See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/12340943

Executive Functions in Dyslexia

Article  in  Child Neuropsychology · April 2000

DOI: 10.1076/0929-7049(200003)6:1;1-B;FT037 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

170 2,059

2 authors:

Turid Helland Arve Asbjørnsen

University of Bergen University of Bergen
45 PUBLICATIONS   1,301 CITATIONS    95 PUBLICATIONS   3,115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

1. The Bergen Longitudinal dyslexia Study View project

Prison education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Turid Helland on 16 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Child Neuropsychology 0929-7049/00/0601-037$15.00
2000, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 37-48 © Swets & Zeitlinger

Executive Functions in Dyslexia

Turid Helland1,3 and Arve Asbjørnsen2,3
1Department of Special Education, University of Oslo, Norway, 2Department of Psychosocial Science, Uni-
versity of Bergen, Norway, and 3Centre for Logopedics, Eikelund Resource Centre, Bergen, Norway

ABSTRACT

This study focused on executive functions in dyslexia. A group of 43 heavily-affected young dyslexics,
divided into two groups based on the results of a receptive language test, and 20 non-dyslexic controls,
were tested with a Dichotic Listening Test, the Stroop Color Word Test and the Wisconsin Card Sorting
Test. The dyslexic subjects demonstrated significant impairment on all tasks, but with different patterns of
impairment according to the subgrouping. The subgroups were equally impaired on the Dichotic Listening
Test, but differed on the Stroop and the Wisconsin Tests. The data support a hypothesis suggesting execu-
tive problems in dyslexia, depending on receptive language skills.

Dyslexia is described as a word-decoding im- attention is a basic feature of executive func-

pairment (cf. Liberman, Shankweiler & Liber-
man, 1989; Stackhouse, 1996) and a temporal
processing deficit (Tallal, Allard, Miller & Cur-
tiss, 1997). It is also described as a multifaceted
disorder (Kinsbourne, Rufo, Gamzu, Palmer &
Berliner, 1991; Tallal, Allard, Miller, & Curtiss,
1997). The term suffers from a variety of defini-
tions reflecting the various professional view-
points involved in dyslexia research (see Miles,
1995; Lyon, 1995; Tønnesen, 1995 and 1997,
for discussions of the definition). Primary symp-
toms of dyslexia are, by nature, language-based,
but non-linguistic symptoms such as lack of
concentration, disorganization, and forgetful-
ness are often reported by parents, professionals
and dyslexics themselves. Assessment of such
functions in dyslexia has gained minor status
compared to other cognitive constructs like
memory and language processing. This study
will focus on executive functions in a group of
heavily-affected dyslexics.
One feature of executive functions is the abil-
ity to focus attention over time and to shift at-
tention according to a behavioral program. Thus
tions. Prominent models of attention demon-
strate this (for reviews, see Halperin, 1996;
Hugdahl, 1995; Mirsky, 1996). Lately, the
attentional model of Mirsky et al. (Mirsky,
1996) has been both validated and applied to
clinical populations (Ewing-Cobbs, Prasad, Flet-
cher, Levin, Miner & Eisenberg, 1998; Loss,
Yeates & Enrile, 1998). According to this
model, attention can be subdivided into five dis-
tinct functions, each associated with different
regions of the brain: the capacity to focus/
execute, to encode, to shift, to sustain, and to
stabilize attention. The organization of the atten-
tional system implies both specialization and
interaction. In this study three of these executive
task functions will be focused on: the sustain
function (the limbic system and midbrain),
which is defined in terms of vigilance or the ca-
pacity to maintain focus and alertness over time;
the focus/execute function (prefrontal cortex),
which involves the ability to select relevant
stimuli from a broad array and to complete tasks
involving those stimuli in an efficient manner;
and the shift function (midbrain, prefrontal cor-

