|
Κριτικές του άρθρου |
Errors
in writing of text in Greek children with developmental dyslexia as result of a
disorder in visual-spatial process of information
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 categorization of errors in groups leads to the location of the respective types of dyslexia. 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 visual errors in text writing seem to not relate to gender, age and grade of children. The analysis of visual errors in relation with reading problems and handwriting could not verify a strong relationship.
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.
Η κατηγοριοποίηση των
λαθών σε ομάδες οδηγεί στον εντοπισμό των αντίστοιχων τύπων δυσλεξίας. 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 οπτικά λάθη κατά την γραφή κειμένου φαίνεται να μην σχετίζονται
με το φύλο, τάξη και ηλικία των παιδιών. Η ανάλυση των οπτικών λαθών σε σχέση
με την ανάγνωση αι τον γραφικό χαρακτήρα δεν μπορεί να πιστοποιήσει μια στενή
σχέση.
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 (1973), “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” (Boder, 1973).
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.
Beaton (2004) 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 (2001) 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, (Stewart,
2001; Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2005; Perfetti, Tan, & Siok, 2006; Lavidor, Johnston, & Snowling, 2006;
Ramus, 2003), associated with a structural gray matter deficit
involving a complex fronto-temporal network implicated in phonological
processing (Vinckenbosch, Robichon, & Eliez,
2005).
Gunnell & Parlow (2008) associate “poor interhemispheric communication with everyday memory problems and poor phonological processing with poor working memory”. Caravolas, Hulme, & Snowling (2001) accept that “skilled spelling requires a foundation in phonological transcoding ability which in turn enables the formation of orthographic representations”. Other theories illustrate that “poor comprehenders despite having adequate phonological decoding skills, have problems reading words that are typically read with support from semantics” (Nation & Snowling, 1998).
Beaton (2004) explains that “the temporal processing deficit hypothesis it appears to offer an account of how the well-established difficulties of dyslexics in the phonological domain arise in the first place”. According to Bednarek, Saldaña, & García (2009) “different phonological deficits have been shown to accompany dyslexia and there is a documented relationship between performance on phonological tasks and reading skills; the more knowledge children have about the constituent sounds of words, the better they tend to be at reading”. As Bonte & Blomert (2004) illustrate “developmental dyslexia results from a phonological deficit that may not be reducible to a low-level acoustic deficit; there is an anomalous contribution of phonological information to the processing of spoken words, which may be related to time-course aspects of phonetic/phonological processing”. According to Goswami (2003) “only a phonological deficit arising from low-level auditory processing problems meets the criteria for a neuroconstructivist approach of developmental designs in dyslexia research”. Mody (2003) supports that “phonological deficits may be the single most consistent finding in reading-impaired individuals; poorly defined phonological categories may interfere with the development of grapheme–phoneme correspondences essential to learning to read”. Paulesu, et al. (2001) argue that “a phonological deficit is present in dyslexics with reduced activation in a brain region normally involved in phonological retrieval for reading and object naming tasks”.
Snowling (2004) accepts that “there is evidence that “dyslexic children have trouble with long-term verbal learning; this problem may account for many classroom difficulties, including problems memorizing the days of the week or the months of the year, mastering multiplication tables, and learning a foreign language; in a similar vein, this problem may be responsible for the poor vocabulary development often observed in dyslexic children”. Barber & Kutas (2007) support that “during visual word recognition, the brain extracts various types of information presumed to be characterizing word representations; to that end, the visual (or word) processing system could segment words into a variety of sublexical units, associated with different information types (phonological, syllabic, morphological)”. Bartelson (1986) explains that “Boder (1973) propose that one can distinguish dysphonetic dyslexics, whose deficiencies lie essentially in deciphering skills, dyseidetic ones who are mainly deficient in visual recognition and mixed cases combining the two deficiencies”.
