Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 91–115 | Cite as

Training letter and orthographic pattern recognition in children with slow naming speed

  • Nicole J. ConradEmail author
  • Betty Ann Levy
Article

Abstract

Although research has established that performance on a rapid automatized naming (RAN) task is related to reading, the nature of this relationship is unclear. Bowers (2001) proposed that processes underlying performance on the RAN task and orthographic knowledge make independent and additive contributions to reading performance. We examined the benefits of training orthographic pattern recognition and speeded letter recognition for children in Grades 1 and 2 with slow naming speed. Children first received training in either orthographic pattern recognition or speeded letter recognition, and then switched to the other type of training. Results indicated that speeded letter recognition can improve through training, but only when preceded by training in orthographic pattern recognition. Orthographic pattern recognition training improved the accuracy and speed of reading training words, whether training occurred alone or following letter training. Letter training prior to the orthographic training provided no additional benefit. Together, these results argue for the importance of orthographic training for children with slow naming speed.

Keywords

Rapid automatized naming Intervention Orthography Naming speed 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the principals, teachers, parents, and especially the students who participated in and supported this work. We also thank Carolyn Breukelman, Samantha Minnet, and Bryan Lee for their assistance. This work was supported by an operating grant to the second author from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This experiment is part of the Ph.D. dissertation research of the first author. Portions of this paper were presented at the 10th annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (2003).