Address correspondence to: Turid Helland, Eikelund Resource Centre, PO Box 85, Sandbrekkevn. 27, 5232
Paradis, Norway. E-mail: turhel@ks-eikelund.no
Accepted for publication: March 29, 2000.
38 TURID HELLAND AND ARVE ASBJØRNSEN
tex), which involves the ability to change the
focus of executive functions in a flexible and
adaptive manner.
Executive functions are hypothesized to be
closely connected to the frontal lobes, which
indicates a control system of the posterior and
basal systems of the brain (Stuss, 1995). There
is a general agreement that lesions/impairments
in one area of the brain can lead to distorted
functions in other areas. Thus, poor planning
functions may not necessarily mean frontal lobe
distortion: they may indicate reduced capacity in
other areas of the brain that are crucial to frontal
lobe functions. According to Luria (1973) there
is a disturbance in planned organized acts in pa-
tients with frontal lesions, especially in those
with impairment to the left frontal hemisphere.
This is due to the loss of inner speech as a regu-
lator of behavior.
Also, information-processing approaches em-
phasize the role of inner speech as a regulator of
executive functions and a key to learning and
metacognition (Eslinger, 1996). In spite of this,
attempts at relating dyslexia to attention and
executive functions have yielded diverging re-
sults (Kinsbourne, Rufoe, Gamzu, Palmer &
Berliner, 1991). Brain imaging of language pro-
cesses demonstrates frontal activity (Ryding,
Brådvik & Ingvar, 1996). Based on event-re-
lated potentials (ERPs) Segalowitz, Wagner and
Menna (1992) found that attention accounted for
differences among poor readers. They held that
learning to read is one of the most demanding
tasks encountered by the child in school, placing
a heavy demand on the child’s attentional capac-
ity in general and on the frontal system in partic-
ular. McPherson, Ackerman, Holcomb and Dyk-
man (1998) based their two groups on a median
split of scores from a visual non-word test. By
ERPs they found that the recognition of orthog-
raphy was controlled through frontal processes.
None of the two groups showed reduced frontal
activities, but the poorer decoders showed poor
left posterior phonological priming.
Applying a dichotic listening test Kershner
and Morton (1990) demonstrated that learning-
disabled children (LD) were inferior to controls
in recalling left ear digits and in shifting atten-
tion between channels. The investigators sug-
gested that left hemisphere verbal activation was
interfered with by right hemisphere attentional
activation, indicating an attentional control dys-
function in LD. Also Asbjørnsen and Bryden
(1998) found attentional shift problems in read-
ing-disabled children. The authors suggested
two possible interpretations: a basic attentional
deficit associated with a frontal, executive defi-
cit, and a deficit in temporal processing hamper-
ing the attentional shift. However, others have
found little or no deviation in LD by applying
dichotic listening tests (Obrzut & Boliek, 1988).
Evarett, Warner, Miles and Thomsen (1997)
found a marked interference effect on the color/
word naming subtest of the Stroop Color Word
Test in dyslexic children compared to age-
matched, but not to reading-age controls. Fisher,
DeLuca & Rourke (1997) found impaired per-
formance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
(WCST) among children with non-verbal LD,
but not among children with verbal LD. Levin
(1990) found that dyslexic children exhibited
organizational problems in both linguistic and
visuo-spatial tasks. This could not, however,
explain dyslexia, but the study pointed to a vari-
able pattern of organizational impairment in
dyslexia. Condor and Saling (1995) found indi-
cations of delayed development of skills for effi-
cient planning on problem solving in two read-
ing-disabled samples on the Tower of Hanoi.
According to Halperin (1996), executive
functions in early childhood seem to be driven
by stimuli in the environment. The child/parent
interaction is crucial to the development of di-
rected attention and to the regulation of behavior
through outer speech internalized to inner
speech (Vygotsky, 1962) or metacognition (Bor-
kowski & Burke, 1996). The child’s ability to
orient his/her attention develops gradually. By
the age of 5 or 6 years the internally driven abil-
ity to scan the environment in an active way is
well established; and the ability to focus atten-
tion should be fully established by the age of 7.
Sustained attention continues to develop into
adolescence (Hugdahl & Andersen, 1986; Hug-
dahl, Helland, Færevaag, Lyssand & Asbjørn-
sen, 1995).
If a child is deprived of environmental stimuli
due to either external circumstances or factors
 EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS IN DYSLEXIA
within the child itself, inner language as a regu-
lator of behavior may not be well developed. A
person’s use of inner speech in self-regulation
should, to a certain degree, be inferred or de-
tected through task demands as being rule-gov-
erned or rule-generating. Rule-governed task
demands means that fixed rules are given to the
subject ahead of task. Rule-generating task de-
mands means that no rules are given in advance
as how to solve the task. Comparing the effects
of these two types of task demands, Hayes et al.
(1996) held that rule-governed tasks induced
less variability and more rigidity of response,
while rule-generating tasks induced more effi-
cient response patterns. Dyslexic subtyping by
language development disorder was done by
Kinsbourne and Warrington in the early 60’s
(Kinsbourne, 1986).
Bishop (1997) refers to several studies of in-
attentiveness to phonology, morphology, syntax
and semantics in children with Specific Lan-
guage Impairment (SLI). She argues that these
impairments change into subtle and not easily
detectable pragmatic and discursive deficits in
some older SLI children. Likewise, Korkman
and Häkkinen-Rihu (1994) found that the test
profiles of children with developmental lan-
