A Devek^miental Approach to Reading

DIsabiMty: Accuracy and ^ e e d Cnteria of

Normal and D^cient Readfoi^ Skill

Maureen W. Lovett
Hospital for Sick Children and the University of Toronto

T, MAUREEN W. A Developmental Approach to Reading Disability: Accuracy and Speed

Criteria of Normal and Deficient ReatUng SkiU. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1^7, SS, 234-260. The
constructs of accuracy and speed were adopted as peifonnance criteria against which to define 2
clinical samples of disabled readers. Accuracy'dis^led subjects had &Uedtoachieve reliable age-
appropriate word recognition skills. R^e-diu^led readers were age-appropriate in word recognitioii
accuracy but deBcient in reading speed. These disabled readers were compared tofluentnormal
children selected to be reading at the same level of accuracy as the rate-disabled subjects but at a
significantly faster rate. All aspects of die accuracy-disabled sulgects' reading systems proved
deficient, and tfiese children were less able to leam new sound-symbol associations in a task
simulating initial reading acquisition. The rate-disabled subjects exhibited a basic deficit in word
recognition speed, compromised accuracy when reading in c<»itext, and comi^'omised spelling
when competing visual patterns were avaUsdile. A muMdimensitm^ oral langua^ impakment was
found to accompany the accur^iy disdbility, while the r^e disability ai^>eared restricted to l^gu^e
in its visible fonn and the naming of visual representa^ons. A visual naming speed impairment was
associated with bodi profiles of deficient reading skill.

Over a decade ago, Lafierge aiMi Samuels GolinkofiF, 1976) or even earlier (Stanovich,
(1974) advocated two criteria of achievement Cunningham, & West, 1981). There is no
against which the development of any read- similar evidence, however, regarding the
ing skill should be measured: accuracy and automaticity widi which clinical samples of
automaticity. Pedagogically, a demonstration disabled and/or dyslexic readers recognize
of accurate performance had always been ac- known words. Stemberg and Wagner (1982)
cepted as siSficient indication of skill acquisi- have suggested aspects of skill automatization
tion. These theorists contended, however, to be less complete and to proceed more
that development of a skill to the point of slowly in leaming-dlsabled children,
automaticity is essential; in this view, fluent Attempts to study the normal acquisition
reading is achieved only when all levels of ^^ ^ ^ ^^.jj ^^ ^^^ automatic-
visual to semantic decodmg proceed automat- . ^ achievement criteria have led to the rec-
ically and attention is freed for an uninter- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^j^^ 1^^^^ -^ ..^^^ ^^ culmination
mpted appreciation of textual meaning. ^f ^j^y development" (Ehri & Wilce, 1983, p.
Developmental studies of the word rec- 4). Ehri and Wilce (1979, 1^3) have sug-
ognition process have suggested that known gested tliat the acquisition of word recogni-
words may be recognized automatically by tion skill—word recognition being the foun-
achieving normal readers by the end of first dation upon which other dimensions of
grade and by less skilled normal readers by reading skill develop—can be differentiated
third grade (Guttentag & HaiA, 1978; Pace & into three successive phases. In the flrst

Thisresearchwas supported by operating fundsfromthe Medical Research Council of Canada

and by operating funds and a research scholarshipfromthe Onbirio Mental Healtti Foundation. The
author gratefully acknowledges the generous contributions of Teny Smialy, Judy Millington, and
Maureen McFarland in assisting with all phases of dt^ collection and data analysis, and of Katfileen
Farrell in assisting with data coding and transcription. Special thanks are due Terry Smialy and
Janet Olds for dieir statistical aad computer skills and Rodenck W. Barren for his helpful comments
on a draft of this paper. Identification of the present rate-disrf>led subjects was made possible
through the assistance of Andrew Biemiller, Donald G. Doehring, and Roger T. Lennon, who made
previously unpublished nonnative data on reading speed avail^e for use in this research project.
The generosity of these individuals is very gratefully acknowle^ed. Author's present address:
Division of Neurology, Department of Paediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University
Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G1X8.
[ChUd Development. 1987, 58,234-260. © 1987 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/87/5801-0016«01.00]