Beaton (2004) explains that “the handwriting of dyslexic children is notoriously poor and on unimanual tasks disabled readers have sometimes been reported to perform worse than control participants of the same age; it is not only dyslexic children who show sensori-motor impairments; motor deficits were seen in dyslexics up to 17 years of age and adult dyslexics are slower in pointing with one hand to an unpredictable visual target; findings such as these imply a persisting difficulty with certain fine motor skills”. According to Barber & Kutas (2007) “reading is a very complex, integrated set of perceptual, cognitive, and motor skills that most (although not all) literate adults carry out with relative ease; successful reading relies on attentional mechanisms, sensory–perceptual analyses, working memory and long-term memory processes, as well as eye movements”. Démonet, Taylor, & Chaix (2004) argue that “developmental dyslexia, or specific reading disability, is a disorder in which children with normal intelligence and sensory abilities show learning deficits for reading”. According to Dikker, Rabagliati, & Pylkkänen (2009) “the finding that sensory areas show sensitivity to these cues in any way is a striking one, and potentially a key element for understanding how language processing can be so remarkably fast”.
Snowling (1995) 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 (2008) “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”.
According to Muter (2004) “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 (2008) define
“dyslexia as specific cognitive deficit that can arise in the context of normal
IQ and normal speed of processing”. According to Badzakova-Trajkov,
The language processing system can be thought of as comprising different subsystems. “While the phonological processing system (phonology) is concerned with how speech sounds are perceived, coded, and produced, the semantic system is concerned with the meanings of words” (Snowling, 2004). “Deficits in learning forms of information are associated with dyslexia and language-learning impairment” (Nagarajan, 2005). “Electrophysiological investigations of linguistic versus nonlinguistic stimuli, different kinds of letter strings (from consonant strings to real words), and of the lexical variables such as frequency and length all suggest that, when the brain distinguishes between these various inputs depends, it seems not just on the nature of the input but also on the task demands; in broad stroke, designs which include orthographic as well as non-orthographic stimuli tend to find a later latency of divergence than designs limited to letter strings; this suggests the possibility that human brains might adopt a reading set or mode (based on prior materials or other expectations) that predisposes the word processing system to process incoming stimuli as orthographic” (Barber & Kutas, 2007). “The early semantic access is absent in dyslexics when pseudowords are read and this process may be one of the strategies used by dyslexics in a transparent orthography” (Csepe, Szucs, & Honbolygo, 2003). “Neural networks of the right occipitotemporal lobe are capable of constructing a lettershape map, but the process of relating it to abstract graphemic representation requires intact left-hemisphere linguistic function; the right hemisphere may also ‘‘compute’’ logographic signs such as arabic numerals and even extract some sort of semantics about them, at least enough to make magnitude comparisons between multidigit numbers” (Dalmas & Dansilio, 2000). “Letter stroke duration and fluency yield significant peaks at the syllable boundary for phonologically and orthographically bi-syllables, indicating that the children use orthographic rather than phonological syllables as processing units to program the words they write” (Kandel, Hérault, Grosjacques, Lambert, & Fayol, 2009). “Brain activity in letter-responsive areas predict children's spelling performance underscoring the relationship between abstract processing of letters and linguistic abilities” (Libertus, Brannon, & Pelphrey, 2009).
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.
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 (Robert & James, 1960). 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 means of the children’s errors in writing and children’s gender, grade, age, reading problems and handwriting SPSS one-way ANOVA 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 82 children with deficits in linear restrictions’ skills (LRS) and 55 without LRS, 80 children with LRS and 47 without have valid cases for AE, 46 children with LRS and 21 children without have valid cases for VE and 81 children with LRS and 52 without have valid cases for LE. For AE the LRS mean is 10.86 and the LRS-not 5.60; for VE the LRS mean is 2.63 and the LRS-not 3.05; for LE the LRS mean is 14.25 and the LRS-not 7.67.