guage disorders could be clustered into five sub-
groups, two of which appeared to be good pre-
dictors of spelling problems. These were the
Global Language Impairment subtype, consist-
ing of children with deficiencies in both recep-
tive and naming functions, and the Specific
Comprehension subtype, showing impairment in
comprehension of complex verbal instruction.
These findings give a theoretical foundation for
further assessment of the linkage between recep-
tive language abilities, executive functions and
dyslexia.
In this study the following two questions
were investigated: Are there differences be-
tween a control group and a dyslexic group in
their executive functions? Will dyslexic sub-
groups, split by receptive language skills, ex-
hibit different profiles of executive functions?
The hypotheses were that there are differences
in executive functions between controls and
dyslexics, and that within a dyslexic group these
39
functions vary according to receptive language
abilities.
METHOD
Participants
The participants were 43 dyslexic subjects from 42
different Norwegian schools: 36 males and 7 fe-
males, mean age 12.67 (SD 1.68); and a control
group of 20 subjects from one school: 16 males
and 4 females, mean age 12.11 (SD 0.36). All sub-
jects attended regular classes in Norwegian
schools. Norway has a unitary state school system,
with minor variations between schools as to
agenda and curricula, and with relatively small
social differences.
The control group (Con) had normal achieve-
ments in reading and writing, normal intellectual
abilities and no records of needs for special educa-
tion, according to the classroom teachers and
school counselors. One of the pupils was left-
handed. At the onset of the school year the class
consisted of pupils from different classes and
schools, due to entrance into junior high school.
This legitimizes the use of one class as a control
group.
The dyslexic group (Dys) consisted of strin-
gently selected children with reading and writing
problems. Originally they were referred to the lo-
cal psychology agencies for assessment and coun-
seling. Those with very low skills in reading
and/or writing, or with a lack of response to
remediation, were further referred to a regional
logopedic clinic. For inclusion in the study, the
clinical participants were required to be within
normal range of intelligence as defined by full
scale IQ > 70, with either VIQ > 80 or PIQ > 80,
and reading or writing skills at least two years be-
low actual grade. Pre-school SLI was reported in
23 of the dyslexic subjects. For measurements of
single word reading and spelling, the Norwegian
version of the Aston Index (Newton & Thomson,
1976) was applied. For assessment of silent read-
ing a commonly used screening test in Norwegian
schools, the Carlsten Test (1982), was used (see
Table 1 for baseline data). All participants had had
all their schooling in Norway. Subjects showing
signs of any other impairments (ADHD, different
syndromes, neurological impairments, impaired
sight or hearing) or showing incompatibility with
the definition of dyslexia as offered by The Orton
Dyslexia Society Research Committee (1994), ac-
cording to which dyslexia is a specific, language-
40 TURID HELLAND AND ARVE ASBJØRNSEN
based disorder of constitutional origin, were ex-
cluded from the study. Ten of the 43 dyslexic pu-
pils were left-handed. No effects of age, gender or
hand preference were found in baseline data.
Stimulus Material
The Dichotic listening test (DLCV – 108, Hugdahl
& Asbjørnsen, 1991) is an auditory test commonly
applied both to assess language lateralization and
sustained attention. It contains a standardized con-
sonant/vowel listening task with lists of 36 × 3
dichotic pairs, including six homonymic pairs on
each list. Dichotic listening (DL) was administered
according to the instructions given in ‘‘Dichotic
listening with CV-syllables. Manual.’’ (Hugdahl &
Asbjørnsen, 1991) with the stop consonants b, p, t,
d, k, g preceding the vowel a. Each syllable was
paired with any of the other syllables to make
pairs. Thus, a total of 36 different pairs could be
found. The task consisted of three lists of 36 stim-
uli presented to the subjects by earphones on a por-
table Sony cassette player. The subjects were given
tasks with two conditions: (1) Non-Forced Atten-
tion, where the task of the subject was to repeat
what he or she heard best; (2) Forced Attention,
where attention was directed to the right ear (FR)
or the left ear (FL), balanced between subjects.
The subjects had to report for each item which syl-
lable they heard. The answers were noted by the
tester, and responses from stimuli to each ear were
recorded and transformed to percentages of correct
responses (Re% and Le% = percent correct re-
sponses from stimuli to right and left ears, respec-
tively). To analyze attentional shift efficacy, an
Attentional Shift Index (ASI) was applied (As-
bjørnsen & Bryden, 1998). The index formula is
based on a logarithmic transformation of the rela-
tion between hits and errors of a subject being
tested under conditions of forced attention, and is
a measure of the degree to which a subject is able
Table 1. Baseline Data for the Dyslexic Group: Wisc-r, Reading and Writing.
Valid N = 43
VIQ
PIQ
FIQ
Carlsten silent reading test
Carlsten sentence dictation
Aston Index, word reading test
Aston Index, word spelling test
Note. VIQ = verbal IQ; PIQ = performance IQ; FIQ = full scale IQ, all from WISC-R. Carlsten reading test:
silence reading, word pr. minute; Carlsten dictation: spelling mistakes on dictation of 5 sentences; Aston Index:
grade score under to actual grade.
to follow the instructions of directed attention
(Hugdahl, 1989). Since the log-odds ratio has a
known variance (Knoke & Burke, 1980), an error
term can be calculated, and thus a standard score
could be estimated. A z-score (zASI) > 1.645 is
taken to show a significant attentional shift to the
left hemisphere. A zASI score of 0 means there is
no attentional shift difference.
The applied version of the Stroop Color Word
