Kognitive Korrelate der Lese-, Leserechtschreib- und der Rechtschreibstörung
Abstract
Zusammenfassung: Im Rahmen dieser Studie zu isolierten sowie kombinierten Lesestörungen und Rechtschreibstörungen wurden die Zusammenhänge zwischen Lese-Rechtschreibmaßen und den Prädiktormaßen Benennungsgeschwindigkeit (RAN) sowie phonologische Bewusstheit anhand einer großen Stichprobe (N = 568) untersucht. Hierarchische Regressionsanalysen ergaben differenzielle Prädiktionsmuster: RAN lieferte eine hohe Varianzaufklärung der Leseleistung. Die phonologische Bewusstheit war der stärkste Prädiktor für die Rechtschreibleistung. Unter Einsatz praxisnaher Kriterien zur Klassifikation auffälliger und unauffälliger Leistungen zeigte sich, dass fast 30 % der Kinder mit einer Rechtschreibstörung unauffällige Leistungen im Lesen aufwiesen und über 40 % der Kinder mit einer Lesestörung über altersgemäße Rechtschreibleistungen verfügten. Die Ergebnisse werden in den Kontext früherer Befunde zur Dissoziation von Lese- und Rechtschreibleistungen gestellt. Die praktische Relevanz der dargestellten Befunde liegt in der Bedeutung einer differenzierten Diagnostik von Schriftsprachproblemen sowie einer differenzierten Förderung bei Störungen des Lesens und Störungen des Rechtschreibens.
Cognitive Correlates of Deficits in Reading and/or Spelling
Background:Models of literacy development (e. g. Frith, 1985) argue that reading and spelling skills are closely linked and influence each other during development. Furthermore, deficits in reading and deficits in spelling are generally seen as one and the same disorder, that are characterized by similar underlying cognitive deficits (phonological deficit). The lack of differentiation between the two literacy components is also reflected in the dominant diagnostic systems, ICD-10 and DSM-IV. As a consequence, studies investigating reading and spelling skills separately are still rare. However, recent research (e. g., Moll & Landerl, 2009; Wimmer & Mayringer, 2002) provides evidence that deficits in reading can occur in the absence of deficits in spelling and vice versa. In addition, there is increasing evidence from both, concurrent and longitudinal studies, showing that performance in reading and spelling is predicted by differential cognitive skills (e. g., Landerl & Wimmer, 2008; Moll, Fussenegger, Willburger, & Landerl, 2009).
Aims:The current study aimed to investigate the differential cognitive skills (i. e. rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness) associated with performance in reading and spelling in a sample of elementary school children (2nd to 4th Grade) in order to replicate previous findings that showed a differential predictive pattern between reading and spelling skills. The second aim of the study was to identify how many children within a sample of children with literacy difficulties show deficits in only one domain (reading or spelling) compared to the number of children with deficits in both literacy skills.
Methods:The sample comprised 568 elementary school children from 2nd to 4th Grade. Two third of the sample (N = 374) experienced learning difficulties (at least one standard deviation below the grade specific mean) based on their performance in standardized classroom tests of reading, spelling and arithmetic, whereas 194 children showed age-adequate performance in these tests. Literacy skills (pseudoword reading, word reading and spelling) and cognitive skills (nonverbal IQ, rapid automatized naming and phonological awareness) of all 568 children were further examined during individual assessments. To examine the predictive patterns of cognitive skills for pseudoword reading, word reading, and spelling, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were run. These analyses allowed identifying the unique variance of the two predictors, rapid automatized naming (RAN) and phonological awareness (PA) for reading and spelling that is not already explained by the other predictor. To examine the prevalence of children with isolated deficits in reading and isolated deficits in spelling within the subsample of children with literacy difficulties we applied practice relevant cutoff criteria,that are common when diagnosing literacy difficulties. A deficit in reading and/or spelling was defined when the child scored at least 1.5 standard deviations below the grade specific mean; for an age-adequate performance children had score higher than 0.8 SD below the grade specific mean on standardized measures of reading and spelling.
Results:The regression analyses replicated previous findings and revealed a differential pattern for reading and spelling skills. Whereas RAN turned out to be the best predictor for reading, phonological awareness was the best predictor for spelling skills. The predictive pattern for pseudoword reading and word reading was comparable. When running the same analyses separately for the three age groups the predictive pattern was similar for all three grades. The prevalence analysis of isolated deficits in reading and isolated deficits in spelling within the group of children with literacy difficulties revealed that 43 and 28 %, respectively showed deficits in only one domain, indicating that isolated deficits in reading and isolated deficits in spelling are not an exception but occur rather frequently. The present analysis showed that the dissociation can even be observed when strict cutoff-criteria (≤–1.5 SD for deficit and ≥–0.8 SD for age-adequate performance) are used.