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 (ACL) (M=4.25), 104 children have valid cases for omission of letters, syllables or words (OLSW) (M=4.84), 37 children have valid cases for metathesis and antimetathesis of letters and syllables (MALS) (M=1.84), 56 children have valid cases for addition of letters, syllables or words (ALSW) (M=2.00) and 34 children have valid cases for errors in letter writing [j] (Mj) (M=1.32). 42 children have valid cases for visual changes of letters (VCL) (M=2.21), 20 children have valid cases for repetition of letters, syllables or words (RLSW) (M=1.50), 29 children have valid cases for mirroring of letters, syllables or letter sequences (MLS) (M=1.79), 9 children have valid cases for omission and repetitions of sequences (ORS) (M=1.11). 90 children have valid cases for errors in syntax and language usage (ELSU) (M=2.60), 88 children have valid cases for union and disunion of words (UDW) (M=6.40), 94 children have valid cases for errors in use of punctuation marks (EUPM) (M=4.32) and 79 children have valid cases for errors in use of capital letters (EUCL) (M=3.49). 41 children have valid cases for mixed acoustic-visual changes of letters (MCL) (M=1.83), 131 children have valid cases for grammatical-orthographical errors (GOE) (M=25.20) and 123 children have valid cases for errors in use of stresses (EUS) (M=26.26).
In order to explore the relationship between the sum of the different types of errors in writing and children’s gender a distribution of χ2 was conducted. 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.
In order to explore the relationship between the sum of the different types of errors in writing and children’s grade a distribution of χ2 was conducted. 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
In order to explore the means of the visual errors in writing among the gender groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s gender includes 2 grouping variables: boys and girls. Comparing the children’s gender groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS, and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(1,40)=.865,p=.358), RLSW (F(1,18)=.634,p=.436), MLS (F(1,27)=.521,p=.477) and ORS (F(1,7)=.111,p=.749). The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607, for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521 and for ORS M=1.11, SD=.333. The boys’ mean for VCL M=1.80, SD=1.472, for RLSW M=1.43, SD=.646, for MLS M=1.91, SD=.1.630 and for ORS M=1.12, SD=.354. The girls’ mean for VCL M=2.82, SD=5.235, for RLSW M=1.67, SD=.516, for MLS M=1.43, SD=1.134 and for ORS M=1.00.
In order to explore the differences between boys and girls in both grades and the means of the visual errors in writing among the gender (by grade) groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s gender (by grade) includes 4 grouping variables: boys in 2nd grade, boys in 3rd grade, girls in 2nd grade and girls in 3rd grade. Comparing the children’s gender (by grade) groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(3,38)=1.156,p=.339), RLSW (F(3,16)=.913,p=.457), MLS (F(3,25)=.266,p=.849) and ORS (F(2,6)=.556,p=.601). However, because the variances are unequal for VCL, RLSW and ORS, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607, for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521 and for ORS M=1.11, SD=.333. The boys in 2nd grade’s mean for VCL M=1.69, SD=1.537, for RLSW M=1.55, SD=.688, for MLS M=2.00, SD=1.871 and for ORS M=1.25, SD=.500. The boys in 3rd grade’s mean for VCL M=2.00, SD=1.414, for RLSW M=1.00, SD=.000, for MLS M=1.78, SD=1.302 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000. The girls in 2nd grade’s mean for VCL M=4.25, SD=7.592, for RLSW M=1.75, SD=.500, for MLS M=1.60, SD=1.342 and for ORS M=1.00. The girls in 3rd grade’s mean for VCL M=1.56, SD=.726, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.707 and for MLS M=1.00, SD=.000.
In order to explore the means of the visual errors in writing among the grade groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s grade includes 2 grouping variables: 2nd grade and 3rd grade. Comparing the children’s grade groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(1,40)=.485,p=.490), RLSW (F(1,18)=1.688,p=.210), MLS (F(1,27)=.183,p=.672) and ORS (F(1,7)=.778,p=.407). The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607, for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521 and for ORS M=1.11, SD=.333. The 2nd grade’s mean for VCL M=2.54, SD=4.539, for RLSW M=1.60, SD=.632, for MLS M=1.89, SD=1.711 and for ORS M=1.20, SD=.447. The 3rd grade’s mean for VCL M=1.78, SD=1.114, for RLSW M=1.20, SD=.447, for MLS M=1.64, SD=1.206 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000.
In order to explore the means of the visual errors in writing among the age groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s age includes 3 grouping variables: 7, 8 and 9 years old children. Comparing the children’s age groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(2,39)=.754,p=.477), RLSW (F(2,17)=2.818,p=.088), MLS (F(2,26)=.068,p=.935) and ORS (F(2,6)=.556,p=.601). However, because the variances are unequal for RLSW, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607, for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521 and for ORS M=1.11, SD=.333. The 7 years old children’s mean for VCL M=1.60, SD=1.549, for RLSW M=1.40, SD=.516, for MLS M=1.67, SD=.888 and for ORS M=1.25, SD=.500. The 8 years old children’s mean for VCL M=2.95, SD=4.961, for RLSW M=1.86, SD=.690, for MLS M=1.90, SD=2.183 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000. The 9 years old children’s mean for VCL M=1.62, SD=.916, for RLSW M=1.00, SD=.000, for MLS M=1.86, SD=1.464 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000.
In order to explore the differences between little and big children in both grades and the means of the visual errors in writing among the grade (by age) groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s grade (by age) includes 4 grouping variables: little children in 2nd grade, big children in 2nd grade, little children in 3rd grade and big children in 3rd grade. Comparing the children’s grade (by age) groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(3,38)=1.153,p=.340), RLSW (F(3,16)=2.286,p=.118), MLS (F(3,25)=.426,p=.736) and ORS (F(3,5)=.309,p=.819). However, because the variances are unequal for VCL, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607, for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521 and for ORS M=1.11, SD=.333. The little 2nd grade children’s mean for VCL M=1.60, SD=1.549, for RLSW M=1.40, SD=.516, for MLS M=1.67, SD=.888 and for ORS M=1.25, SD=.500. The big 2nd grade children’s mean for VCL M=4.11, SD=7.114, for RLSW M=2.00, SD=.707, for MLS M=2.33, SD=2,805 and for ORS M=1.00. The little 3rd grade children’s mean for VCL M=1.90, SD=1.287, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.707, for MLS M=1.25, SD=.500 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000. The big 3rd grade children’s mean for VCL M=1.62, SD=.916, for RLSW M=1.00, SD=.000, for MLS M=1.86, SD=1.464 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000.
In order to explore the means of the visual errors in writing among the reading problems (RP) groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s RP includes 2 grouping variables: children with RP and children without RP. Comparing the children’s RP groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(1,40)=.250,p=.620), RLSW (F(1,18)=.142,p=.710) and ORS (F(1,7)=1.296,p=.292), but statistically significant difference was found among the MLS (F(1,27)=7.128,p=.013). However, because the variances are unequal for MLS and ORS, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607, for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521 and for ORS M=1.11, SD=.333. The RP’s mean for VCL M=1.95, SD=1.527, for RLSW M=1.54, SD=.660, for MLS M=2.50, SD=1.951 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000. The no RP’s mean for VCL M=2.50, SD=4.861, for RLSW M=1.43, SD=.535, for MLS M=1.13, SD=.352 and for ORS M=1.25, SD=.500.