Test (Stroop) (Hugdahl, undated) is a visual test
demanding verbal responses (color naming and
word reading), measuring the ability to focus and
shift attention over time. The test consisted of 48
items for each of the three tasks of ‘‘color’’ nam-
ing (C), ‘‘word’’ reading (W) and ‘‘color/word’’
naming (CW), presented in fixed order, and ana-
lyzed separately for speed (s) and correct re-
sponses (cr). By nature, the reading task is espe-
cially vulnerable to dyslexic impairments. Also,
Golden’s formula (Golden, undated) of calculating
the interference scores (INT), was applied on both
naming speed (INT-s) and correct responses (INT-
cr): INT = CWobs – CWpred, where the formula of
predicament is:
CWpred. = C × W / C + W.
The PC version of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
(WCST – CV2) (Heaton, Curtiss & Tuttle, 1993)
with visually presented feedback puts demands on
the ability to shift attention (Lezak, 1983). The
WCST–CV2 offers a differentiated analysis of
strategies. The following six variables were exam-
ined in this study: total numbers of 1) cards admin-
istered (TA), 2) errors (TE), 3) perseverative re-
sponses (PR), 4) categories completed (CC), 5)
perseverative errors (PE), and 6) nonperseverative
errors (NPE).
In order to put into subgroups according to re-
ceptive language abilities, the Receptive Language
M (SD)
85,63 (13,10)
95,74 (15,61)
89,70 (12,00)
55,32 (34,60)
14,51 (4,31)
–3,00 (1,90)
–2,63 (1,64)
 EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS IN DYSLEXIA
Test (Maul, 1989) was administered only to the
dyslexia group. The participants were first pre-
sented with a series of pictures and asked to point
out the pictures matching the sentences being read
to them. The next task was to mark correct posi-
tions on a picture according to the sentences being
read to them. The grammatical structures of the
sentences are simple and linguistically comparable
to English constructs (the genitive, the active and
the passive, spatial locations (e.g. ‘‘above’’, ‘‘to
the left of’’) and sequencing). One point was given
for each correct sentence response; ½ point for a
partly correct response. The maximum score was
24 points, with a clinical cut off at 22 points (me-
dian = 22.5 points). Due to the leveling out of lan-
guage development in early school years, the ex-
pected ceiling effect occurred. Significant correla-
tions (Pearson) were found between the Maul test
and language tests in the WISC–R (Wechsler,
1974) (Information: r = .343, p =.026; Similarities:
r = .414, p = .006; Arithmetic: r = .351, p = .023),
and the Aston Index (Vocabulary: r = 623, p =
.000).
Procedure
The control group were tested individually at their
school during the school day, being administered
the DL, the Stroop and the WCST. The test order
was randomized over subjects. The dyslexic sub-
jects were tested individually as part of a clinical
assessment. The two subgroups were: ‘‘dyslexic
norm’’ (d/n), score 22 points on the Receptive
Language Test, and ‘‘dyslexic under norm’’
(d/un), score < 22 points on the same test. The d/n
subgroup consisted of 25 subjects (mean age 13.07
(SD 1.51), M/F ratio 19/6) and the d/un subgroup
of 18 (mean age 12.11 (SD 1.77), M/F ratio 17/1).
The age difference between the two subgroups was
not significant. The two subgroups differed on the
verbal subtests of the WISC–R (d/n VIQ = 89.88;
d/un VIQ = 82.50) but not on the performance part
(d/n PIQ = 96.20; d/un PIQ = 95.11) . However,
none of the differences were significant. Both sub-
groups exhibited the ACID profile typical of dys-
lexia, with low scores on ‘‘arithmetic’’, ‘‘coding’’,
‘‘information’’, and ‘‘digit span’’. Pre-school SLI
was reported in 72.27% of the subjects in the d/un
subgroup, while this was reported in only 40% of
the d/n subgroup, which may explain the differ-
ences on the WISC–R between the subgroups. Due
to missing data 7 cases (4 from d/n, 3 from d/un)
had to be omitted from the Stroop, and 2 cases (1
from d/n, 1 from d/un) from the WCST.
Data Scoring and Analysis
Initial analyses were made of the raw-scores from
41
the different tests in a Group (2: Con vs. Dys) ×
Task mixed design. Due to unequal variance in the
two subgroups, speed scores on the Stroop were
transformed to square root (Kirk, 1982). The
scores were subjected to analyses of variance ac-
cording to the basic design. Also, to test the hy-
potheses on sub-grouping, further analyses were
performed using a Group (3: Con vs. d/n vs. d/un)
× Task design. An alpha level was set to .05. Sig-
nificant main effects and interactions were fol-
lowed up with the Tukey HSD test.
RESULTS
General Features
Preliminary analyses showed no effects of sex
or handedness, but an effect of age was found (p
< .05) on the speed measures of the Stroop. Ta-
ble 2 shows descriptive statistics of data sub-
jected to multivariate ANOVAs.
Dichotic Listening
A 3-way ANOVA with a Group (2: Con vs. Dys)
× Condition (2: FR, FL) × Ear (2: right, left)
design yielded significant main effects of Group
× Condition (F (1,61) = 4,802, p = .03), Group ×
Ear (F (1,61) = 8.936, p = .004), Condition × Ear
(F (1,61) = 40.641, p < .001), and Group × Condi-
tion × Ear (F (1,61) = 23.228, p < .001). A follow-
up test (Tukey HSD) showed that there were
significant within-group effects in Con, with FR
Re% and FL Le% significantly higher than FR
Le% and FL Re% ( p < .001). No within-group
effect was seen in Dys. A between-group effect
was seen in FR Re%, with significantly higher
overall scores in Con (p < .01). As to the sub-
groups, a 3-way ANOVA with a Group (3: Con
vs. d/n vs. d/un) × Condition (2: FR, FL) × Ear
(2: right, left) design yielded significant main
effects of Group (F (2,60) = 3.502, p = .04),
Group × Ear (F (2,60) = 6.888, p = .002), Condi-
tion × Ear (F (1,60) = 25,207, p < .001), and
Group × Condition × Ear (F (2,60) = 11.430, p <
.001). The follow-up test (Tukey HSD) showed
no within-group effects in the subgroups. A be-
tween-group effect was seen in FR Re%, with
significantly higher overall scores in d/n (p <
.01).
42 TURID HELLAND AND ARVE ASBJØRNSEN