phase, printed words are acquired to a crite-
rion of response accuracy: that is, they can be
reliably identified. In the second phase, these
newly acquired words, with practice, come to
be recognized automatically, without deliber-
ate attention or the necessity of "sounding
them out." In the third phase, the speed of
word recognition increases to a develop-
mentally appropriate maximum as compo-
nents of the process become consolidated in
the reader's memory. It is suggested, there-
fore, that speed may be a more significant fac-
tor than automaticity in distinguishing good
and poor readers.
Recently, several authors have specu-
lated that processing-speed differences are
important determinants of individual differ-
ences in reading skill for children and adults
(Barron, 1981; Perfetti, 1983; Stanovich,
1980). Jackson and McClelland (1979; Jack-
son, 1980) found that the speed with which a
meaningful or "nameable" memory represen-
tation can be accessed was an important
source of individual differences among col-
lege-age readers. Similarly, Palmer, Mac-
Leod, Hunt, and Davidson (1985) found that
individual differences in reading speed are
predicted by elementary information-process-
ing tasks requiring the rapid identification of
visual symbols. A somewhat different tine of
evidence emerges from related studies with
school-age readers: Perfetti and his col-
leagues (Perfetti, 1983; Perfetti, Finger, &
Hogaboam, 1978) report individual differ-
ences in children's decoding speed that are
not reducible to differences in visual name
access, although the latter remains related to
differences in reading ability. Whether deter-
mined by single or multiple core factors, it
may be argued that "the development of rapid
word recognition skills [is] the primary factor
which distinguishes skilled from less skilled
reading performance" (Chabot, Zehr, Prinzo,
& Petros, 1984, p. 160) from the eariy years of
reading instruction into adulthood.
Issues relating to the second and third
phases in the development of word recogni-
tion skill have been investigated almost ex-
clusively with samples of normally achieving
children. Little experimental attention has
been directed to the attainment of optimal
reading speeds or other advanced indices of
word recognition skill in that population of
otherwise intelligent children witii selective
failures in reading acquisition. A number of
questions may be posed with respect to how
these children's reading deficits map onto the
normal developmental course proposed by
Ehri and Wilce (1979, 1983).
Maureen W. Lovett 235
In the present study, the constructs of ac-
curacy and speed were adopted as perform-
ance criteria against which to define three
samples of children at distinctly different
stages of reading-skill acquisition. These
three samples were defined with respect to
their achievement of developmentally appro-
priate progress through the stages postulated
by Ehri and Wilce (1979,1983) to characterize
the normal acquisition of word recognition
skill (considered here as a prototype for gen-
eral reading skill). Two of the present sam-
pies were selected from a clinical population
of chiidren referred for the treatment of read-
ing problems and confirmed to have a
significant reading deficit. The third sample
of normal controls was drawn from a school
population and selected to be matched with
the two clinical samples on certain demo-
graphic and achievement variables.
The two samples of disabled readers in-
clude chiidren who have been iabeled "accu-
racy disabled" (AD) or "rate disabled" (RD)
based on their performance on a battery of
standardized oral reading measures. The ac-
curacy-disabled subjects have failed to
achieve age-appropriate performance in de-
coding accuracy and are therefore considered
disabled at the very first phase of reading ac-
quisition. These chiidren are severely im-
paired and generally comparable to other
reading-disabled and dyslexic samples re-
ported in the literature. The label "dyslexic"
is usuaily reserved for those children with se-
vere and pervasive deficits in ali aspects of
word recognition (Vellutino, 1979), a descrip-
tion that aptly characterizes the accuracy-
disabled sampie. (It should be noted that
these children's accuracy deficits are not the
result of a speed/accuracy trade-off (see Tabie
10); they are inaccurate and slow readei-s.)
Chiidren included in the rate-disabled
sample demonstrated evidence of age/grade-
appropriate ievels of word recognition accu-
racy but were markedly deficient in reading
speed reiative to normed expectations. Be-
cause these chiidren's impairment in reading
acquisition appeared to involve later phases
of skill deveiopment, they were iabeled "rate
disabied." The reiiabiiity of tbis diagnostic
distinction is supported by recent evidence
that reading rate is a stabie characteristic of
individual readers, both chiidren and aduits
(Carver, 1983). These chiidren tend to be re-
ferred in increasing numbers by the middie
and iater elementary grades, where the
amount of textual infonnation required for
test and project preparation increases and
where instruction begins to move toward a
236 Child Development
lecture format. Complaints of comprehension
problems, diffe;ulty with note-taking and
written composition, and decreased achieve-
ment in many academic subjects characterize
such referrals.
The third sample of normal readers was
recruited from ^e-appropriate grade place-
ments in public schools. These children were
seiected to demonstrate age- and/or grade-
appropriate performances in decoding accu-
racy and in reading speed and were iabeied
"fluent normal" (FN) readers. These subjects
were individually matched to be decoding at
the same ievei of accuracy as a rate-disabled
subject but at a significantly faster reading
rate. This matching procedure was under-
taken to provide an appropriate control group
for examining the performance of the newly
identified subgroup of specifically rate-
impaired disabled readers. The present study
was designed to examine a number of indices
of reading and nonreading skill development
in these three samples of children. The three
samples were aiso compared on some of the
iearning processes considered important to
initiai reading acquisition in an effort to iden-
tify potentially precursive correlates of either
profiie of deficient reading skill.
There is some consensus in tJhe literature
that a majority of "dyslexic" or "reading-
disabied" subjects demonstrate, along with
their specific underachievement in reading,
associated disorders in some aspect of speech
and/or language deveiopment. Dyslexics have
been reported to he inferior to normals on a
range of sidils involving selected aspects of
speech functions (Bradley & Bryant, 1^1),
oral language competence (Rudel, Denckla,
& Broman, 1981; Vogel, 1975,1977), and ver-
bal learning abiiity (Rudei, Denckla, & Spal-
ten, 1976). Relevant to the present study, ac-
curacy-disabled children have been reveaied
to be inferior to rate-disabled readers in their
ability to manipulate oral language structure
(Lovett, 1984a). This general line of evidence
has ied some investigators to suggest that the
"dyslexias" are a class of developmental lan-
guage disorders, and that different dyslexic
subtypes can be identified based on the type
and specificity of the associated speech, lan-
guage, or veital iearning impairment (Den-
ckia, 1979). A more conservative forniulation
of this position suggests a "verbal deficit" ex-
planation of developmental reading failure
(Veiiutino, 1979).
Most ofthe evidence cited ai>ove derives
from a number of singie studies, many of
which define their disabled readers according
to different criteria. Thus, aldiough the lan-
guage deficiencies attributed to disabied
readers have included phonoio^caJ, iexicai,
syntactic, and semantic functions, we lack, as
Veiiutino (1979) has suggested, "any dbfin-
idve conclusions as to which of tiiese areas is
etioiogically more significant" (p. 347).
A second aspect of the present study was
to examine the verbal deficit hypotiresis with
ftese two sampies of disabled readers. By
comparing the three sampies on a range of
oral iMiguage measures, it is possible to con-
sider the followii^ questions: (1) Are the ac-
curacy-disabled children handicapped by a
generai language impmrment evident on sev-
eral diiferent dimensions of oral l^iguage de-
velopment relative to the normal sample? (2)
Is the rate-dis£d)led sample's (^saUlity pecu-
liar to language in its written or visible form,
or is there an oral iai^ua^e concomitant to
this particuiar pattern of reading dysfunction?
(3) Are there any orai language measures that
^pear to be pervasively associ^ed with
deficient reading skill, regardless of whetiier
the reading disability is an accuracy or a rate
deficit?
In assembling a battery of measures of
oral language development, particular atten-
tion was p^d to the inclusion of word re-
trieval and naming measures. In earlier pages,
visual name access speed was discussed as an
important source of individual diiPferesces in
adult reading skill (Jackson, 1980; Jackson &
McQellMid, 1979; Pahner et al., 1 ^ ) . Of
more immediate relevance to our present
questions regarding the rate-disabled sampie,
there are conflicting results in the ctevelop-
mentai literature regfuding whether a general
name retrieval speed factor c^fPerentiates
skilled and less skilled readers (see, e.g., Ehri
& Wilce, 1983; Spring & Capps, 1974), or
whetiier the spread advantage of skilled sub-
jects is restricted to the naming (i.e., decod-
ing) of printed woid materials (Perfetti, 1983;
Perfetti et al., 1978; Stanovich, 1981). The
present battery of oral language meiuiures in-
cludes measures of word retrieval time fol-
lowing visual and auditory stimulus presenta-
tion and in the naming of sin^e- and
multiple-element visual arrays.
A final aspect of the present study in-
volved a consideration of the correlates of
readii^ skill within each ofthe tlu-ee samples.
Altiiough there has i^een some investigation
of die correlates of reading achievement in
normal samjUes (Curtis, 1^®D; DeS<^ & De-
Soto, 1^3) and of longitudinal predictors of
success in reading acquisition (Bradley &
Bryant, 1983), there remains some con-
troversy regarding the continuity of the pre-