Table 2
In order to explore the differences between major and minor RP and the means of the visual errors in writing among the RP (major or minor) groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s RP (major or minor) includes 3 grouping variables: children with major RP, children with minor RP and children without RP. Comparing the children’s RP (major or minor) groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(2,39)=.339,p=.714), RLSW (F(2,17)=.299,p=.745), MLS (F(2,26)=2.880,p=.074) and ORS (F(2,6)=.556,p=.601). However, because the variances are unequal for MLS, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607, for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521 and for ORS M=1.11, SD=.333. The major RP mean for VCL M=1.29, SD=.488, for RLSW M=1.43, SD=.535, for MLS M=2.20, SD=1.643 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000. The minor RP mean for VCL M=2.19, SD=1.721, for RLSW M=1.67, SD=.816, for MLS M=2.50, SD=2.121 and for ORS M=1.00, SD=.000. The no RP mean for VCL M=2.58, SD=4.981, for RLSW M=1.43, SD=.535, for MLS M=1.14, SD=.363 and for ORS M=1.25, SD=.500. Tukey HSD test indicates that there are no significant differences among groups; for VCL between major RP and minor RP children MD=-.902 (p=.842); between major RP and no RP children MD=-1.293 (p=.691); between minor RP and no RP children MD=-.391 (p=.944); for RLSW between major RP and minor RP children MD=-.293 (p=.779); between major RP and no RP children MD=.000 (p=1.00); between minor RP and no RP children MD=.238 (p=.779); between minor RP and no RP children MD=1.357 (p=.165); for ORS between major RP and minor RP children MD=.000 (p=1.00); between major RP and no RP children MD=-.250 (p=.707); between minor RP and no RP children MD=-.250 (p=.645). Games-Howell test indicates that there are no significant differences among groups; for MLS between major RP and minor RP children MD=-.300 (p=.951); between major RP and no RP children MD=1.057 (p=.409).
In order to explore the means of the visual errors in writing among the handwriting (HW) groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s handwriting includes 2 grouping variables: children with bad HW and children with good HW. Comparing the children’s HW groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the RLSW (F(1,18)=.256,p=.619) and MLS (F(1,27)=.583,p=.452), but statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(1,40)=4.595,p=.038),. For ORS there are no children with good HW and ORS. However, because the variances are unequal for VCL, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607 and for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521. The bad HW mean for VCL M=1.68, SD=1.273, for RLSW M=1.53, SD=.624 and for MLS M=1.88, SD=1.616. The good HW mean for VCL M=4.50, SD=7.521, for RLSW M=1.33, SD=.577 and for MLS M=.500, SD=.250.
Table 3
In order to explore the means of the visual errors in writing among the LRS groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Children’s LRS includes 2 grouping variables: children with deficits in LRS and children without deficits in LRS. Comparing the children’s LRS groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(1,40)=3.646,p=.063), RLSW (F(1,18)=2.432,p=.136) and MLS (F(1,27)=1.021,p=.321). For ORS there are no children with normal LRS and ORS. However, because the variances are unequal for VCL, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607 and for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521. The deficit LRS children’s mean for VCL M=1.66, SD=.227, for RLSW M=1.67, SD=.651 and for MLS M=2.00, SD=1.826. The normal LRS children’s mean for VCL M=4.00, SD=6.733, for RLSW M=1.25, SD=.463 and for MLS M=1.40, SD=.516.
In order to explore the means of the visual errors in writing among the HW and LRS groups a one-way ANOVA was used. Combining HW and LRS the new group includes 4 grouping variables: children with bad HW and deficit LRS, children with bad HW and normal LRS, children with good HW and deficit LRS and children with good HW and normal LRS. Comparing the children’s HW/LRS groups on VCL, RLSW, MLS and ORS, no statistically significant difference was found among the VCL (F(3,38)=1.909,p=.145), RLSW (F(3,17)=1.201,p=.325) and MLS (F(3,26)=.524,p=.598). For ORS there are no children with bad HW, deficit LRS and ORS. However, because the variances are unequal for VCL, we are uncertain whether to trust these results. The mean for VCL M=2.21, SD=3.496, for RLSW M=1.50, SD=.607 and for MLS M=1.79, SD=1.521. The bad HW and deficit LRS children’s mean for VCL M=1.68, SD=1.301, for RLSW M=1.67, SD=.651 and for MLS M=2.00, SD=1.826. The bad HW and normal LRS children’s mean for VCL M=1.67, SD=1.155, for RLSW M=1.20, SD=.447 and for MLS M=1.50, SD=.548. The good HW and normal LRS children’s mean for VCL M=5.00, SD=7.979, for RLSW M=1.33, SD=.577 and for MLS M=1.25, SD=.500. The good HW and deficit LRS children’s mean could not be computed.