Analyses of the zASI showed that Con at-
tained a significant shift score (see Table 3).
Neither Dys nor any of the subgroups attained a
significant shift score; and the scores were sig-
nificantly lower than in Con. There was no sig-
nificant difference between the subgroups. The
distribution of the zASI scores are shown in Fig-
ure 1. A summary of the DL result is that signif-
icant differences were found between controls
and dyslexics in reports from stimuli to the right
ear, which also gave an impaired attentional
shift score in the dyslexia group.
Stroop
Speed
The square root transformations were done on
the C-s, W-s, and CW-s before the data analy-
ses. Preliminary analyses with age as a covariate
yielded no effect, and age was hence left out as
a covariate. A 2-way ANOVA with a Group (2:
Con vs. Dys) × Task (3: C-s, W-s, CW-s) design
yielded significant main effects of Group (F (1,54)
= 23.2635, p < .001) and Task (F (2,108) =
100.083, p < .001), but no Group by Task effect.
The follow-up test (Tukey HSD) showed that
Dys needed more time (p < .01) compared to
Con on all three tasks. A within-group effect (p
< .001) was found in Con, with significant lower
time consumption on W-s (p < .001) and higher
on CW-s (p < .001) compared to C-s. A within-
group effect was also found in Dys, with CW-s
significantly higher (p < .001) than both C-s and
W-s. A separate two-way ANOVA splitting on
the dyslexia subgroups yielded significant main
effects of Group (F (2,53) = 15.9132, p < .001)
and Task (F (2,106) = 102.457, p < .001), but no
Group by Task effect. Tukey HSD revealed an

