MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1007/s11881-006-0004-4

Медицинская библиотека · Annals of dyslexia · 2006

Testing the double-deficit hypothesis in an adult sample.

Miller Carlin J, Miller Scott R, Bloom Juliana S, Jones Lauren, Lindstrom William, Craggs Jason, Garcia-Barrera Mauricio, Semrud-Clikeman Margaret, Gilger Jeffrey W, Hynd George W

СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

The double-deficit hypothesis of dyslexia posits that reading deficits are more severe in individuals with weaknesses in phonological awareness and rapid naming than in individuals with deficits in only one of these reading composite skills. In this study, the hypothesis was tested in an adult sample as a model of reading achievement. Participants were parents of children referred for evaluation of reading difficulties. Approximately half of all participants reported difficulty learning to read in childhood and a small subset demonstrated ongoing weaknesses in reading. Structural equation modeling results suggest that the double-deficit hypothesis is an accurate model for understanding adult reading achievement. Better reading achievement was associated with better phonological awareness and faster rapid automatized naming in adults. Posthoc analyses indicated that individuals with double deficits had significantly lower reading achievement than individuals with single deficits or no deficits.

Для цитирования: Miller Carlin J, Miller Scott R, Bloom Juliana S, Jones Lauren, Lindstrom William, Craggs Jason, Garcia-Barrera Mauricio, Semrud-Clikeman Margaret, Gilger Jeffrey W, Hynd George W. Testing the double-deficit hypothesis in an adult sample.. Annals of dyslexia. 2006. DOI: 10.1007/s11881-006-0004-4.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.