1-3, pp. 42-54.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WC0-464XXRD-5/2/c14a78802cf3eac6225efb81b9c1c349.
49. Brosnan, Mark, et al. Executive functioning
in adults and children with developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia. 2002, Vol. 40, 12, pp.
2144–2155.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0D-45JY9XJ-1/2/32aa4144f66b3b93dafb7573478ecf87.
50. Buchanan, Lori, et al.
Semantics and semantic errors:
Implicit access to semantic information from words and nonwords in deep
dyslexia. Brain and Language. 1 2003, Vol. 84, 1, pp. 65–83.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WC0-47MSJW1-2/2/300e3eab3304a5e6f5a6a1a9ac3b6cf0.
51. Fawcett, Angela J. and Nicolson,
52. Johnston, Alan, et al. Visually-based
temporal distortion in dyslexia. Vision Research. 8 2008, Vol. 48, 17,
pp. 1852–1858.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0W-4SVD18X-1/2/02ba31bf6eb881ca8c90725cae39b7f4.
53. Nopola-Hemmi, Jaana, et
al. Familial dyslexia:
neurocognitive and genetic correlation in a large Finnish family. Developmental
Medicine & Child Neurology. 2002, Vol. 44, pp. 580–586.
54. McPhillips, Martin and Jordan-Black,
Julie-Anne. Primary reflex persistence in children with reading
difficulties (dyslexia): A cross-sectional study. Neuropsychologia. 2007,
Vol. 45, 4, pp. 748–754.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T0D-4M2WTNT-1/2/1c833dead6da09d525254238f5feb160.
55. Sato, Marc, Tremblay, Pascale and Gracco,
Vincent L. A mediating role of the premotor cortex in phoneme segmentation.
Brain & Language.
56. Schulte-Korne, Gerd, et
al. The role of the
magnocellular pathway in dyslexia—reply to Skottun and Skoyles. Clinical
Neurophysiology. 12 2004, Vol. 115, 12, pp. 2834–2838.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VNP-4DK6DV1-1/2/4794e653d55cc23cf0ae368e447f74a7.
57. Skottun, Bernt C. On the conflicting
support for the magnocellular-deficit theory of dyslexia: Response to Stein, Talcott
and Walsh. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 6 2000, Vol. 4, 6, pp. 211-212.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VH9-40CRS36-2/2/33305df62057030e83a645d6d3e02152.
58. Peleg, Orna and Eviatar, Zohar. Semantic
asymmetries are modulated by phonological asymmetries: Evidence from the
disambiguation of homophonic versus heterophonic homographs. Brain and
Cognition. 6 2009, Vol. 70, 1, pp. 154-162.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WBY-4VPKR22-1/2/8cf6194e5ba154046e66dc4928ec3187.
59. Robert, G. D. and James, H. Principles
and procedures of statistics.
Table 1
|
Different types of errors in
writing of text according to gender and education level |
||||||
|
|
|
Different types of errors in
writing |
|
|
||
|
|
N |
Acoustic errors |
Visual errors |
Linguistic errors |
χ2 |
p |
|
Boys |
54 |
816 |
324 |
451 |
6.61 |
=.038 |
|
Girls |
54 |
432 |
172 |
301 |
|
|
|
Totals |
108 |
1248 |
496 |
752 |
|
|
|
2nd grade |
60 |
665 |
279 |
432 |
1.81 |
=.405 |
|
3rd grade |
60 |
644 |
242 |
390 |
|
|
|
Totals |
120 |
1299 |
521 |
822 |
|
|
Table 2
|
Intercorrelations, Means and
Standard Deviations for Three Variables (N=52) |
|||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
|
Acoustic errors |
- |
.630* |
.680* |
8.46 |
6.737 |
|
Visual errors |
- |
- |
.533* |
2.13 |
1.772 |
|
Linguistic errors |
- |
- |
- |
11.79 |
9.319 |
|
*p<.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
© Copyright-VIPAPHARM. All rights reserved
web hosting and internet marketing by Siteowners Ltd