Table 2. DL, Stroop and WCST, Means and SD.

Con Dys d/n d/un

N = 20 N = 43 n = 25 n = 18

DL M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

FR Re% 57,00 (9,91) 41,04 (10,78)a 44,33 (11,05)a 36,48 (8,74)a, b
FR Le% 32,00 (9,64) 40,92 (11,23)a 40,66 (11,55) 41,30 (11,09)
FL Re% 39,00 (10,87) 40,06 (8,78) 42,77 (8,55) 36,30 (7,83)
FL Le% 47,33 (10,24) 44,57 (9,37) 44,00 (9,86) 45,37 (8,87)

Stroop N = 20 N = 36 n = 22 n = 15
C-s 34,36 (4,90) 52,22 (23,67)a 43,86 (9,89) 64,48 (31,98)a,b
W –s 19,64 (3,12) 49,35 (45,49)a 43,26 (40,60)a 57,06 (51,01)a
CW –s 58,26 (6,90) 90,42 (32,44)a 83,80 (27,56)a 100,10 (37,38)a
C –cr 47,00 (1,12) 46,39 (1,55) 47,00 (1,69) 46,27 (1,39)
W –cr 47,90 (0,31) 47,27 (1,34) 47,23 (1,22) 47,33 (1,54)
CW –cr 44,15 (1,95) 40,08 (6,05)a 39,23 (6,21)a 41,27 (5,82)

WCST N = 20 N = 42 n = 25 n = 17
PE 14,55 (7,29) 18,31 (9,82) 16,51 (7,21) 20,82 (7,68)
NPE 17,00 (7,62) 27,90 (14,85)a 24,29 (14,70) 33,00 (13,92)a

Note. Con = control group; Dys = dyslexia group; d/n = dyslexic subgroup, norm on receptive language test; d/un
= dyslexic subgroup, under norm on receptive language test. DL = Dichotic Listening: FR = forced right, FL =
forced left, Re = Right ear, Le = Left ear. Stroop = Stroop Colour and Word Test: C = colour, W = word, CW =
colour/word, s = speed, cr = correct responses. WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: TA = total administered,
TE = total errors, PR = perseverative responses, CC = categories completed. Significant between group differ-
ences are marked: a = significant difference to controls, b = significant difference between the d/n and d/un
subgroups. Alfa level: p < .05.
 EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS IN DYSLEXIA 43

Table 3. DL, z-Scores of Attentional Shift Index (zASI), Means and STD.

Con Dys d/n d/un

DL N = 20 N = 43 F(1,61) n = 25 n = 18 F(2,60)
zASI 2,47 0,37a 22,36 0,40a 0,33a 11,01
(2,30) (1,23) (1,38) (1,03)

Note. Significant effects of 1-way ANOVA are marked. Other abbreviations as in Table 2.

expected significant overall lower score on the
W-s in Con (p < .01) compared to all other
scores. The CW-s score on each of the two sub-
groups were equally significantly higher (p <
.05) than the other scores. A between-group ef-
fect was seen in Con vs. d/un (p < .001) and d/n
vs. d/un on the C-s (p = .02) due to higher time
consumption in d/un.
These effects were further confirmed by the
INT-s (see Table 4). Dys showed significantly
more speed interference than Con. This was dif-
ferentiated by the subgrouping, where d/un ex-
hibited significantly higher speed interference
than Con. No significant difference was seen in
Con vs. d/n.
Correct responses
A 2-way ANOVA with a Group (2: Con vs. Dys)
× Task (3: C-cr, W-cr, CW-cr) design yielded
significant main effects of Group (F(1,54) =
11.133, p = .002) and Task (F(2,108) = 50.647, p
< .001), and a Group by Task effect (F(2,108) =

Fig. 1. DL. Plot of individual zASI scores (= z-scores, Attentional Shift Index) separate for the three groups.
Dotted line represents 1.65, the limit for significant attentional shift. Other abbreviations as in Table 3.
44 TURID HELLAND AND ARVE ASBJØRNSEN
5.830, p = .004). The Tukey HSD test showed
that the effects were mainly due to significant
overall between- and within-group effects of the
CW-cr (p < .001), with more errors being made
in Dys. There was a within-group effect (p <
.05) in Con due to more mistakes on the CW-cr
task. For the subgroups a 2-way ANOVA with a
Group (3: Con vs. d/n vs. d/un) × Task (3: C-cr,
W-cr, CW-cr) design yielded a significant main
effect of Group (F(2,53) = 6.060, p = .004) and
Task (F(2,106) = 66.287, p < .001), and a Group
by Task effect (F(4,106) = 3.685, p = .008). The
Tukey HSD test revealed significant between-
and within-group effects (p < .001) of CW-cr
due to more errors being made in d/n, but no
effect of d/n vs. d/un or of Con vs. d/un.
These effects were also seen in the INT-cr
(see Table 4). Dys exhibited significantly lower
interference score, indicating more mistakes
being made in Dys than in Con. As to the sub-
groups, the d/n subgroup yielded significantly
lower scores than Con, with no significant ef-
fects of d/un vs. Con or d/un vs. d/n.
WCST
Perseverative and non-perseverative error scores
were analyzed separately in a 2-way ANOVA
with a Group (2: Con, Dys) × Errors (2: PE,
NPE) design. This revealed a main effect of
Group (F(1,59) = 8.119, p = .006), a main effect
of Errors (F(1,59) =16.419, p < .001) and a signif-
icant Group by Errors effect (F(1,59) = 5.771, p =
.019). The Tukey HSD follow-up test showed
that the effect was due to an overall significantly
higher NPE in Dys than in Con (p < .001), with
no significant effects for PE. No within-group
Table 4. Stroop Interference Scores (INT), Means and SD.
Con Dys
N = 20 N = 36 F(1,54)
a a
INT s 5,11 5,97 8,13
(0,41) (1,32)
INT cr 20,43 16,68a 7,40
(1,89) (5,89)
Note. Significant effects of 1-way ANOVA are marked. Abbreviations as in Table 2.
effect was seen in Con, while this was seen in
Dys (p = .01).
Further, a 2-way ANOVA with a Group (3:
Con, d/n, d/un) × Errors (2: PE, NPE) design
was performed. The analysis yielded a main ef-
fect of Group, (F(2,58) = 6.855, p = .002), and
Errors, (F(1,58) = 29.553, p < .001), and also a
Group by Errors effect, (F(2.58) = 3.749, p = .03).
The Tukey HSD follow-up test showed that the
effects were due to overall significant differ-
ences to NPE in d/un (p < .001), and within-
groups effects in both d/n and d/un (p < .01).
This result was underlined by the separate 1-way
ANOVA with a Group (Con vs. Dys and Con vs.
d/n vs. d/un) × Scores (4: TA, TE, PR, CC) de-
sign. As can be seen in Table 5, Dys as a whole
had significantly more trials and errors than
Con, but with no effect as to perseveration (PR).
Con completed significantly more category sets
(CC) than Dys. The subgrouping yielded a dif-
ferentiated picture with significant differences
between Con and d/un on all scores, but not be-
tween Con and d/n. A significant difference in
d/n vs. d/un emerged on the CC score.
The findings can be summarized as follows.
There were significant differences between Con
and Dys on all three tasks. The subgrouping by
receptive language abilities yielded a differenti-
ated pattern of executive functions. The d/n sub-
group was impaired on the DL and the correct
responses on the Stroop, while the d/un group
was impaired on the DL and the WCST with
impaired speed scores on the Stroop.
d/n d/un
n = 21 n = 15 F(2,53)
5,82 6,19 4,60
(1,45) (1,12)
15,82a 17,88 4,50
(6,13) (5,77)
 EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS IN DYSLEXIA 45