References

  1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phonemic awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benson, N. J., Lovett, M. W., & Kroeber, C. L. (1997). Training and transfer-of-learning effects in disabled and normal readers: Evidence of specific effects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berends, I. E., & Reitsma, P. (2006). Remediation of fluency: Word specific or generalized training. Reading and Writing, 19, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biemiller, A. (1978). Relationships between oral reading rates for letters, words, and simple text in the development of reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 223–253.Google Scholar
  6. Blachman, B. A. (1984). Relationship of rapid naming ability and language analysis skills to kindergarten and first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 610–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowers, P. G. (1993). Text reading and rereading: Determinants of fluency beyond word recognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 133–153.Google Scholar
  8. Bowers, P. G. (1995). Re-examining selected reading research from the viewpoint of the “double deficit hypothesis”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the society for research in child development, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  9. Bowers, P. G. (2001). Exploration of the basis for rapid naming’s relationship to reading. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 41–63). Timonium, MA: York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bowers, P. G., Sunseth, K., & Golden, J. (1999). The route between rapid naming and reading progress. Scientific Studies in Reading, 3, 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowers, P. G., & Swanson, L. B. (1991). Naming speed deficits in reading disability: Multiple measures of a single process. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 195–219.Google Scholar
  12. Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1993). Theoretical links among naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 5, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1991). Phonological skills before and after learning to read. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy (pp. 37–45). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Carver, R. P., & David, A. H. (2001). Investigating reading achievement using a causal model. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 869–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conrad, N. J., & Levy, B. A. (2007). Letter processing and the formation of memory representations in children with naming speed deficits. Reading and Writing, 20, 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Das-Smaal, E. A., Klapwijk, M. J. G., & van der Leij, A. (1996). Training of perceptual unit processing in children with a reading disability. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Jong, P. F., & Vrielink, L. O. (2004). Rapid automatized naming: Easy to measure, hard to improve (quickly). Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. G. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory and practice across languages (pp. 237–269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fugate, M. H. (1997). Letter training and its effect on the development of beginning reading skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 170–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goswami, U. (1986). Children’s use of analogy in learning to read: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greaney, K. T., Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (1997). Effects of rime-based orthographic analogy training on the word recognition skills of children with reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 645–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Humphrey, N., & Hanley, J. R. (2004). The role of orthographic analogies in reading for meaning: Evidence from readers with dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. K., & Pfeiffer, S. L. (2003). Naming speed and phonological awareness as predictors of reading development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levy, B. A. (2001). Moving the bottom: Improving reading fluency. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency and the brain (pp. 357–379). Timonium, MA: York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Levy, B. A., Bourassa, D. C., & Horn, C. (1999). Fast and slow namers: Benefits of segmentation and whole word training. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levy, B. A., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Beginning word recognition: Benefits of training by segmentation and whole word methods. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 359–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovett, M. W., Steinbach, K. A., & Frijters, J. C. (2000). Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading disability: A double-deficit perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 334–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manis, F. R., Doi, L. M., & Bhadha, B. (2000). Naming speed, phonological awareness, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Manis, F. R., & Freedman, L. (2001). The relationship of naming speed to multiple reading measures in disabled and normal readers. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 65–92). Timonium, MA: York Press.Google Scholar
  34. Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., & Doi, L. M. (1999). See Dick RAN: Rapid naming and the longitudinal prediction of reading subskills in first and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McBride-Chang, C., & Manis, F. R. (1996). Structural invariance in the associations of naming speed, phonological awareness, and verbal reasoning in good and poor readers: A test of the double deficit hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 8, 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H. (1998). Selective predictive value of rapid automatized naming in poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 106–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olson, R., Forsberg, H., Wise, B., & Rack, J. (1994). Measurement of word recognition, orthographic, and phonological skills. In G. R. Lyons (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 243–277). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  38. Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Powell, D., Stainthorp, R., Stuart, M., Garwood, H., & Quinlan, P. (2007). An experimental comparison between rival theories of rapid automatized naming performance and its relationship to reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 98, 46–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reitsma, P. (1997). How to get friends in beginning word recognition. In C. K. Leong & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Cross-language studies of learning to read and spell (pp. 213–233). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Rosner, J. (1975). Helping children overcome learning difficulties: A step-by-step guide for parents and teachers. Oxford, England: Walker.Google Scholar
  43. Rosner, J. (1979). Test of auditory analysis skills. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of Children’s intelligence: Revised and updated (3rd ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher Incorporated.Google Scholar
  45. Savage, R., & Frederickson, N. (2005). Evidence of a highly specific relationship between rapid automatic naming of digits and text-reading speed. Brain and Language, 93, 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Savage, R., & Stuart, M. (2001). Orthographic analogies and early reading: Explorations of performance and variation in two transfer tasks. Reading and Writing, 14, 571–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siegel, L. S., Share, D., & Geva, E. (1995). Evidence for superior orthographic skills in dyslexics. Psychological Science, 6, 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stanovich, K. E., Feeman, D. J., & Cunningham, A. E. (1983). The development of the relation between letter-naming speed and reading ability. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 199–202.Google Scholar
  50. Thaler, V., Ebner, E. M., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (2004). Training reading fluency in dysfluent readers with high reading accuracy: Word specific effects but low transfer to untrained words. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  54. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997). Contribution of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second- to fifth-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Daal, V. H. P., Reitsma, P., & van der Leij, A. (1994). Processing units in word reading by disabled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 180–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van den Bos, K. P., Zijlstra, B. J. H., & Spelberg, H. C. L. (2002). Life-span data on continuous naming speeds of numbers, letters, colors, and pictured objects and word-reading speed. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vukovic, R. K., & Siegel, L. S. (2006). The double deficit hypothesis: A comprehensive analysis of the evidence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., et al. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wimmer, H., Mayringer, H., & Landerl, K. (2000). The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 668–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolf, M. (1997). A provisional, integrative account of phonological and naming speed deficits in dyslexia: Implications for diagnosis and intervention. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 67–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  63. Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes, and reading: A longitudinal study in average and impaired readers. Child Development, 57, 988–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolf, M., Goldberg-O’Rourke, A., Gidney, C., Lovett, M., Cirino, P., & Morris, R. (2002). The second deficit: An investigation of the independence of phonological and naming-speed deficits in developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 43–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolf, M., Pfeil, C., Lotz, R., & Biddle, K. (1994). Towards a more universal understanding of the developmental dyslexias: The contribution of orthographic factors. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge, theoretical and developmental issues (pp. 137–171). New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  68. Wood, C. (2002). Orthographic analogies and phonological priming effects. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologySaint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations