Spelling difficulties in Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia / Dificultades de escritura en niños españoles con dislexia

In addition to reading difficulties, a significant proportion of developmental dyslexics have spelling problems, which persist into adulthood. Studies carried out in languages with opaque orthographies have found that dyslexics frequently make phonological substitutions when spelling and have difficulties in developing orthographic representations of irregular words. Those errors seem to derive from an excessive use of phonological codes when writing. Minimal research in Spanish (relatively transparent orthography) about the relationship between dyslexia and spelling difficulties has been carried out to date. In this study, 19 Spanish-speaking developmental dyslexics (from 7 to 11 years old) and 28 controls (from 6 to 11 years old, distributed in two groups, one matched for age and the other for reading level with the dyslexics) performed a dictation task of 80 stimuli with different levels of orthographic consistency, in order to discover the codes they use in the writing process. Results showed that Spanish children with dyslexia made significantly more spelling errors, especially among the ruled and irregular words. These findings are consistent with the idea that these children have difficulties in developing orthographic representations and use phonological codes more frequently than non-dyslexics, resulting in phonologically plausible errors when writing irregular words. These results have important implications for the treatment of spelling difficulties in children with dyslexia, highlighting the need to focus on the correct acquisition of grapheme-phoneme conversion rules as well as the development of appropriate orthographic representations.     

Is phonology bypassed in normal or dyslexic development?

A pervasive assumption in most accounts of normal reading and spelling development is that phonological coding is important early in development but is subsequently superseded by faster, orthographic coding which bypasses phonology. We call this assumption, which derives from dual process theory, the developmental bypass hypothesis. The present study tests four specific predictions of the developmental bypass hypothesis by comparing dyslexics and nondyslexics from the same families in a cross-sectional design. The four predictions are: 1) That phonological coding skill develops early in normal readers and soon reaches asymptote, whereas orthographic coding skill has a protracted course of development; 2) that the correlation of adult reading or spelling performance with phonological coding skill is considerably less than the correlation with orthographic coding skill; 3) that dyslexics who are mainly deficient in phonological coding skill should be able to bypass this deficit and eventually close the gap in reading and spelling performance; and 4) that the greatest differences between dyslexics and developmental controls on measures of phonological coding skill should be observed early rather than late in development. None of the four predictions of the developmental bypass hypothesis were upheld. Phonological coding skill continued to develop in nondyslexics until adulthood. It accounted for a substantial (32–53 percent) portion of the variance in reading and spelling performance in adult nondyslexics, whereas orthographic coding skill did not account for a statistically reliable portion of this variance. The dyslexics differed little across age in phonological coding skill, but made linear progress in orthographic coding skill, surpassing spelling-age (SA) controls by adulthood. Nonetheless, they didnot close the gap in reading and spelling performance. Finally, dyslexics were significantly worse than SA (and Reading Age [RA]) controls in phonological coding skill only in adulthood. This research was supported by the following grants to the first author: A NIMH RSDA (MH00419-05) and project grants from NIMH (MH38820-04), NICHD (HD19423-02) and the March of Dimes (12-135). Author Smith’s work was supported by a project grant from NICHD (HD 19423-02).     

Continuities between speech and spelling in a case of developmental dyslexia

This paper explores the relationship between speech and spelling in a single-case study of developmental dyslexia. JM, a developmental dyslexic with a well-documented history of speech, reading and spelling difficulties, was examined when he was 13–14 years old. He still had subtle articulation difficulties causing some disfluency and his use of phonetic voicing was atypical. We argue that these difficulties were recapitulated in his spelling where he was more sensitive to the prosodic aspects of words than normal spellers, exhibiting a strong tendency to spell accurately words which are stressed on the first, rather than the second syllable. He also had more difficulty with phonetic voicing and spelling errors reflected this uncertainty. Thus, when word-specific (orthographic) spelling information is unavailable, JM, like all spellers, must make use of phonological spelling strategies. In his case, these are compromised because of underlying phonological speech problems. It is argued that, while young children make use of a phonological frame on which to organize orthographic information, dyslexics, like JM, who have inadequate phonological representations, are unable to do so. This has a detrimental effect on their acquisition of spelling.     

Parallels between the reading and spelling deficits of two subgroups of developmental dyslexics

The spelling errors of third graders who fit phonological andsurface profiles of developmental dyslexia were analyzed, alongwith the errors of younger (reading level matched) andchronologically age matched non-dyslexic comparison groups. InStudy 1, errors were analyzed as phonologically constrained,unconstrained, or inaccurate and as either orthographicallyacceptable or unacceptable. Study 2 extended the errorclassification system to nonword spellings. The main finding wasthat different types of dyslexics produced different types oferrors. Both studies found that children produced spelling errorsconsistent with their type of dyslexia. The phonological groupshowed poor knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences,consistent with the existence of a phonological deficit. Thesurface group's spelling error profile differed from thephonological group and closely resembled the younger normalcomparison group. This pattern is consistent with other evidencethat surface dyslexia represents a general delay in acquiringliteracy skills. The studies provide converging evidence, from aspelling task, that developmental dyslexia is a non-homogeneouscategory consisting of at least two major subtypes with distinctetiologies and behavioral sequelae.     

A developmental perspective on dyslexic subtypes

In this paper we apply a developmental model of reading to the question of dyslexic subtypes. Groups of normal readers (n=40) and dyslexic children (n=50), matched on reading level and IQ, were given a comprehensive test battery measuring level of development of visual, phonological, and orthographic skills. As a group, dyslexics deviated from normal readers of equivalent reading achievement primarily in phonological skills (spelling-to-sound translation and phonemic analysis), although limited differences in knowledge of word-specific spellings were also observed. Dyslexics were superior to the younger normal readers in visual processing of print. Analysis of individual data by reference to the reading level control group revealed three major subgroups: a group with a specific deficit in phonological processing of print (52 percent), a group with deficits in processing both the phonological and orthographic features of printed words (24 percent), and a group with phonological deficits in language (8 percent). The remainder of the sample (16 percent) had specific deficits in visual or orthographic processing of print, in spelling, or did not differ from the control group. The data support the view that most developmental dyslexics have a specific language disorder involving some aspect of phonological processing. However, small subgroups with very different configurations of reading and nonreading difficulties may exist as well. This research was supported by an NICHD grant to the first author (USPHS grant 1 R23 HD20231).     

Spelling in Children With Dyslexia: Analyses From the Treiman-Bourassa Early Spelling Test

We examined the oral and written spelling performance on the Treiman-Bourassa Early Spelling Test (Treiman & Bourassa, 2000a) of 30 children with serious reading and spelling problems and 30 spelling-level-matched younger children who were progressing normally in learning to read and spell. The 2 groups' spellings were equivalent on a composite measure of phonological and orthographic sophistication, representation of the phonological skeleton of the items, and orthographic legality. The groups showed a similar advantage for words over nonwords on the phonological skeleton and orthographic legality measures. The children with dyslexia and the comparison children also showed an equivalent advantage for written over oral spelling on the composite and phonological skeleton measures. Further analyses revealed that children with dyslexia made many of the same linguistically based errors as typically developing children but also pointed to some subtle differences between the groups. Overall, the spelling performance of children with dyslexia appears to be quite similar to that of normally progressing younger children.     

Assessing dyslexia in Finnish high-school students: a pilot study

A pilot study concerning Finnish dyslexics at senior high school (lukio), for 16–19-year-olds, is reported. The phonological processing deficit was assumed to underlie dyslexia in these late teenage subjects. The regular nature of Finnish orthography was taken into consideration. Four tasks were introduced to a total of 32 students, of whom 15 were dyslexics and 17 were controls. The controls outperformed the dyslexics on three tasks: text recoding, pseudoword recoding and pseudoword spelling. On the text spelling task, both groups performed equally well. In the correlational analysis of all subjects, both recoding tasks showed high correlations with selfestimated school achievement in language-related subjects. The recoding time appeared to be more important than the number of reading errors. These preliminary results suggest that the three tasks, capable of discriminating dyslexics, might be useful in the development of an adult dyslexia test in Finnish.     

Comparing the phonological and double deficit hypotheses for developmental dyslexia

This study tested the predictions of thephonological and double deficit hypotheses byexperimentally examining speech perception,phoneme awareness, lexical retrieval (serialand discrete), articulatory speed, and verbalSTM in school age child (N = 35) and adolescent(N = 36) dyslexics, and both chronological age(CA) and reading age (RA) controls. Theresults confirmed the findings of previousstudies of a deficit in phoneme awareness indevelopmental dyslexia. At both age levels,dyslexics performed significantly more poorlythan both their CA and RA controls. Althoughdeficits in the other processes investigated,particularly in rapid serial naming, were alsoapparent, they were not as clear-cut as thedeficit in phoneme awareness. In general,definite evidence of a deficit in rapid serialnaming was limited to the more severelyimpaired dyslexics. Furthermore, although rapidserial naming contributed independent variationto various literacy skills, its contributionwas modest relative to the contribution ofphoneme awareness, regardless of whether theliteracy skill relied more or less heavily onphonological or orthographic coding skills. Further analyses suggested that variation inrapid serial skill is particularly importantfor fluent reading of text, whereas phonemeawareness is particularly important for thedevelopment of the ability to read byphonologically recoding letters or groups ofletters in words into their phonological codes.This explains the relatively strongcontribution of phoneme awareness to readingand spelling ability in general. In sum, thephonological hypothesis offers a moreparsimonious account of the present resultsthan the double deficit hypothesis.     

What can spelling errors tell us about the causes and treatment of dyslexia?

Until recently the majority of research undertaken into dyslexia focused on English‐speaking dyslexics, who tend to make significantly more phonological than visual errors. This led to a major assumption about the possible cause of dyslexia being a lack of phonological awareness. According to the phonological deficit theory, the level of phonological consistency of a language determines not only the reading speed but also the amount and types of reading and spelling errors made by dyslexic people. This theory has been seriously challenged by the results of a number of studies in more phonologically consistent languages, such as Greek, Italian and Japanese, where morphology seemed to play a more crucial role than the phonological structure of a language per se. The 116 dyslexic people who took part in this experiment were matched on age, sex, IQ and psycho‐educational performance. A total of 58 US English‐speaking dyslexic people were compared to 58 Greek dyslexic people. Both groups met the diagnostic criteria. Results demonstrated that Greek dyslexics were found to make significantly fewer phonological errors (11.0%) than the US dyslexics (85.5%, p < .000), but comparatively more visual (66.8% to US 14.0%, P < .000) and grammatical errors (22.2% to US 0.1%, p < .000) than their English‐speaking counterparts. These data showed highly significant quantitative and qualitative spelling differences. Greek dyslexics could be accurately differentiated from the US English dyslexics based on the three types of spelling errors.     

Processing of phonological,orthographic and cross-modal word representations among adult dyslexic and normal readers

This study examined the extent to which adultdyslexic readers exhibit concurrent deficitsfor phonological, orthographic and cross-modalword representations, and the relationshipbetween these deficits and decoding ability.Participants were 18 phonological dyslexics and19 normal readers at college level. Compared tonormal readers, dyslexics exhibitedsignificantly slower reaction times acrosstasks, and were less accurate on the unimodalorthographic task. Word pattern processing wasmore extensively related to decoding abilityamong dyslexic as compared to normal readers,but more robustly related to baseline measuresof phonological and orthographic processingamong normal readers. The results are discussedin the context of integrating the phonologicaland orthographic aspects of words, speed ofprocessing deficits, and the importance of taskselection when assessing adult dyslexicpopulations.     

The cognitive profile of adult dyslexics and its relation to their reading abilities

The question of which cognitive impairments are primarily associated with dyslexia has been a source of continuous debate. This study examined the cognitive profile of Hebrew-speaking compensated adult dyslexics and investigated whether their cognitive abilities accounted for a unique variance in their reading performance. Sixty-nine young adults with and without dyslexia were administered a battery of tests measuring their reading skills and a number of cognitive abilities. The dyslexics were found to exhibit a generally poor cognitive profile, including their attention, visual working memory, naming, visual perception and speed of processing abilities, with the exception of high executive functions skills. Furthermore, naming speed, visual working memory and attention were significantly associated with decoding and fluency measures and predicted group difference after controlling for phonological skills. The findings point to the contribution of cognitive factors to decoding rate and possibly to the ability of utilizing rapid orthographic processes, thus effecting dyslexics’ reading performance.     

What do spelling errors tell us? Classification and analysis of errors made by Greek schoolchildren with and without dyslexia

In this study we propose a classification system for spelling errors and determine the most common spelling difficulties of Greek children with and without dyslexia. Spelling skills of 542 children from the general population and 44 children with dyslexia, Grades 3–4 and 7, were assessed with a dictated common word list and age-appropriate passages. Spelling errors were classified into broad categories, including phonological (graphophonemic mappings), grammatical (inflectional suffixes), orthographic (word stems), stress assignment (diacritic), and punctuation. Errors were further classified into specific subcategories. Relative proportions for a total of 11,364 errors were derived by calculating the opportunities for each error type. Nondyslexic children of both age groups made primarily grammatical and stress errors, followed by orthographic errors. Phonological and punctuation errors were negligible. Most frequent specific errors were in derivational affixes, stress diacritics, inflectional suffixes, and vowel historical spellings. Older children made fewer errors, especially in inflectional suffixes. Dyslexic children differed from nondyslexic ones in making more errors of the same types, in comparable relative proportions. Spelling profiles of dyslexic children did not differ from those of same-age children with poor reading skills or of younger children matched in reading and phonological awareness. In conclusion, spelling errors of both dyslexic and nondyslexic children indicate persistent difficulty with internalizing regularities of the Greek orthographic lexicon, including derivational, inflectional, and word (stem) families. This difficulty is greater for children with dyslexia.     

The existence of dyslexia without severe literacy problems

This paper is concerned with those who display positive indicators on tests for dyslexia but seemingly do not have any severe literacy problems. A case study is presented by way of illustration. On the basis of data from the British Births Cohort Study (12,905 10-year-old children), it was found that some seemingly normal achievers who showed signs of dyslexia (N=422) obtained different results on five measures associated with dyslexia than did other normal achievers without such signs (N=4,998). The measures used were: underachievement at word recognition; and underachievement at spelling, reading comprehension, pseudoword reading, and mathematics. The proportion of boys to girls in the groups was also noted. It is suggested that these were cases of mild dyslexia, who, on the basis simply of reading and spelling tests, might escape detection. The consequences for the concept of dyslexia are discussed, and it is suggested that the needs of dyslexics with only mild literacy problems should not be overlooked.     

Length effects in pseudo-word spelling: stronger in dyslexic than in non-dyslexic students

It is often discussed whether dyslexics show a deviant pattern of reading and spelling development when compared to typically developing students, or whether they follow the same pattern as other students, only at markedly slower rate. The present cross-sectional study investigated phonological encoding skills in dyslexic Danish students. We compared dyslexic and non-dyslexic students from grades 3, 5, 7, and 9 and examined whether effects of item length were stronger in the dyslexic groups. Mixed between-within subjects analyses of variance revealed significant interactions between dyslexia status and item length as the dyslexics at all grade levels were more affected by item length than their non-dyslexic peers. A marked developmental delay was apparent as the dyslexic group from grade 9 performed on approximately the same level as the non-dyslexic group from grade 3. Although the overall difference between these two groups was not significant, a significant interaction between dyslexia status and item length remained because the grade 9 dyslexics were more affected by item length than the younger non-dyslexic students. This difference in error profiles suggests a difference in the developmental patterns of dyslexic vs. non-dyslexic students.     

The role of orthographic and phonological processing skills in the reading and spelling of monolingual Persian children

The main objective of the present study was to examine the contribution of phonological and orthographic skills to Persian reading and spelling. The Persian language is of interest because it has very consistent grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences, but somewhat inconsistent phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences. Reading, spelling, phonological, and orthographic skills were tested in a sample of 109 monolingual Persian students (mean age = 8;1, SD = 4 mo) attending Grade 2 in Iran. The results showed that although monolingual Persian children relied both on phonological and orthographic skills, phonological skills were a strong predictor for both reading and spelling. Another objective of the study was to compare children’s spelling performance in terms of phoneme-to-grapheme (PG) consistencies. As expected, children spelled PG-consistent words more accurately than PG-inconsistent words. Moreover, they relied more on orthographic skills for spelling PG-inconsistent words than for spelling PG-consistent words. The results are discussed in terms of the differential effect of orthographic consistency on reading and spelling.     

Phonological and Surface Subtypes among University Students with Dyslexia

The prevalence of phonological and surface dyslexia subtypes among Swedish university students with dyslexia (n = 40) was examined using both the regression method, developed by Castles and Coltheart, and latent profile analysis. When an academic‐level control group was used as a reference group in a regression, eight students with phonological dyslexia and 15 students with surface dyslexia were identified. In contrast, 17 students with phonological dyslexia and two students with surface dyslexia were identified when the subtypes were defined by reference to a reading‐level control group, indicating a deviant profile among the students with phonological dyslexia and delayed development among those with surface dyslexia. The latent profile analysis was based on five phonological and four orthographic tasks. Seven profiles were obtained, of which none exhibited deficits in orthographic but not in phonological skills or vice versa. Thus, the analysis further supported the phonological deficit hypothesis of dyslexia.     

Development of dyslexic subgroups:

There is a consensus that dyslexia is on a continuum with normal reading skill and that dyslexics fall at the low end of the normal range in phonological skills. However, there is still substantial variability in phonological skill among dyslexic children. Recent studies have focused on the high end of the continuum of phonological skills in dyslexics, identifying a “surface” dyslexic, or “delayed” profile in which phonological skills are not out of line with other aspects of word recognition. The present study extended this work to a longitudinal context, and explored differences among subgroups of dyslexics on a battery of component reading skills. Third grade dyslexics (n=72) were classified into two subgroups, phonological dyslexics and delayed dyslexics, based on comparisons to younger normal readers at the same reading level (RL group). The children were tested at two points (in third and fourth grade). The results revealed that the classification of dyslexics produced reliable, stable, and valid groups. About 82 percent of the children remained in the same subgroup category when retested a year later. Phonological dyslexics were lower in phoneme awareness and expressive language. Delayed dyslexics tended to be slower at processing printed letters and words but not at rapid automatic naming of letters, and relied more heavily on phonological recoding in reading for meaning than did phonological dyslexics. A subset of the delayed dyslexics with the traditional “surface dyslexic” pattern (relatively high pseudoword and low exception word reading) was also identified. The surface subgroup resembled the RL group on most measures and was not very stable over one year. The results are discussed in light of current models of dyslexia and recent subgrouping schemes, including the Double-Deficit Hypothesis.     

Orthographic and phonological coding during visual word matching as related to reading and spelling abilities in college students

College students, scoring average to above-average on WRAT-R subscales for reading and spelling, made match/nonmatch judgments on word pairs either on the basis of phonological similarity (a rhyme match) or orthographic similarity (a visual match). Word pairs rhymed and looked similar, rhymed but looked dissimilar, or looked similar but did not rhyme. Word pairs for which a nonmatch decision had to be made, despite similarity in the irrelevant dimension, produced significantly more errors and longer response latencies. Poorer readers were less vulnerable to phonological interference when making visual discriminations, and poorer readers and spellers were more vulnerable to orthographic interference when making rhyme matches. Results showed that a deficiency in phonological coding and an over-reliance upon orthographic coding, often observed in dyslexic children, can also be seen in relatively poor readers and spellers within a normal adult population.     

Teaching children with dyslexia to spell in a reading-writers’ workshop

To identify effective treatment for both the spelling and word decoding problems in dyslexia, 24 students with dyslexia in grades 4 to 9 were randomly assigned to treatments A (n?=?12) or B (n?=?12) in an after-school reading-writers’ workshop at the university (thirty 1-h sessions twice a week over 5 months). First, both groups received step 1 treatment of grapheme–phoneme correspondences (gpc) for oral reading. At step 2, treatment A received gpc training for both oral reading and spelling, and treatment B received gpc training for oral reading and phonological awareness. At step 3, treatment A received orthographic spelling strategy and rapid accelerated reading program (RAP) training, and treatment B continued step 2 training. At step 4, treatment A received morphological strategies and RAP training, and treatment B received orthographic spelling strategy training. Each treatment also had the same integrated reading–writing activities, which many school assignments require. Both groups improved significantly in automatic letter writing, spelling real words, compositional fluency, and oral reading (decoding) rate. Treatment A significantly outperformed treatment B in decoding rate after step 3 orthographic training, which in turn uniquely predicted spelling real words. Letter processing rate increased during step 3 RAP training and correlated significantly with two silent reading fluency measures. Adding orthographic strategies with “working memory in mind” to phonics helps students with dyslexia spell and read English words.     

Reading and spelling error analysis of native

This study was an investigation of reading and spelling errors of dyslexic Arabic readers (n=20) compared with two groups of normal readers: a young readers group, matched with the dyslexics by reading level (n=20) and an age-matched group (n=20). They were tested on reading and spelling of texts, isolated words and pseudowords. Two research questions were the focus of this study: What are the reading and spelling profile errors of dyslexic native Arabic speakers? What is the effect of the Arabic orthography on these types of errors? The results of the reading error analysis revealed a clear contribution of the uniqueness of the Arabic orthography to the types of errors made by the three different groups. In addition, the error profiles of the dyslexic readers were similar to the error profiles made by the younger reading-level-matched group in percentages and in quality. The most prominent types of errors were morphological and semiphonetic, which highlighted the contribution of the Arabic orthography to these types of errors. Consistently, the profile of the spelling errors was similar in percentages and quality among the dyslexics and the reading-level-matched group but different from the age-matched group on the spelling measures. The analysis of the spelling errors revealed that the dominant type of error was mostly phonetic due to the limited orthographic lexicon. In addition, the Arabic orthography also contributed to these types of errors because many spelling mistakes were made due to poor knowledge of the spelling rules. The results of the reading and spelling errors are discussed from a reading development point of view. Further, two models are suggested, one for reading and one for spelling, to illustrate the cognitive processes that underlie the reading and spelling mistakes in this type of orthography.