dictors of individual skill differences at differ-
ent ages (Curtis, 1980; Hess & Radtke, 1981)
and at different leveis of achievement. In the
present study, intertask correiations for differ-
ent dimensions of reading skiii and correia-
tions between different dimensions of orai
ianguagc deveiopment and reading achieve-
ment wiii be examined separately for each
sample. These correlational data wiii provide
some indication of whether the predictors of
within-group variabiiity in reading achieve-
ment appear to be continuous or discontinu-
ous across the range of abiiity and disabiiity
presentiy sampied.
Method
The Populations Sampled
The reading-disabled samples in this in-
vestigation consist of children referred to the
Leaming Disabilities Research Program at
the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Re-
ferrals are made for remedial reading instruc-
tion in four ongoing experimental treatment
programs. Referrals originate from multiple
sources, inciuding medicai and psychoiogy
staff as weii as the various boards of education
across metropoiitan Toronto. Referrals of chii-
dren between the ages of 8 and 13 years are
accepted for screening if evidence of specific
underachievement in reading can be demon-
strated in the context of at least low average
inteliigence (WISC-R Verbai and Perform-
ance IQs must be 85 or over). Chiidren with
Engiish as a second ianguage and chiidren
whose histories include hyperactivity, hear-
ing impairment, brain damage, a chronic
medicai condition, or serious emotional dis-
turbance are not considered potential can-
didates.
The normal sample was recruited from
iocal Toronto schools. Teachers were asked to
nominate chiidren who were enroiied in age-
appropriate grade piacements, were normaiiy
achieving readers, and were native speakers
of Engiish.
Subject Selection
Severai samples of each child's reading
behavior were coiiected, with muitipie mea-
sures permitting a separate assessment of de-
coding accuracy and decoding rate in
speeded versus untimed contexts, in the rec-
ognition of single words, and in the reading of
words in context. The screening battery in-
cluded the instruments listed in Table 1. To
be classified as "accuracy disabled," a child
had to score at ieast 1.5 years beiow grade-
ievei expectations, with this resuit repiicabie
on at ieast four different measures of word
Maureen W. Lovett 237
recognition; word recognition accuracy was
assessed using measures lc, 2b, 4, 5, and 8
from Table 1. To be classified as "rate dis-
abied," a chiid had to score close to, at, or
above grade ievei on four or more measures of
word recognition and at ieast 1.5 years beiow
grade level on four out of five measures of
reading speed. The reading-speed measures
included la, 2c, 3, 6b, and 7 from Table 1.
The fiuent normai readers were seiected
using an abbreviated screening battery (mea-
sures 3, 4, 5, and 8 from Table 1) and the
Wechsier Inteiiigence Scaie for Chiidren—
Revised (WISC-R). Fiuent normai readers were
seiected to demonstrate grade-appropriate de-
coding accuracy skiii and grade-appropriate
reading speeds. Individuai matching of nor-
mai controis and rate-disabied subjects was
undertaken so that each fiuent normal was de-
coding at the same levei of accuracy as his
rate-disabled match (replicated on three stan-
dardized word recognition measures) but at a
significantly faster reading rate.
A total of 32 accuracy-disabled, 32 rate-
disabled, and 32 fluent normal chiidren were
selected. Efforts were made to match the sam-
ples on chronological age, WISC-R Verbai IQ,
WISC-R Performance IQ, and ratio of males
to females (see Tabie 2). Descriptive statistics
summarizing the three samples* performance
on the screening measures are provided in
Tabie 3.
Test Measures
Seventeen tests of orai and written lan-
guage skill were individualiy administered to
each subject. The oral language battery
TABLE 1
SCREENING BATTERY USED IN SUBJECT SELECTION
1. Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty:
(a) Oral Reading, (b) Word Recognition,
and (c) Word Analysis (Durrell, 1955).
2. Gates-McKillop Reading Diagnostic Tests:
(fl) Words Flash, (b) Words Untimed,
(c) Phrases Flash (Gates fic McKillop,
1962).
3. Gilmore Oral Reading Test (Gilmore &
Gilmore, 1968),
4. Peabody Individual Achievement Test:
Reading Recognition (Dunn & Markwardt,
1970).
5. Slosson Oral Reading Test (Slosson, 196.^).
6. Test of Rapid Reading Responses:
ia) WDR, (b) WMD (Doehring, 1976).
7. Biemiller Test of Reading Processes (sec-
tions) (Biemiller, 1981).
8. Wide Range Achievement Test—Revised:
Reading (Jastak fit Wilkinson, 1984).
238 Child Development
TABLE 2
MATCHING VARIABLES FOR THE THREE SAMPLES
ACCURACY
DISABLED
M SD
Age 10.9 1.6
WISC-R VIQ 98.6 9.7
WISG-R PIQ 108.1 11.9
Sexratio(M:F) 22:10 ...
focused on iexicai function (emphasizing
word retrieval and word knowledge factors)
and on knowledge of language structure (mor-
phology and syntax). The written language
battery contained standardized and experi-
mental measures of single-word recognition,
decoding in context, reading rate, reading
comprehension, sound-symbol processing,
and related academic skills. Additional mea-
sures of auditory rote recall and of nonverisal
visual memory were also administered. The
specific instruments and the scores of interest
are outlined below.^ Fifteen ofthe test mea-
sures were included in an earlier investiga-
tion and are described only briefiy in the
present report. For a more compiete descrip-
tion of these tests, the reader is referred to an
eariier paper (Lovett, 1984a, pp. 72-76). The
four new measures (Regular and Exception
Word Test, Peabody Reading Comprehen-
sion, and the two memory measures) are out-
lined in greater detaii beiow.
Oral Language Tests: Lexical Functions
Visual Confrontation Naming (Good-
glass <b- Kaplan, 1972).—The child is pre-
sented with cards and asked to name as
quickiy as he can pictured objects, numbers,
ietters, colors, geometric shapes, and actions.
For this and the foiiowing two tests, the accu-
racy and latency of each response are re-
corded manually. Response latencies are ex-
pressed in 1/100-sec intervais and record the
interval starting with stimulus presentation
and ending with the beginning of the child's
response utterance.
Responsive Naming (Goodglass 6- Kap-
lan, 1972).—The child is posed a series of 10
factuai questions and asked to provide the
right answer as quickly as possible. Questions
are ofthe type: "What color is grass?" "What
do we teli time with?"
' For each reader group, the tests were administered over several sessions during a 2-4-month
period. Order of administration was not standardized, although an effort was made to alternate oral
and written language tests within an individuai session.
RATE FLUENT
DISABLED NORMAL
M SD M SD
10.9 1.3 10.9 1.5
101.5 U.l 101.1 11.9
105.0 11.7 103.2 15.2
21:11 17:15
Verbal Opposites (Baker 6- Leland,
1967).—The examiner presents a word and
asks what its opposite is. The examiner works
through the iist of target words, arranged in
increasing order of difficulty, continuing until
tiie child reaches a ceiling of five consecutive
errors.
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Tejit,(Dunn,
i965).—The examiner pronounces a word
while presenting die child witfi a plate of four
line drawings; die child is instructed to point
to the picture corresponding to the target word.
Rapid "Automatized" Naming (Denckla
6- Rudel, 1976).—The examiner presents ihe
chiid witii an array of 50 items (five items pre-
sented 10 times in randomized order) and
asks him to name them sequentially as rapidly
as he can. Four stimulus arrays are used (col-
ors, numbers, ietters, and objects); each array
is preceded by the subject's identification of
the five exemplars of that category. Totel nam-
ing time and errors are recorded.
Oral Language Tests: Syntax and
Morphology
Grammatic Closure (ITPA: Kirk. McCar-
thy, tr Kirk, i 968).-—The child is presented
with one or more pictures on a plate and
asked to complete the examiner's sentence.
Test items require the child to produce piurai
forms, possessives, verb-tense transforma-
tions, comparative and superlative adjective
constructions, and simpie and compound pro-
nominal reference. A scoring key was devised
distinguishing the items requiring a hi^ly
regular morphological inflection and those re-
quiring knowledge of a more idiosyncratic
form or less predictable rule (referred to as
"irregular").
Berry-Talbott Language Test (Berry,
1977).—This test follows a parallel format to
 a

Ss
><

o
cc
«
<:
CO CO in o) in -^
(N -H oi -H

2 >
00 CO --I o in

a> (D Tf a; o CD
<M I—I O -^ 20 -^
CO 5 w CO -^ -H

CO o t^ O5 r^ in
oi ;D oi •^ iri iri CO to

CM -H O —

CO Ol CO !D -H CO » CD
Tt" CO oJ oi CO CO CO CO
CD CO -H

i 55 i) u i)