Table 5. Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Means and STD.

WCST Con Dys d/n d/un

N = 20 N = 41 F(1,59) n = 24 n = 17 F(2,58)
a a
TA 111,40 120,63 5,65 117,63 124,88 4,24
(17,98) (12,06) (13,14) (9,10)
TE 31,55 46,22a 8,12 40,83 53,82a 6,85
(15,90) (20,14) (20,14) (18,06)
PR 15,60 19,56 2,94 17,54 22,41a 3,20
(7,87) (8,82) (8,25) (9,05)
CC 5,55 4,41a 9,94 4,88 3,76a,b 9,47
(0,83) (1,50) (1,39) (1,39)

Note. Significant effects of 1-way ANOVA are marked. Other abbreviations as in Table 2.

DISCUSSION The focus/execute functions (Mirsky,

The main findings of this study were that im-
paired executive functions were found in the
dyslexia group as a whole, and that these func-
tions were differentiated by the subgrouping
according to receptive language impairment.
The dyslexic subgroup with receptive language
deficits was more impaired than the subgroup
without receptive language deficits. This was
seen mainly in the WCST, but was also evident
in the other tests. Impaired executive functions
in dyslexia has been referred to in other studies,
but the linkage to linguistic abilities yielding
differentiations as to executive functions in dys-
lexia has, to our knowledge, not been reported
previously.
The sustain function (Mirsky, 1996), as as-
sessed by the DL, was impaired in both sub-
groups, with significantly lower shift scores
compared to the control group. These results
were as expected, lending support to the studies
of both Asbjørnsen and Bryden (1998) and
Keshner and Morton (1990). However, it is open
to discussion whether the impaired scores are
due to impaired executive functions or to a tem-
poral processing impairment. The absence of
within-group variation in the dyslexia group
gives support to both possibilities. In dyslexia a
combination of the two should be a very plausi-
ble interpretation, especially when these func-
tions are viewed as interactive parts of a neuro-
logical and cognitive network.
1996) involve the ability to select relevant stim-
uli and to complete tasks involving those stimuli
in an efficient manner. These functions were
assessed by the Stroop test, which, like the DL,
is a verbal test, but which differs from it in that
the Stroop test gives visual cueing demanding
verbal responses. Dyslexics could react in two
ways on the interference task of the Stroop.
They could show no interference, due to lack of
automaticity in reading, or suppress the reading
process, either by double interference or by a
possible priming effect of the reading task. One
main feature of the test results was the variabil-
ity within the dyslexia group as to speed, with
overall slower responses in both subgroups. This
should not be surprising in a clinical group that
is vulnerable to verbal processing and reading
(McDougall & Hulme, 1994). In contrast to the
other language-based test, DL, the subgroups
differed on the Stroop. The d/n subgroup
showed little impairment as to the naming test
(C), in opposition to the d/un subgroup. Signifi-
cant speed impairment was most distinct in the
d/un group. As to the analyses of correct re-
sponses, only the d/n subgroup diverged signifi-
cantly from the control group. This indicates a
difference as to the focus/execute function be-
tween the two dyslexic subgroups; one exhibit-
ing impaired processing as to speed, the other
exhibiting impaired processing as to correct re-
sponses. Both results are compatible with the
hypothesis of Everatt, Warner, and Miles (1997)
46 TURID HELLAND AND ARVE ASBJØRNSEN
that dyslexics have fewer resources available for
controlling automatic word reading. However,
the study also points to a differentiation in dys-
lexics in strategies for handling their processing
impairment.
The ability to shift attention in a flexible
manner was assessed by the visual test WCST.
The dyslexia group exhibited significant impair-
ments compared to the control group by needing
more trials, making more errors and completing
fewer categories. There were no significant dif-
ferences in perseverative errors (PE), but signif-
icant differences in non-perseverative errors
(NPE). The dyslexia group needed more trials
and errors to find, maintain and shift strategies.
The d/n subgroup did not differ significantly
from the control group on any of the variables,
except for the variable measuring non-perse-
verative errors (NPE). The d/un, on the other
hand, differed on all measures except for perse-
verative errors (PE). According to Mirsky
(1996), this indicates impaired shift abilities at a
cognitive level, leaving problem solving more or
less to luck. The elevated number of perseve-
rative responses (PR) could be interpreted as
impaired frontal activity in d/un. However, the
lack of elevation on perseverative errors (PE)
did not support this hypothesis. The results in
the d/n subgroup lend support to the study of
Fisher et al. (1997) finding close to normal
scores on the WCST in dyslexia. On the other
hand, the subgrouping demonstrated significant
impairment in the d/un subgroup, which is not
consistent with the same study. From an infor-
mation-processing approach, it can be inferred
that the d/n subgroup were well able to use inner
speech as a regulator of behavior, whereas the
d/un were not. If it is right that different task
demands induce different problem solving strat-
egies, subjects with good abilities at using inner
speech as a regulator of behavior should respond
positively to rule-generating tasks. Subjects with
poor abilities at using inner speech in problem
solving may be expected to exhibit difficulties
with rule-generating tasks, with a better chance
at succeeding with rule-governed tasks. The dys-
lexia group as a whole demonstrated impairment
on both rule-governed and rule-generating tasks,
but the subgrouping yielded two different pro-
files of the task demands.
Assets of the d/n group were the attentional
shift function and rule-generating behavior; def-
icits were the focus/execute function and rule-
governed behavior. This indicates ability to use
attentional shifts in a flexible way, to maintain
focus over time in an efficient manner, and to
apply inner language as an organizer of behav-
ior. The subgroup’s response pattern to tasks
where external rules had to be followed indi-
cates a didactic problem for, e.g., classroom
teaching of this subgroup.
Assets of the d/un subgroup were the abilities
to focus attention, select relevant stimuli, exe-
cute tasks in a relevant way and being respon-
sive to rule-governed task demands. The sub-
group demonstrated impaired attentional shift
functions, indicating impaired abilities to main-
tain focus and alertness over time and to change
focus of attention in an adaptive way. The rela-
tive strength of this subgroup in a learning situa-
tion should be to follow instructions, while more
creative academic problem solving (such as in
mathematics and composition) should be diffi-
cult.
To summarize, significant differences were
seen between the control group and the dyslexia
group as a whole. The subgrouping yielded vari-
ations within the dyslexic group rather than
clear-cut dichotomies. To find valid subgroups
has not been the focus of this study, but rather to
show heterogeneity in dyslexia in accordance
with theories of continuity (Kinsbourne, 1986).
However, significant differences between the
subgroups emerged in subtests that are essential
in the assessment of both dyslexia and executive
functions. Generalizations from the results in
this study are debatable most of all due to the
sampling techniques being used. It has been ar-
gued that in order to find symptoms of interest
for the definition of dyslexia, one has to start by
assessing the poorest readers (Tønnesen, 1997).
The findings in this study indicate the nature of
executive assets and deficits in a group of
heavily-affected reading and writing impaired
children. In a randomized sample of dyslexia,
subjects in the d/un category may be under-
 EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS IN DYSLEXIA
represented and represented as outliers, having
little or no effect on the statistical analysis of
executive functions.
The final conclusion of the study is that exec-
utive impairment is seen in dyslexia, specifically
in subjects with receptive language impairment.
The deficit cannot be related solely to impaired
temporal linguistic or phonological functions, as
assessed by the DL and Stroop tests, since the
language impaired subgroup showed impairment
on the visual test (WCST) also.
REFERENCES
Asbjørnsen, A.E. & Bryden, M.P. (1998). Auditory
attentional shifts in reading-disabled students:
Quantification of attentional effectiveness by the
Attentional Shift Index. Neuropsychologia, 36, 2,
143–148
Bishop, D. (1997). Uncommon Understanding. Devel-
opment and Disorders of Language Comprehen-
sion in Children. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Borowski, J. G. & Burke, J. E. (1996). Theories, mod-
els, and measurements of executive functioning:
An information processing perspective. In R.G.
Lyon & N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, Memory,
and Executive Function (pp. 263–278). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.
Carlsten, C. T. (1982). Norsk rettskrivings- og
leseprøver. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Condor, A., Anderson, V., & Saling, M. (1995). Do
reading disabled children have planning problems?
Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 4, 485–502.
Eslinger, P. J. (1996). Conceptualizing, describing,
and measuring components of executive functions.
A summary. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor
(Eds.), Attention, Memory, and Executive Function
(pp. 263–278). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Evarett, J., Warner, J., Miles, T. R., & Thomsen, M.
E. (1997). The incidence of Stroop interference in
dyslexia. Dyslexia, 3, 222–228.
Ewing-Cobbs, L., Prasad, M., Fletcher, J. M. Levin,
H. S., Miner, M. E., & Eisenberg, H. M. (1998).
Attention after pediatric traumatic brain injury: A
multidimensional assessment. Child Neuropsychol-
ogy, 4, 1.
Fisher, N. J., DeLuca, J. W., & Rourke, B. P. (1997).
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test and Halstead Cate-
gory Test performances of children and adoles-
cents who exhibit the syndrome of nonverbal learn-
ing disabilities. Child Neuropsychology, 3, 1,
61–70.
Golden, C. J. (1978). Stroop Color and Word Test. A
manual for clinical and experimental uses.
Cat.no.30150M. Illinois: Stoelting.
47
Halperin, J. M. (1996). Conceptualizing, describing,
and measuring components of attention. A sum-
mary. In R.G. Lyon & N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), At-
tention, Memory, and Executive Function (pp.
263–278). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Ruckstuhl, Jr. (1996).
Relational frame theory and executive function: A
behavioral approach. In R.G. Lyon & N.A.
Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, Memory, and Execu-
tive Function (pp. 263–278). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Heaton, R. K., Curtiss, G., & Tuttle, K. (1993). Wis-
consin Card Sorting Test: Computer version – 2.
Research Edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological As-
sessment Resources, Inc.
Hugdahl, K. (undated). Stroop Test. University of
Bergen.
Hugdahl, K. (1989). Handbook of Dichotic Listening:
Theory, Methods and Research. Chichester, U. K.:
Wiley & Sons.
Hugdahl, K. (1995). Psychophysiology. The Mind–
Body Perspective. Cambridge, MA, London, UK:
Harvard University Press.
Hugdahl, K. & Andersson, L. (1986). The ‘‘forced-
attention paradigm’’ in dichotic listening to CV-
syllables: A comparison between adults and chil-
dren. Cortex, 22, 417–432.
Hugdahl, K., & Asbjørnsen, A. (1991). Dikotisk
lyssning til CV-stavelser. Manual. Stockholm:
Psykologiförlaget AB.
Hugdahl, K., Helland, T., Færevaag, M. F., Lyssand,
E. T., & Asbjørnsen, A. (1995). Absence of ear
advantage on the Consonant-vowel Dichotic Lis-
tening Test in adolescent and adult dyslexics: Spe-
cific auditory-phonetic dysfunction? Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 6,
833–840.
Kershner, J.R., & Morton, L. L. (1990). Directed at-
tention in dichotic listening in reading disabled
children: A test of four models of maladaptive
lateralization. Neuropsychologia, 28, 181–198.
Kinsbourne, M. (1986). Models of fyslexia and its
subtypes. In Pavlidis, G. Th., & Fisher, D. F.
(Eds.), Dyslexia: Its Neuropsychology and Treat-
ment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Kinsbourne, M., Rufoe, D.T., Gamzu, E., Palmer,
R.L., & Berliner, A. K. (1991). Neuropsychologi-
cal deficits in adults with dyslexia. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 33, 763–775.
Kirk, R. E (1982). Experimental design: Procedures
for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Brooks-Cole.
Knoke, D. and Bur, P. J. (1980). Log-linear Models.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Korkman, M. & Häkkinen-Rihu, P. (1994). A new
classification of Developmental Language Disor-
der (DLD). Brain and Language, 47, 96–116.
Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological Assessment
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
 48 TURID HELLAND AND ARVE ASBJØRNSEN
Levin, B. (1990). Organizational deficits in dyslexia:
Possible frontal lobe dysfunction. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 6, 95–110.
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M.
(1998). The alphabetic principle and learning to
read. In Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, A. M.
(Eds.), Phonology and Reading Disability. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Loss, N., Yeates, K. O., & Enrile, B.G. (1998). Atten-
tion in children with myelomeningocele. Child
Neuropsychology, 4, 1.
Luria, A.R. (1973). The Working Brain. New York:
Basic Books.
Lyon G. R. (1995). Towards a definition of dyslexia.
Annals of Dyslexia. XLV.
Maul, J. (1989). Screening af lærning og forudsætning
for læsning. Herning: Special-Pædagogisk forlag
A-S.
McDougall, S. & Hulme, C. (1994). Short-term mem-
ory, speech rate and phonological awareness as
predictors of learning to read. In Hulme, C. &
Snowling, M. (Eds.), Reading Development and
Dyslexia. London: Whurr Publishers.
McPherson, W. B., Ackerman, P. T., Holmcomb, P.
J., & Dykman, R. A. (1998). Event-related poten-
tials elicited during phonological processing differ-
ential subgroups of reading disabled. Brain and
Language, 62, 163–185.
Miles, E. (1995). Can there be a single definition of
dyslexia? Dyslexia 1, 36–45.
Mirsky, A. F. (1996). Disorders of attention. A neuro-
psychological perspective. In R. G. Lyon & N. A.
Krasnegor (Eds): Attention, Memory, and Execu-
tive Function (263–278). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Newton, M. S. & Thomson, M. E. (1976). The Aston
Index: A screening procedure for written language
View publication stats
difficulties. Wisbech: Learning developmental
aids.
Obrzut, J. E. & Boliek, C. A. (1988). Dichotic Listen-
ing: Evidence from learning and reading disabled
children. In K. Hugdahl (Ed.), Handbook of Dich-
otic Listening: Theory, Methods and Research
(475–511). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Ryding, E. , Brådvik, B., & Ingvar, D. H. (1996). Si-
lent speech activates prefrontal cortical regions
asymmetrically, as well as speech-related areas in
the dominant hemisphere. Brain and Language, 52,
435–451.
Segalowitz, S., Wagner, J.W. & Menna, R. (1992).
Lateral versus frontal ERP predictors of reading
skill. Brain and Cognition, 20, 85–103.
Stackhouse, J. (1996). Speech, spelling and reading:
Who is at risk and why? In Snowling & Stackhouse
(1996). Dyslexia, Speech and Language: A practi-
tioner’s handbook. London: Whurr Publishers.
Stuss, D. T. (1995). Neuropsychology of the frontal
lobes. Lecture/handout at the INS conference in
Uppsala, Sweden.
Tallal, P., Allard, L., Miller, S., & Curtiss, S. (1997).
Academic outcomes of language impaired chil-
dren. In C. Hulme, & M. Snowling (Eds.), Dys-
lexia: Biology, cognition and intervention. Lon-
don: Whurr Publishers.
Tønnesen, F. E. (1995). On defining dyslexia. Scandi-
navian Journal of Education Research, 39, No. 2.
Tønnesen, F. E. (1997). How can we best define
‘‘dyslexia’’? Dyslexia, 3, 78–92.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children – Revised. Norwegian Edition by
Undheim, J.O. Jaren, Norway: Vigga-trykk.