Discussion: The results are in line with previous findings, showing that reading and spelling skills are associated with differential cognitive skills. Furthermore the prevalence analyses revealed that deficits in reading and deficits in spelling frequently occur in isolation. The current regression based findings are discussed in the context of previous stusdies investigating the cognitive profiles in specific deficits groups, namely children with isolated reading and isolated spelling difficulties. The fact that deficits in reading and deficits in spelling can dissociate and that reading and spelling performance are associated with different underlying cognitive skills (RAN and phonological awareness) has important practical implications: first, the results support the importance for assessing both, reading and spelling skills when diagnosing literacy difficulties. Given that a considerable number of children experiences deficits in only one domain, these children could be missed when assessing only one literacy component, Secondly, the findings point up the importance for developing specific intervention programmes for reading and spelling difficulties.
Literatur
(2008). 3DM differential diagnostiek van dyslexie: Een cognitieve analyse van lezen en spellen. Amsterdam: Boom B. V. Test Publisher.
(2002). The role of naming speed within a model of reading acquisition. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 109– 126.
(1973). Een-minuut-test: vorm A en B: schoolvorderingentest voor de technische leesvaardigheid, bestemd voor het tweede tot en met het zesde leerjaar van het basisonderwijs: verantwoording en handleiding. Nijmegen: Berkhout.
(2003). Developmental changes in the manifestation of a phonological deficit in dyslexic children learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 22– 40.
(1976). Rapid “automatized” naming (RAN): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14, 471– 479.
(1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben & M. Fayol (Hrsg.). Learning to spell, (S. 237– 269). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1980). Unexpected spelling problems. In U. Frith (Hrsg.). Cognitive processes in spelling, (S. 495– 515). London: Academic Press.
(1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. E. Patterson, J. C. Marshall & M. Coltheart (Hrsg.). Surface Dyslexia, (S. 301– 330). London: Erlbaum.
(1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31– 54.
(2010). Predicting reading and spelling difficulties in transparent and opaque orthographies: a comparison between Scandinavian and US/Australian children. Dyslexia, 16, 119– 142.
(2005). Heidelberger Rechentest (HRT 1 – 4). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
(2008). Strukturen sprachlicher Kompetenzen. In E. Klieme (Hrsg.), Unterricht und Kompetenzerwerb in Deutsch und Englisch. Ergebnisse der DESI-Studie, ( Band 2, S. 191– 201). Weinheim, Basel: Beltz.
(2010). Morpheus. Morphemunterstütztes Grundwortschatz-Segmentierungstraining. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
(2010). Review of Research: Naming Speed and Reading: From Prediction to Instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 341– 362.
(2000). Influences of orthographic consistency and reading instruction on the development of nonword reading skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 239– 257.
(2008). Development of word reading fluency and spelling in a consistent orthography: An 8-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 150– 161.
(1997). The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German-English comparison. Cognition, 63, 315– 334.
(submitted). Reading development in European orthographies. Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five orthographies: Is English an outlier orthography? Manuscript submitted for publication:
(1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8– 17.
(2003). Salzburger Lesescreening. (SLS 1 – 4). Bern: Huber.
(2009). Double dissociation between reading and spelling deficits. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 359– 382.
(2010). Lese- und Rechtschreibtest (SLRT-II). Weiterentwicklung des Salzburger Lese- und Rechtschreibtests (SLRT). Bern: Huber.
(2009). RAN is not a measure of orthographic processing. Evidence from the asymmetric German orthography. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 1– 25.
(1997). The psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben & M. Fayol (Hrsg.). Learning to spell, (S. 21– 38). Mahwah, JN: Erlbaum.
(1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 321– 339.
(2004). Das Marburger Rechtschreibtraining. Bochum: Winkler Verlag.
(2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143– 174.
(2000). Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenztest für Kinder III (HAWIK-III). Bern: Huber.
(2010). Long-term cognitive dynamics of fluent reading development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 213– 231.
(2010). Cognitive development of fluent word reading does not qualitatively differ between transparent and opaque orthographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 827– 842.
(2004). Inhibition and shifting in children with learning deficits in arithmetic and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 239– 266.
(1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 1– 33.
(2002). Dysfluent reading in absence of spelling difficulties: A specific disability in regular orthographies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 272– 277.
(2000). The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 668– 680.
(1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415– 438.
(2006). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, version 2007 (chap. V). Abgerufen am 9. September, 2011, from : apps.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/
(2010). Internationale statistische Klassifikation der Krankheiten und verwandter Gesundheitsprobleme, 10. Revision, Version 2011 (Kapitel V). Abgerufen am 9. September, 2011, von : www.dimdi.de/static/de/klassi/diagnosen/icd10/htmlamtl2011/index.htm
(2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551– 559.