^ S ^ c ^
4..P 4 ^ 4..* O C ^-*

-5,: V

OH
PC
240 Child Development
that just described. Foiiowing Berko's (1958) Peabody Individual Achievement Test:
demonstration that the acquisition of struc- Reading Comprehension (Dunn h Mark-
turai ianguage ruies may be most reiiabiy as- wardt, 1970).—This standardized siient-
sessed by requiring the child to apply them to reading test assesses comprehension accord-
novel iexicai content, the Berry-Taibott mate- ing to a multiple-choice format. The child
rials consist of fantasy figures referred to byreads a sentence silently and looks up at tiie
nonsense names. The chiid is required to examiner when he or siie is finished; the ex-
compiete the examiner's statement, and a aminer then exposes a page with four pictures
range of morphoiogicai and syntactic applica- on it. The child is to point to the picture that
tions are eiicited, including pluralization, pos-
ijest describes what he or she has just read. A
sessives, negation and past tense construc- series of progressively more difficult sen-
tions, comparative and superiative adjectives, tences are presented, and testing is ter-
and iocative prepositions. Vogei's (1975, minated following five incorrect compre-
1977) scoring system distinguishing simpie hension judgments in seven consecutive
and compiex items was adopted in the pres- responses. The numiier of correct compre-
ent investigation, with the additionai hension choices constitutes the main score.
quaiification that ail real-word responses (theAfter testing is discontinued, the examiner
majority prepositions) were separated out administers a brief decoding posttest; the
from the pseudoword response items. child is asked to read aioud every presenta-
tion sentence for which he or she seiected an
Written Language Tests: Word Recognition incorrect interpretation (within the criticai
The Regular and Exception Word Test range of basai to ceiiing, basai being estab-
(Lovett, Ransby, <b- Barron, 1986).—This ex- lished at five consecutive correct responses).
perimental word recognition test includes 120 A decoding feilure score is computed, indicat-
regular words (e.g., HF = game, MF = ing what proportion of the chiid's "compre-
bright, LF = fuse) and 120 exception words hension" failures was inaecurateiy decoded.
(e.g., HF = done, MF = blood, LF - suite)
sampled in three categories of word fre- Written Language Tests: Reading
quency according to Carroll, Davies, and Acquisition Analogue
Richman's (1971) norms. The 40 regular and G'F-W Sound-Symbol Tests: Sound
40 exception words within each word- Analysis (Goldman, Fristoe, <b- Woodcock,
frequency ciass (high, medium, iow) are 1974).—This standardized subtest is one of a
matched within and across categories for series from the G-F-W battery, which at-
mean number of ietters and proportion of tempts to measure some of the component
muitisyllabic words. The words are presented skills t h o u ^ to subserve the process of ini-
on individual index cards and the chiid is in- tiai reading acquisition. Four ofthe five sub-
structed to read eacii word aioud as quickiy tests selected for use in the present study use
and accurateiy as possible. Both the chiid's nonsense words and/or novel symbols, allow-
pronunciation and its iatency arc recorded ing the examiner to observe the child anaiyz-
manuaily by the examiner, with a maximum ing or learning new materiai. In the Sound
of 5 sec aiiowed per word. Anaiysis subtest, nonsense words are pre-
sented on tape and, after each pronunciation,
Written Language Tests: Reading for the chiid is asked to identify the pseudo-
Comprehension word's first, iast, or middle sound.
Gilmore Oral Reading Test (Gilmore 6
Gilmore, 1968).—The child is given a series Sound Blending (Goldman et ai,
of progressively more difficult passages to 1974).—On this subtest, the child hears a se-
read aloud, the examiner posing a series of quence of discretely pronounced speech
five comprehension questions at the end of sounds and is asked to biend the individual
each passage. Aii reading performances and sounds to make a real word. Test items are
comprehension responses are taped and administered on tape. The items range in
transcribed verbatim. The child's accuracy difficuity from two- and three-phoneme com-
score is a measure of his decoding skiii for binations (e.g., ice, sick) to six- and seven-
each paragraph read between basai and ceil- sound sequences (e.g., bicycie, concrete).
ing. The rate score refiects the average num- Sound-Symbol Association (Goldman et
ber of words per minute decoded by the al, 1974).—The chiid watches as the exam-
chiid. The comprehension score is a record of iner points to a novei symbol and says its
correct number of responses to the questions, name—"ldy." The examiner then exposes a
aliowing for extra credit on a graduated scale matrix of 12 symbols and asks the child to
beyond ceiling dependent on the chiid's per- point to "kiy." The array is removed and a
formance at ceiiing (see Giimore & Giimore, second symbol is introduced and iaijeied with
1968, p. 12). a pseudoword name. A reordered array ofthe

same symbols is presented and the chiid is
asked to point to each pseudoword's symboi
in tum. This procedure continues untii a totai
of 10 pseudoword-symbol associations have
been introduced and identified. Throughout
the test, whenever the chiid responds by
pointing to the incorrect symboi, the exam-
iner immediateiy points to the correct draw-
ing, saying, "This is Point to " ory task, subjects study a card depicting a se-
Only the initiai choice for each item is re-
corded.
Reading of Symbols (Goldman et al.,
1974).—This subtest requires the chiid to
read aioud a iist of nonsense words, ranging
from two- and three-ietter combinations (e.g.,
ap, bim) to muitisyiiabic items (e.g., peinid-
iun) and pseudowords containing iow-
frequency orthographic patterns (e.g.,
scraumb, gnouthe). The total number of items
correctiy pronounced is the raw score on
which the data analyses to follow were under-
taken. Decoding errors on the first 40
pseudowords (the minimum administered aii
subjects) were classified, with each misread
word part coded into the general classes of
single-consonant and digraph errors, conson-
ant-biend errors (combined with the preced-
ing class to form total consonant errors), vowel
errors, or syllabication errors. The child's er-
ror count in each class was expressed as a
proportion of his or her totai reading errors on
Triais 1-40.
Spelling of Sounds (Goldman et al,
1974).—This subtest requires the child to
speli nonsense words dictated from a tape.
After hearing the word pronounced twice on
tape, the chiid first repeats the pseudoword to
the examiner and then reproduces it in writ-
ten form. The examiner records both the accu-
racy of the chiid's pronunciation and the ac-
ceptability of his spelling. A scoring key is
avaiiabie with aitemate permissibie speiiings
for each pseudoword item.
Written Language Tests: Spelling Measures
Peabody Individual Achievement Test:
Spelling (Dunn ir Markwardt, 1970).—On
this speiiing test, the examiner pronounces a
word, gives it in a sentence, and then repeats
the word. The chiid seiects his spelling from a
four-word array containing the correct choice
(e.g., windows) and three visuaiiy or phono-
iogicaiiy similar foils (e.g., winbows, winn-
dose, windoes).
Wide Range Achievement Test—
Revised: Spelling (Jastak <b- Wilkinson,
i 984).—Performance on WRAT-R Spelling
involves the production demands of speiiing
to dictation. The examiner dictates the target
word, uses it in a sentence, repeats the target.
Maureen W. Lovett 241
