Research in developmental disabilities · 2017
Visual artificial grammar learning in dyslexia: A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van Witteloostuijn Merel, Boersma Paul, Wijnen Frank, Rispens Judith
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Literacy impairments in dyslexia have been hypothesized to be (partly) due to an implicit learning deficit. However, studies of implicit visual artificial grammar learning (AGL) have often yielded null results.
AIMS: The aim of this study is to weigh the evidence collected thus far by performing a meta-analysis of studies on implicit visual AGL in dyslexia.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Thirteen studies were selected through a systematic literature search, representing data from 255 participants with dyslexia and 292 control participants (mean age range: 8.5-36.8 years old).
RESULTS: If the 13 selected studies constitute a random sample, individuals with dyslexia perform worse on average than non-dyslexic individuals (average weighted effect size=0.46, 95% CI [0.14 … 0.77], p=0.008), with a larger effect in children than in adults (p=0.041; average weighted effect sizes 0.71 [sig.] versus 0.16 [non-sig.]). However, the presence of a publication bias indicates the existence of missing studies that may well null the effect.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: While the studies under investigation demonstrate that implicit visual AGL is impaired in dyslexia (more so in children than in adults, if in adults at all), the detected publication bias suggests that the effect might in fact be zero.
AIMS: The aim of this study is to weigh the evidence collected thus far by performing a meta-analysis of studies on implicit visual AGL in dyslexia.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Thirteen studies were selected through a systematic literature search, representing data from 255 participants with dyslexia and 292 control participants (mean age range: 8.5-36.8 years old).
RESULTS: If the 13 selected studies constitute a random sample, individuals with dyslexia perform worse on average than non-dyslexic individuals (average weighted effect size=0.46, 95% CI [0.14 … 0.77], p=0.008), with a larger effect in children than in adults (p=0.041; average weighted effect sizes 0.71 [sig.] versus 0.16 [non-sig.]). However, the presence of a publication bias indicates the existence of missing studies that may well null the effect.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: While the studies under investigation demonstrate that implicit visual AGL is impaired in dyslexia (more so in children than in adults, if in adults at all), the detected publication bias suggests that the effect might in fact be zero.