Acoustic, visual and linguistic errors in the 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.
The analysis of the different visual errors in relation with gender, grade, age, reading, handwriting and LRS shows that the visual errors have not strong relevancy with children’s specific characteristics.
The MLS seems to be affected from the children’s reading abilities. Children with RP have double mean values than children without RP. More specific results about the relationship between acoustic errors and RP are perceived from the division of the RP group in children with major and minor RP. The means for MLS are approximately equal among major RP and minor RP groups. Although, the means for children with minor RP are higher than the means for children with major RP. This indicates that the reading abilities of the children affect the amount of acoustic errors in writing of text, but in children with RP, the less serious the RP is, the more acoustic errors the children do when write a text.
The analysis of children’s HW in visual errors shows that children with good HW have higher mean values than the children with bad HW for VCL, but for MLS and RSLW children with bad HW have higher mean values. Although, the differences for MLS and RSLW are not significant for such a conclusion. The analysis of children’s deficits in LRS shows that there are not significant differences between children with deficits in LRS and children without deficits in LRS. The normal LRS group has a little higher mean value than the deficit LRS group for VCL and a little lower mean values for RLSW and MLS. The differences indicate that visual errors are not related with LRS and HW.
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.
The visual errors in text writing seem to not relate to gender, age and grade of children. Children with developmental dyslexia make errors in writing regardless to their characteristics and their level of education. The visual errors in text writing seem to relate to problems in text reading and no in handwriting. These three abilities (writing, reading and handwriting) constitute relevant elements of the written language pathology that appears in children with developmental dyslexia. Although, the analysis of visual errors in relation with these abilities could not verify a strong relationship. Further research needs to be done in order to understand the possible relationship between acoustic errors, linguistic errors and children’s reading problems and handwriting.
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.
Badzakova-Trajkov, G.,
Barber,
H. A., & Kutas, M. (2007, 1). Interplay between computational models and
cognitive electrophysiology in visual word recognition. Brain Research
Reviews , 53 (1), pp. 98-123.
Bartelson, P. (1986, 11). The onset of literacy:
Liminal remarks. Cognition , 24 (1-2), pp. 1-30.
Beaton, A. A. (2004). The Neurobiology of Dyslexia. In
M. Turner, & J. Rack, The Study of Dyslexia (pp. 35-76).
Bednarek, D., Saldaña, D., & García,
Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D.,
Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008, 2). Writing problems in developmental
dyslexia: Under-recognized and under-treated. Journal of School Psychology
, 46 (1), pp. 1–21.
Boder, E. (1973, 8). Developmental Dyslexia: a
Diagnostic Approach Based on Three Atypical Reading-spelling Patterns. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology , 15 (5), pp. 663-687.
Bonifacci, P., & Snowling, M. J. (2008, 6). Speed
of processing and reading disability: A cross-linguistic investigation of
dyslexia and borderline intellectual functioning. Cognition , 107
(3), pp. 999–1017.
Bonte, M. L., & Blomert, L. (2004, 11). Developmental
dyslexia: ERP correlates of anomalous phonological processing during spoken
word recognition. Cognitive Brain Research , 21 (3), pp. 360–376.
Caravolas, M., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2001,
11). The Foundations of Spelling Ability: Evidence from a 3-Year Longitudinal
Study. Journal of Memory and Language , 45 (4), pp. 751–774.
Csepe, V., Szucs, D., & Honbolygo, F. (2003, 12).
Number-word reading as challenging task in dyslexia? An ERP study. Where and
When in the Developing Brain: Neurophysiology of Cognition in Infants and
Children. International Journal of Psychophysiology , 51 (1), pp.
69–83.