and expects the child to write it within 15 sec.
Because different forms of the test are used
before and after the twelfth birthday, standard
scores and percentiies rather than raw scores
are used to anaiyze performance.
Visual and Auditory Memory Measures
Visual Sequential Memory (ITPA: Kirk
et al, 1968).—On this nonverbal visual mem-
quence of geometric shapes, with the exam-
iner drawing attention to each shape in tum.
Five seconds after the examiner finishes re-
peating the instruction, the card is removed
and the chiid is asked to reconstruct the se-
quence with a set of chips, each containing
one ofthe needed symbois. The chiidren are
aiiowed two triais on every sequence, with an
opportunity to restudy the stimuius card after
a failure on the first trial. The orientation of
the individuai chips is disregarded; oniy their
sequentiai reproduction is considered in scor-
ing. Testing is terminated following failures
on both trials to two consecutive items; the
basal is established with a first-trial success
on three consecutive items. Subjects receive 2
points for every first-trial pass and 1 point for
every second-trial pass; the chiid's score is a
sum of the totai points accumuiated.
Auditory Attention Span for Unrelated
Words (Baker <b Leland, 1967).—On this au-
ditory memory measure, the examiner pro-
nounces a iist of unreiated words at the rate of
one per second, and the chiid's task is to re-
peat the word iist List iengths start at two
words and increase to eight words. Two sets
of scores are computed. The simple score al-
iocates 1 point for every word correctiy re-
caiied in any order totaied across aii the iists
(maximum = 70). The weighted score is de-
rived by muitipiying the number of words
correctiy recalled in each iist by the number
of words included in the list (maximum =
406); order is again disregarded in scoring.
Results
The children's performance on the ex-
perimentai word recognition task was ana-
iyzed in two three-way analyses of variance,
which are described in detaii beiow. Aii other
performance data were analyzed in a series of
eight muitivariate anaiyses of variance with
measures grouped according to the dimen-
sion of oral or written language development
they assessed and with reader group (accu-
racy disabled, rate disabled, fiuent normal) a
factor under which subjects were nested. A
significant muitivariate reader group effect
was revealed in seven of the eight sets of de-
pendent measures analyzed, with no reader
group effect revealed on the visual and audit-
242 ChUd Development
ory memory measures. In the sections to foi-
iow, the univariate comparisons and simple
between-group contrasts contributing to these
muitivariate results wiii be descriiaed in de-
taii and summarized in a series of tables.
Written Language Acquisition
Word recognition.—When performance
on the screening measures was examined, the
accuracy-disabled children were confirmed to
be significantly inferior to their rate-disabied
and fluent normai peers in the accuracy with
which they could decode singie words. The
inferiority ofthe accuracy-disabied sample on
the SORT, PIAT, and WRAT-R Reading
measures simply indicates that the selection
procedure was successful in defining a sam-
ple disabled in their attainment of an accu-
racy criterion of skill acquisition. Similariy,
the equivalence of the rate-disabied and
fluent nonnal samples on these standardized
measures of word recognition accuracy indi-
cates that efforts to match these two samples
on an accuracy criterion were aiso success-
fully realized. Whiie the accuracy-disabled
readers achieved an average standard score of
only 69.3 (corresponding to the fourth percen-
tile, and rated "deficient" relative to other
children their age), the rate-disabled and
fiuent normal sampies achieved average stan-
dard scores of 92.7 and 93.1, respectively,
both falling within the "average" range
(WRAT-R Reading: t[62] = 0.15). The means
and standard deviations for each sample as
weli as results from the individuai sample
comparisons have been summarized in Table
3. Summary data from the experimental word
recognition task and from the contextual read-
ing measures are presented in Table 4.
The pattern of results outlined above was
replicated on the experimentai word recogni-
tion task, in which subjects' ability to recog-
nize orthographically regular words was com-
pared with their ability to recognize irregular
or exception words. The word recognition ac-
curacy data from the Regular and Exception
Word Test were subjected to a three-way
analysis of variance, with reader group a be-
tween-subjects factor and word type (regular,
exception) and word-frequency dass ( h i ^ ,
medium, iow) treated as repeated measures.
Main efiects were revealed fijr reader group,
F(2,85) = 30.71, word type, F(l,85) = 415.94,
and word-frequency class, F(2,170) = 496.29;
all p's < .001. The rate-disabled and fluent
normai subjects were superior to the accu-
racy-disabled sampie but did not differ from
each other on this accuracy-based measure.
Aii three sampies recognized more regular
than exception words, and their recognition
accuracy decreased with iower word frequen-
cies. A three-way interaction of reader group
X word type x word frequency, F(4,170) =
3.74, p = .006, was revealed, and tests of sim-
pie effects indicated that reader group in-
teracted with word type among words in the
iow-frequency category, F(2,85) = 4.®), p =
.01. Although all three samples demonstrated
a significant reguiar word advantage in aii
word-frequency ciasses, the accuracy-
disabied sampie's reguiar word advantage
was proportionally greater than that of the
other two samples for low-frequency words.
Between-group comparisons on regular
and exception words were undertaken to de-
termine whether these three types of readers
differed in their relative reliance on
phonologicai recoding strategies and word-
specific knowledge in word reco^ition. The
basically parallei regular-exception word and
word-frequency effecte demonstrated in each
sample's performance data suggest that this
aspect of word recognition processing is com-
parable for the tfiree groups. In addition,
these accuracy data confirm that the develop-
mental course by which die rate-disabled and
fluent nonnal readers are acquiring words and
adding to tiieir reading vorabul^es appears
identical across orthographic regularity and
word-frequency dimensions.
The speed with which the r e ^ e r groups
recognized the two word types was also ex-
amined: median response latencies for all cor-
rectly identified items were subjected to a
three-way dialysis of variance w i ^ the same
three factors as defined above. Significant
main efiects were revealed for re^ler group,
F(2,79) = 22.86, and for word-frequency
class, F(2,158) = 76.29; both p's < .001. The
accuracy-disabled subjects were significantly
slower in their accurate recognition responses
than were the other two reader groups, and
the rate-disabled children proved si^ifi-
cantiy siower than their fluent normai
matehes on both word types and in each
word-frequency class. Word recognition time
increased as word frequency decreased for
each sample.
Reader group was found to interact with
word type in 6iis medisui response-time anal-
ysis, F(2,79) = 3.93, p = .02. Tests of simple
effects revealed a word type effect in the me-
dian response times ofthe fluent nrnmal sub-
jects—an effect that did not appear in the re-
sponse-time data of either reffliing-disabled
sample. The fluent nonnal children required
significantly longer to identify low-frequency
exception words than regular words of the
same frequency class (FN: word type x word
 s