Dalmas, F., & Dansilio, S. (2000, 10 15).
Visuographemic Alexia: A New Form of a Peripheral Acquired Dyslexia. Brain
and Language , 75 (1), pp. 1–16.
Démonet, J.-F.,
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., &
Pylkkänen, L. (2009, 3). Sensitivity
to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition , 110 (3), pp. 293–321.
Goswami, U. (2003, 12). Why theories about
developmental dyslexia require developmental designs. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences , 7 (12), pp. 534-540.
Gunnell, J. G., & Parlow, S. E. (2008, 6).
Interhemispheric communication, phonological processing, and memory in
dyslexia: An investigation of relationships among three domains. TENNET:
Theoretical and Experimental Neuropsychology - XVII Annual Meeting, June 21-23,
2007,
Kandel, S., Hérault, L., Grosjacques, G.,
Lambert, E., & Fayol, M. (2009, 3). Orthographic vs. phonologic syllables
in handwriting production. Cognition , 110 (3), pp. 440–444.
Lalain, M., Joly-Pottuz, B.,
Nguyen, N., & Habib, M. (2003, 11). Dyslexia: The articulatory hypothesis revisited.
TENNET XIII. Brain and Cognition , 53 (2), pp. 253–256.
Lavidor, M., Johnston, R., & Snowling, M. J.
(2006, 3). When phonology fails: Orthographic neighbourhood effects in
dyslexia. Brain and Language , 96 (3), pp. 318–329.
Libertus, M. E., Brannon, E. M., & Pelphrey, K. A.
(2009, 2 15). Developmental changes in category-specific brain responses to
numbers and letters in a working memory task. NeuroImage , 44
(4), pp. 1404–1414.
Martino, S. D., Espesser, R., Rey, V., & Habib, M.
(2001, 6-7). The "Temporal Processing Deficit" Hypothesis in
Dyslexia: New Experimental Evidence. Brain and Cognition , 46
(1-2), pp. 104-108.
Mody, M. (2003, 7-10). Rapid auditory processing
deficits in dyslexia:a commentary on two differing views. Temporal Integration
in the Perception of Speech. Journal of Phonetics , 31 (3-4), pp.
529–539.
Monaghan, P., & Shillcock, R. (2008, 12).
Hemispheric dissociation and dyslexia in a computational model of reading. Brain
& Language , 107 (3), pp. 185–193.
Muter, V. (2004). Phonological Skills, Learning to
Read, and Dyslexia. In M. Turner, & J. Rack, The Study of Dyslexia
(pp. 90-130).
Nagarajan, S. S. (2005, June). Cortical spatiotemporal
plasticity in humans. Academic Radiology , 12 (5).
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998, 7). Semantic
Processing and the Development of Word-Recognition Skills: Evidence from
Children with Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Journal of memory and
language , 39 (1), pp. 85–101.
Paulesu, E., Demonet, J. F., Fazio, F., Mc Crory, E.,
Chanoine, V.,
Perfetti, C. A., Tan, L. H., & Siok, W. T. (2006,
9). Brain-behavior relations in reading and dyslexia: Implications of Chinese
results. Brain and Language , 98 (3), pp. 344-346.
Ramus, F. (2003, 4). Developmental dyslexia: specific
phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction? Current Opinion in
Neurobiology , 13 (2), pp. 212–218.
Robert, G. D., & James, H. (1960). Principles
and procedures of statistics.
Shalev, L., Mevorach, C., & Humphreys, G. W.
(2008, 7). Letter position coding in attentional dyslexia. Neuropsychologia
, 46 (8), pp. 2145-2151.
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005, 6 1).
Dyslexia (Specific
Snowling, M. J. (1995, 6). Developmental dyslexia. Current
Paediatrics , 5 (2), pp. 110-113.
Snowling, M. J. (2004). The Science of Dyslexia: A
Review of Contemporary Approaches. In M. Turner, & J. Rack, The Study of
Dyslexia (pp. 77-90).
Sotozaki, H., & Parlow, S. (2006, 7). Interhemispheric
communication involving multiple tasks: A study of children with dyslexia. Brain
and Language , 98 (1), pp. 89-101.
Stewart, L. (2001, 5 1). Universal dyslexia? Trends
in Cognitive Sciences , 5 (5), p. 188.
Vinckenbosch, E., Robichon, F.,
& Eliez, S. (2005). Gray
matter alteration in dyslexia: converging evidence from volumetric and
voxel-by-voxel MRI analyses. Neuropsychologia , 43 (3), pp.
324–331.
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
|
Means and Standard Deviations Comparing
Children’s Problems in Reading |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VCL |
RLSW |
MLS |
ORS |
||||||||||||||
|
|
N |
M |
SD |
N |
M |
SD |
N |
M |
SD |
N |
M |
SD |
||||||
|
Major reading problems |
22 |
1.95 |
1.527 |
13 |
1.54 |
.660 |
14 |
2.50 |
1.951 |
5 |
1.00 |
.000 |
||||||
|
Minor reading problems |
20 |
2.50 |
4.861 |
7 |
1.43 |
.535 |
15 |
1.13 |
.352 |
4 |
1.25 |
.500 |
||||||
|
No reading problems |
42 |
2.21 |
3.496 |
20 |
1.50 |
.607 |
29 |
1.79 |
1.521 |
9 |
1.11 |
.333 |
||||||
|
Total |
22 |
1.95 |
1.527 |
13 |
1.54 |
.660 |
14 |
2.50 |
1.951 |
5 |
1.00 |
.000 |
||||||
|
One-way Analysis of
Variance Summary table Comparing Reading Problems on Acoustic Errors |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Source |
df |
SS |
MS |
F |
p |
|||||||||||||
|
VCL |
Between Groups |
1 |
3.117 |
3.117 |
.250 |
.620 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
40 |
497.955 |
12.449 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
41 |
501.071 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
RLSW |
Between Groups |
1 |
.055 |
.055 |
.142 |
.710 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
18 |
6.945 |
.386 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
19 |
7.000 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
MLS |
Between Groups |
1 |
13.525 |
13.525 |
7.128 |
.013 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
27 |
51.233 |
1.898 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
28 |
64.759 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
ORS |
Between Groups |
1 |
.139 |
.139 |
1.296 |
.292 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
7 |
.750 |
.107 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
8 |
.889 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Table 3
|
Means and Standard Deviations
Comparing Children’s Handwriting |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
VCL |
RLSW |
MLS |
ORS |
||||||||||||||
|
Handwriting |
N |
M |
SD |
N |
M |
SD |
N |
M |
SD |
N |
M |
SD |
||||||
|
Bad HW |
34 |
1.68 |
1.273 |
17 |
1.53 |
.624 |
25 |
1.88 |
1.616 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
||||||
|
Good HW |
8 |
4.50 |
7.521 |
3 |
1.33 |
.577 |
4 |
1.25 |
.500 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
||||||
|
Total |
42 |
2.21 |
3.496 |
20 |
1.50 |
.607 |
29 |
1.79 |
1.521 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
||||||
|
One-way Analysis of
Variance Summary table Comparing Handwriting on Acoustic Errors |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Source |
df |
SS |
MS |
F |
p |
|||||||||||||
|
VCL |
Between Groups |
1 |
51.630 |
51.630 |
4.595 |
.038 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
40 |
449.441 |
11.236 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
41 |
501.071 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
RLSW |
Between Groups |
1 |
.098 |
.098 |
.256 |
.619 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
18 |
6.902 |
.383 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
19 |
7.000 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
MLS |
Between Groups |
1 |
1.369 |
1.369 |
.583 |
.452 |
||||||||||||
|
Within Groups |
27 |
63.390 |
2.348 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Total |
28 |
64.759 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
© Copyright-VIPAPHARM. All rights reserved
web hosting and internet marketing by Siteowners Ltd