ii o CD
t-H
CO CO
00 -H
<O rJ" CO
35
in
,—>
i^
S. o
u

00 r- —1
Ol
M -J

-J o ^ -M^ oq oq a> •—<

ai rt
'—* ^fe CO O ) -*• t~-

-trt ^ c o (NIC in 00
H oi t> • • 35 iri ai ai
•—1

J d -H •ep OJ Ol Ol GO in rN
oa to CO -- -^ d iri
t~
O OC CO CM
< ol
H
QO r~ ;D -^ CO 00 in 35
Ol (O -H OO
ai
CO Ol •—1 (N

oo 1—' tD in i~ in rt GO
t~ 00 CO CO

C* C V VI

•|- S 4) S s ^
O-O c Si a-ra E«

S 2

be o
o Sc s EJ *-< 6 5
U3
"iso ^ E o
cc
244 Child Development
frequency, F[2,62] = 4.69, p = .01). These
data suggest the fluent normal readers to be
slowed in their identification of less familiar
words whose pronunciation is at variance
with what would be predicted from a knowl-
edge of grapheme-phoneme correspondence
rules. The absence of this effisct in die gener-
ally depressed word recognition times of both
disabled reader samples cannot be attributed
to an underreliance on phonological recoding
strategies; the magnitude of these disabled
readers' regular word advantage in word rec-
ognition accuracy precludes such an interpre-
tation.
Reading connected discourse.—An effort
was made to explore the contextual conse-
quences of a disorder in decoding a«;uracy
with one in reading rate by assessing the chil-
dren's ability to derive meaning from con-
nected text. On one task, the children read
progressively more difficult passages aloud,
with the examiner posing a series of five com-
prehension questions at the end of each pas-
sage (Gilmore). The accuracy-disabled dys-
lexics produced more decoding errors, read
more slowly, and answered fewer compre-
hension questions correctly than did the other
two samples (all p's < .01).^ Consistent with
the selection criteria, the fluent noimals were
confirmed to be decoding text at significantly
faster reading rates than the rate-disabled
subjects (FN M = 128.6 words per minute
[wpm], RD M = 96.4 wpm, t{Q2.] = 5.21,
p < .001). These two samples did not differ
in their success in answering the test's com-
prehension questions (RD Af = 25.8, FN
M = 26.7, t[621 = 0.55), but they did differ
in the accuracy with which they decoded the
texts. The rate-disabled subjects produced
significantly more decoding errors on the Gil-
more passages than did the flirent normals (ac-
curacy score: RD M = 30.2, FN M = 34.7,
f[62] = 2.0, p < .05).
On a silent-reading test, subjects read a
series of single sentences and then judged
which of an array of four pictures best illus-
trated the sentence's meaning (PIAT). On
this reading-comprehension measure, die
fluent normals were also at an advants^ rela-
tive to the rate-disabled subjects (RD M =
44.5, FN M = 49.9, t[60l = 2.02, p < .05); it is
possible that this difference, however, is af-
fected by a difference in tiie accuracy with
which the sentences were initially decoded
^ The latter result may be secondary to their feilure to decode the passages with a suiHcient
level of accuracy: earlier comparisons of matched rate-disabled and accuracy-disabled samples have
demonstrated them to be equal on experimental comprehension tasks where decoding errors that
jeopardized passage comprehension were corrected by the examiner (Lovett, 1984a}.
as much as by a difference in their actual com-
prehension. An oral reading posttest revealed
that 77% of die rate-disabled subjects' "com-
prehension" failures were likely due to de-
coding inaccuracies in the sentence's initial
reading; the m^ority of the comprehension
errors of the accuracy disabled (M = 84%)
and fluent normals (M = 74%) could be simi-
larly attributed to an initial misreading of the
presentation sentence. The accuracy-disabled
sample's inferior performance on this read-
ing-comprehension measure relative to the
other two samples may well be secondary to
their decoding inaccuracies (see Lovett,
1984a); there is no evidence at present that
either disabled reader sample has a compre-
hension deficit separate from their difficulties
in accurately accessing textual content
through print-to-sound translation processes.
Results from the rate-disabied and fluent
normal comparisons on contextual reading are
consistent with what mij^t be predicted from
"limited capacity" or "verbal eflSciency" theo-
ries of readii^ skill differences (Lesgold &
Perfetti, 1978; Perfetti & Lesgold, 1977,1979;
Perfetti Sc Roth, 1981). Results from die Regu-
lar and Exception Word Test above revealed
that the rate-disabled children's word
identification processes were markedly and
pervasively slowed relative to those of the
nonnal subjects, a finding evident on both
familiar and relatively newly acquired words.
Glaiming conteid-free verbal coding to be a
"rate-limiting" process in reading, proponents
of the verbal efficiency hypothesis (see Per-
fetti & Rodi, 1981) would predict die de-
pressed word recognition times of the rate-
disabled readers to have an adverse effect not
only on the rate widi which they could work
through a text but also on their success in ac-
cessing or understanding its content. Adverse
consequences of this tj'pe have been illus-
trated in the rate-disabled subjects' present
perftmnance on the contextual reading mea-
sures. Aldiough equally capable in their accu-
rate recognition of words in isolation, the rate-
disabled subjects' word recognition accuracy
fsJtered when words had to be decoded in
context. The consequences for contextual de-
coding accuracy were clearer than those for
text comprehension per se, probably due to
acknowledged difficulties in the latter's mea-
surement with standaniized instruments
(Drum, Calfee, & Cook, 1981).
 Maureen W. Lovett 245
Related literacy skills.—Whether spell- rate-disabled sample in manipulating individ-
ing to dictation (WRAT-R) or recognizing cor- ual speech sounds was also observed on the
rect English orthography (PIAT), the rate- sound-analysis measure (RD Af = 26.2, FN M
disabled and fluent normal children were = 24.7, t[62] = 2.09, p < .05). The rate-
superior to the accuracy-disabled sample on disabled subjects' advantage was restricted to
these accuracy-based measures of spelling the purely phonological domains of speech-
skill. The means, standard deviations, and re- sound analysis and synthesis; no differences
sults from individual comparisons are sum- were revealed when the rate-disabled and
marized in Table 5. No reliable differences fiuent normal subjects were compared on the
were observed in the rate-disabled and fluent pseudoword-symbol paired-associates task
normals' ability to spell familiar words (RD M = 39.3, FN M = 39.7, ([62] = 0.20).
(WRAT-R: RD M = 88.8, FN M = 92.3, f[61] Whether the different rates at which the
= 1.30) or unfamiliar pseudowords (GFW: otherwise matched rate-disabled and fluent
RD M = 25.4, FN M = 23.3, f[62] = 0.84 normal groups typically process print would
[see Table 6]) to dictation. The rate-disabled predispose the former to be more sensitive
children were inferior to the normals, how- and the latter less sensitive to and/or prac-
ever, in their ability to select the correct spell- ticed in the deliberate phonological activities
ing of a word from an array including three of segmenting and blending is not clear at this
visually or phonologically similar misspell- point; these differences require replication
ings (PIAT: RD M = 42.5, FN M - 47.4, with similarly selected independent samples.
([62] = 2.31, p= .02). These spelling data
suggest that while the rate-disabled readers The decoding and spelling superiority of
have acquired the same knowledge of the the rate-disabled and fluent nonnal groups
rules and exceptions of English orthography was again demonstrated on subtests in which
as the fluent normals, they are significantly the children were expected to read ortho-
more vulnerable to phonological and/or or- graphically sensible pseudowords aloud (AD
thographic interference from competing pat- M = 20.9, RD M = 42.9, FN M = 40.8) and
terns. to write out dictated pseudowords as they
might be spelled (AD M = 11.5, RD M -
Reading acquisition analogue.—The ac- 25.4, FN Ai = 23.3). These differences under-
curacy-disabled dyslexics proved inferior to line the extent to which the accuracy-disabled
the rate-disabled and the nonnal children in sample's written language problems reflect
their ability to analyze and segment individ- confusion about both the underlying print-
ual speech sounds (AD M = 22.4, RD M = to-sound translation system of English or-
26.2, FN M = 24.7; AD and RD: t[62] = thography and the appropriate visual repre-
4.54, p < .001; AD and FN: f[62] = 2.09, p < sentation of speech sounds in different
.05). Their success in leaming new orthographic contexts. Difficulties in perceiv-
pseudoword-symbol associations was also ing and remembering the dictated pseudo-
considerably less than that of their rate- words did not appear to be a major factor lim-
disabled and fluent normal peers (AD M = iting any sample's spelling performance.
35.9, RD M = 39.3, FN M = 39.7; AD and When the children's repetition of misspelled
RD: t{62] = 1.95, .05<p< .06; AD and FN: items was examined, repetition errors were in
([62] = 2.53, p < .01). The present accuracy- the minority for all groups.
disabled children thus demonstrate two dis-
tinct deficits in the leaming processes closely The accuracy-disabled children, as ex-
associated with early reading acquisition: pected, yielded significandy more decoding
They are impaired in their ability to analyze errors in their pronunciation of the first 40
and identify individual speech sounds and to GFW pseudowords (AD M = 32.1, RD Af =
learn specific associations between a se- 10.9, FN A^= 12.2) and the rate-disabled and
quence of speech sounds (in this case, an un- fluent normal children an equivalent number.
familiar pseudoword) and an abstract visual When the relative proportion of errors across
symbol with which it is paired. These and the the different error categories was compared
following results are summarized in Table 6. for the three groups (by expressing number of
errors in any category for each child as a pro-
In contrast, the accuracy-disabled sample portion of that child's total errors), the sam-
proved equivalent to the fluent normals in ples did differ with respect to how their errors
their ability to blend individual speech were distributed. These results are sum-
sounds into a real word; both samples, how- marized in Table 7. The accuracy-disabled
ever, were revealed to be inferior to the rate- children exhibited a significantly higher pro-
disabled subjects on this sound-blending portion of errors than the other two groups in
measure. The unexpected superiority of the the pronunciation of consonant letter-sound
So z
Q

•- -J

CO 3> Ol CO iO CO
Q Q O 33 CD 00 oi C

» CO 35
Q CO

oq O)
tc CO Q in o

O5 35 35 in
w iri o -^

V _•

g u K
-^ -a ni .
c c fl-
< K P5 CO a. 3 3 3
O OO
u^ <n in

246
 z

El

in O51--
-^ tr o

I- .w
oc IS'
t 3

247
248 ChUd Development
correspondences (AD Af = 41.5%, RD Af =
31.8%, FN Af = 31.5%). The rate-disabled
and normal groups, in contrast, exhibited a
significandy higher proportion of errors on
vowel pattems (AD Af = 47.9%, RD Af =
62.0%, FN Af - 59.9%).
These differences in the distribution of
pronunciation errors illustrate the extent to
which the accuracy-disabled children are
handicapped by their failure to remember
and/or produce quite invariant sound-symbol
correspondences such as the single conson-
ants—correspondences which, because of
their regularity, are usually acquired with rel-
ative ease early in the acquisition process.
The fact that the rate-disabled and fluent nor-
mal children make relatively more enors (in
proportional terms) in their pronunciation of
vowel pattems suggests that the locus of any
residual decoding difficulties for them may be
with the orthographic and/or phonological
complexity of vowels (Shankweiler & Liber-
man, 1972) which results in the same vowel
spellings mapping onto quite different pro-
nunciations in different orthographic or
specific lexical contexts (e.g., the "a" in "fat"
and "fall").
Oral Language Development
Lexical functions.—Consistent differ-
ences between the two samples of disabled
readers and the fluent normal children were
revealed on specific measures of lexical frinc-
tion. Although the accuracy with which the
three samples of children could name single
elements to visual (Visual Gonfrontation
Naming: F[2,93] = 1.09, p > .05) and audit-
ory confrontation (Responsive Naming;
F[2,93] = 1.10, p > .05) was equivalent and
close to ceiling levels, the samples differed in
the speed widi which labels for visually pre-
sented items could be supplied (VGN median
latencies: F[2,93] = 7.98, p < .001). These
sample differences in naming speed were
specific to the labeling of visual material and
were not observed when median response
latencies for auditory responsive naming,
F(2,93) = 0.84, and antonym naming, F(2,93)
= 0.55, were compared. The median laten-
cies with which the fluent normal children
provided correct visual naming responses av-
eraged 749 msec; the rate-disabled children
required an average of 826 msec per item and
the accuracy-disabled children 909 msec in
contrast. Individual comparisons indicated
that both samples of disabled readers were
significandy slower than the fluent normal
controls but not reliably different from each
other. These data suggest that both samples of
disabled readers suffer from a naming-speed
disadvantage that is specific to the rapid label-
ing of a visual symbol or picture; the naming
problems of these children cannot be attrib-
uted to a general word retrieval or lexical ac-
cess deficit.
The children's ability to name multiple-
element visual arrays was assessed in a task
that provides a rough simulation of the "nam-
ing" aspect of prose reading but widi the iin-
guistic context of orthographic, syntactic, and
semantic information removed (Denckla &
Rudel, 1976). The three samples differed in
the time they required to "read" the separate
50-item arrays of color patches, F(2,87) -
3.24, p < .05, object drawings, F(2,87) = 6.80,
p < .002, numbers, F(2,87) = 9.01, p < .001,
and letters, F(2,87) = 9.45, p < .001. Bodi
samples of disabled readers demonstrated to-
tal naming times that were significandy
longer than those of the fluent normal chil-
dren. The accuracy-disabled and rate-
disabled children exhibited a comparable se-
rial naming-speed disadvantage on all anays
except die letters. In letter naming, the accu-
racy-disabled subjects were significandy
slower than their rate-disabled peers (AD M
= 32.99, RD Af = 28.37, ([60] = 1.97, p <
.05), suggesting a selective problem with ac-
cessing letter names and/or identities in addi-
tion to the deficit in visual naming speed
common to both reading-disabled samples.
Final comparisons of lexical Kinction
focused on the vocabulary and word knowl-
edge ofthe three reader groups. These com-
parisons revealed another dimension of lan-
guage impairment in the accuracy-disabled
sample. The oral language development of
the accuracy-disabled readers appeared to be
lagging behind that of the rate-disabled and
fluent normal children as indicated both in
die range of words with which the children
were familiar (PPVT IQ. AD Af = 101.4, RD
M = 109.7, FN M - 107.9) and in dieir abil-
ity to analyze and contrast word meanings
(Verbal Opposites: AD M = 40.0, RD Af =
44.7, FN M = 46.7). Individual comparisons
revealed accuracy-disabled children to be in-
ferior to the other two samples on both di-
mensions of word knowledge, and the rate-
disabled subjects to be comparable to the
fluent normals on both measures. The sample
means and standard deviations on the above
measures and the relevant individual com-
parisons are presented in Table 8.
Syntax and morphology.—Gonsistent
differences between the accuracy-disabled
and the other two samples were revealed
when the children's knowledge of language
structure was assessed (see Table 9). When
 O4 Ol CO CO Ol
JIVIl

fw CO to
CO iq CO
oi Tf CO
^ 0
<um
X
U

05 Ol — -- in
•^ ^ ;D 00 •g'
r- 00 i> -H in

-- IO 35 CD in CD Ol in r-; Oi
t^i t~^ oi i ^ t- CO
•—< -H •—i

o
,942

CD -H Ol GO 35
Ol 35 O CO CD Ol (^
00 CO CO 35 CO CD r- CD
• iri 35 CD GO 35 ai
o
^ Ol in ol
341

O5 CO 05 O CD 35
r-H CO in t~ t~ O CO in 10

CD ^ t^
S -H 00
g3(N
rr CO 35
35 (N
CO
oi
q CD
d I—"
t

Is
 a g
><
Q
OH a
U

r ^ CO r-^ C35 CO CO a ;
' CO CO -H • ^ - 4 iri

3 «
30 Ol C r-; so I> Ol
-j t-^ OJ -H cd I> CD
—1 F-H <N -H -H CO

Q • CD GO CO IO
Ol Ol
in -H IO

) 35 t- oq in
Q

(35 r-; CO in --; M

' fN CO iri oi 00

CO CO 05 35 in 35 CO
-H iri CD oJ CO r-^ i-H
^ —H "H ol --I CO

S3.
s B E E S 2i5
^ S
.2 ^ *7 "^-^ ^ ff c ""^^
5'^
mplex

u, a
iish

« ^
II
O CQ
 Maureen W. Lovett 251
required to provide a range of morphological sequence of visual symbols from memory
inflections and forms on the ITPA Grammatic (AD M = 24.8, RD M - 23.5, FN M = 25.0;
Closure test, the rate-disabled and fluent nor- AD and FN: f[61] = 0.18; RD and FN: f[58]
mal children performed significantly better = 1.27; both p's > .05). Similarly, neither
than their accuracy-disabled peers. Sample reading-disabled group was found to differ
differences were found on both regular, from their fluent normal controls in their im-
F(2,93) = 4.69, p < .01, and irregular items, mediate recall of lists of unrelated words (AD
F(2,93) = 2.92, .05 < p < .06. All three sam- M = 43.1, RD M - 42.9, FN M - 45.2; AD
ples performed close to ceiling on the regular and FN: t(62) = 1.54, RD and FN: f(62) =
items (AD M = 11.3, RD M = 11.8, FN M = 1.88; both p's > .05).
11.8, maximum score — 12), however, and
that effect is in part attributed to the larger These negative results are contrary to
variance observed in the accuracy-disabled other findings that have suggested a number
data. The syntactic deficit of the accuracy- of memory processes to be deficient in differ-
disabled children is considered better estab- ent samples of disabled and underachieving
lished on the irregular test items, that is, those readers (Cohen & Netiey, 1978; Kail & Mar-
trials that required knowledge of an idiosyn- shall, 1978; Siegel & Linder, 1984; Torgesen
cratic form or application of a less predictable & Coldman, 1977). There is some reason to
morphological rule (AD M = 15.6, RD Af = suspect, however, that at least some of the
previously reported memory deficits attrib-
16.9, FN M - 17.2, maximum score = 21). uted to disabled readers result from deficits
The accuracy-disabled children experienced related to initial encoding of the to-be-
significantly less success than the rate- remembered materials, with deficient
disabled, t(62) - 1.98, p < .05, and the fluent phonological coding considered a critical
normal subjects, f(62) = 2.19, p < .05, on memory-limiting factor (Cennak, Goldberg,
these items. The rate-disabled and fluent nor- Cermak, & Drake, 1980; Shankweiler, Liber-
mal samples demonstrated comparable per- man, Mark, Fowler, & Fischer, 1979), particu-
formances on both regular, t(62) = 0.23, and larly for younger disabled readers (Siegel &
irregular items, ((62) = 0.46. Linder, 1984). Recent reviews have con-
On the Berry-Talbott materials, the accu- cluded that there is no unequivocal evidence,
racy-disabled children were less able thau however, to suggest memory problems to be
their rate-disabled and fluent normal peers to causally implicated in reading disability
apply basic morphological rules even on sim- (Doehring, Trites, Patel, & Fiedorowicz,
ple nonsense items where the root word re- 1981). Evidence from the present study indi-
mains essentially intact and no complex cates that the differences in oral and written
phonological transformations are required language development revealed to differ-
(e.g., nad —* nads). The accuracy-disabled entiate these three groups cannot be attrib-
children were also inferior to the other two uted to any gross differences in their non\'er-
samples in their performance on the complex bal visual memory capacity or auditory rote
nonsense items where application of the recall.
target morphological rule necessitates modifi-
cation ofthe phonological structure (e.g., fooz Predictors of Individual Differences in
—* foozes, tring —*• trang) or ofthe overall form Reading Skill
ofthe word (e.g., nuppy ^- unnuppy). No reli- Different dimensions of reading skill—
able differences were revealed between the Intertest correlations between different di-
rate-disabled and normal samples in their ma- mensions of word recognition and contextual
nipulation of either the simple or the complex reading skill were examined separately for
nonsense items. The fact that accuracy- each reader group with the effects of
disabled performance is equivalent to that of chronological age partialed out. These partial
the other two samples on the English items, correlations are presented in Table 10. Most
all but one trial calling for locative preposi- ofthe reading measures were highly intercor-
tions, indicates that these syntax-impaired related and demonstrated a consistent pattern
children have acquired functor words by rote of interrelationship across the three samples.
for use in specific sentence positions. One exception was the relationship between
subjects' reading comprehension scores and
Visual and Auditory Memory other indices of reading skill. For the accu-
The three samples did not differ on the racy-disabled sample, individual differences
present measures of nonverbal visual memory in all contextual reading skills could be par-
and of auditory rote recall. Both reading- tially attributed to individual variability in
disabled samples proved comparable to the subjects' word recognition processes. At
fluent normals in their ability to reproduce a levels of greater word recognition skill, how-
252 Child Develoi»ment
TABLE 10
D I F F E R E N T DIMENSIONS O F READING SKILL: INTERTEST CORRELATIONS FOR EACH READER GROUP
Partialed Out)

REG EXG Gilmore Gilmore Gilmore

EXC Total Latencies Latencies Accuracy wpm Comprehension

REG total:
AD .886 .503 .725 •819 .712 .561
RD .769 .321 .189 •567 .634 .357
FN .858 .312 .229 .491 .360 .159
EXC total:
AD .688 .856 .772 .611
RD .383 .603 .654 .403
FN -.417 .308 .541 .502 .129
REG latencies:
AD .841 .620 .505 .586
RD .826 .330 .351 .089
FN .974 .270 .338 .076
EXC latencies:
AD •715 .560 .676
RD .239 .271 .039
FN .214 .304 .062
Gilmore accuracy:
AD •752 .703
RD •430 .090
FN .075 .20H
Gilmore wpm:
AD .483
RD .132
FN .271

NOTE.—Correlation coefficients significant at u = .05 are underlined. EXC = Exception Word Test;
Regular Word Test.

ever, within-group variance in reading ability
could not be uniformly accounted for by
either the accuracy or the speed of subjects'
word recognition processes or by any other
single dimension of reading skill. A pattern of
greater dissociation among contextual reading
skills appeared to characterize groups more
advanced in reading acquisition: Witfain the
rate-disabled sample, contextual accuracy and
reading rate were intercorrelated but not
reading comprehension performance, while
for the fluent normal subjects, no interrela-
tionships were observed among these three
different dimensions of contextual reading
skill.
In every reader group, significant posi-
tive correlations were observed among all
measures of decoding accuracy, whether the
task required context-free word recognition or
reading connected text. These data support
earlier speculation that the development of
word recognition skill serves as an appropri-
ate prototype of reading acquisition in all
three samples. No evidence of a speed/
accuracy trade-off was revealed in these data:
Lower levels of accuracy on the Regular and
Exception Word Test were associated with
longer median response latencies in each
sample.
The interrelationship of different reading
skills across the samples indicates some con-
tinuity in the general parameters of reading
skill acquisition across the range of ability
presently sampied, while also suggesting
greater differentiation in the interrelationship
of contextual reading processes as reading
skill develops.
Oral language correlates of reading skill
differences.—Some consistency across the
three samples was also observed when the
nonreading correlates of reading achievement
were examined. Intertest correlations be-
tween six reading measures and the present
set of oral language measures, IQ, and the
three sound-symbol processing tasks were
calculated with the influence of age partialed
out; these partial correlations are listed by
sample in Table 11.
Reading skill differences were related to
a number of oral language skill diSerences
within each sample, with somewhat different
indices of speech and ianguage development
emerging as the best predictors for each
 — !C 05
rt in
8 o M

oS

O Ifl QC (O
in t

II
Q-i

.- O O5
c^ rt C]

M l ^^l IC
O O •»
'»l 1-1 rt

CM i n l rt
rt * '
^ 3
Si lC tc
—I M O

O 05 — M ra
M •»
rt esi

S CO — (A

4OI p-HI
(£> rt —I io M
' T I CCI
254 Child Development
reader group. For accuracy-disabled readers,
their rapid automatized naming times for
number and letter arrays proved highly cor-
related with every index of reading skill, and
the best predictor of five out of six reading
measures. Other aspects of lexical function
were also related to reading achievement dif-
ferences in this group, including measures of
word knowledge (Verbal Opposites), rapid
automatized object naming times, and overall
word retrieval time {opposites latencies, vi-
sual naming latencies). For the rate-disabled
sample, the rapid automatized naming of
numbers was similariy related to individual
differences in a range of reading skills, in-
cluding word recognition and contextual de-
coding accuracy and textual reading rate. For
these rate-impaired readers, within-group dif-
ferences in reading rate were predicted by
skill differences in sound blending, visual
naming accuracy, and number naming times,
all of which involve automatized production
procedures. Unlike the other two samples.
Verbal IQ differences proved related to read-
ing skill differences for this sample: Verbal
IQ was related to contextual decoding accu-
racy and inversely related to word recognition
speed for rate-disabled subjects.
For the fluent nonnal sample, a consis-
tent predictor of individual differences in
reading achievement was subjects' skill in
manipulating oral language structure (syntax
and morphology), with the relationship more
clearly established for measures of decoding
accuracy (single words and text) than for read-
ing speed measures. Individual differences in
word recognition speed were correlated with
a number of lexical functions, including an-
tonym knowledge, word retrieval time (for vi-
sual confrontation and antonym naming), and
sound-blending skill. The only nonreading
correlate of contextual reading rate for these
normal readers was the time required for the
rapid automatized naming of objects.
In general, measures of oral langu^e de-
velopment appeared to be more reliable cor-
relates of reading achievement for the three
reader groups than did the intelligence quo-
tients and the sound-symbol processing
scores. The results of these correlational anal-
yses reveal both continuity and discontinuity
in the predictors of within-group variability in
reading achievement for the range of ability
and disability represented in the present sam-
ples,
Discussion
A number of indices of reading and non-
reading skill development have been exam-
ined in three samples of children selected to
represent three very different levels of read-
ing achievement relative to age-appropriate
expectations. These three samples were
specifically defined with respect to their dem-
onstration of developmentally appropriate
process through the stages postulated by
Ehri and Wilce (1979, 1983) to characterize
the nonnal acquisition of word recognition
skill.
The constructs of accuracy and speed
were adapted as performance criteria against
which to define the present samples. The first
sample included children whose reading dis-
ability precluded recognition of the printed
word even to a basic criterion of reliable accu-
racy; these accuracy-disabled subjects may be
considered comparable to other reading-
disabled and dyslexic SEUnples reported in the
literature. The second sample included chil-
dren with a selective deficit on more ad-
vanced indices of reading skill development:
The rate-disabled subjects were acquiring re-
liable word identification skills but foiling to
progress to tke point of accurate identification
at age-appropriate reading speeds. These
children constitute a newly identified type of
disabled reader in refened populations
(Lovett, 1984a, 1984b). Normally achieving
readers were selected for tiie fiuent normal
sample. Anaiysis ofthe present data reveaied
distinct profiles of print-specific and other
nonreading processing deficits to be reliably
associated with these two types of develop-
mental reading disorders.
All aspects of the accuracy-disabled sub-
jects' reding systems and sdl indices of read-
ing and spelling achievement have been com-
promised by their &ilure to acquire accurate
context-free wwd recognition processes. The
accuracy-disabled sample produced more er-
rors, read more slowiy, and coniprehended
less textual content than the rate-disabled and
normal samples, and their reading and spell-
ing failures were replicated on regular and
exception words as well as on orthographic-
ally sensible pseudowords. Their difficulties
on the latter items indicated the extent to
which they are confused about both the
underlying print-to-sound translation system
of English ortfiography and the appropriate
visuai representation of speech sounds in dif-
ferent orthographic contexts. Their pseudo-
word reading errors indicated that, at a mean
age of 11 years, they are still failing to remem-
ber and/or produce invariant sound-symbol
conespondences such as the single con-
sonants.
One source of evidence regarding the ac-
curacy-disabied readers' print-specific diffi-

culties was revealed on a series of tasks
designed to simulate some of the leam-
ing involved in initial reading acquisition.
Despite equal opportunity and the fact
that previous leaming was purposefully ren-
dered inelevant, the accuracy-disabled chil-
dren lagged significantly behind their rate-
disabled and Buent nonnal peers in the ease
with which they could acquire new pseudo-
word-symbol associations. To whatever level
of printed information processing the analogy
is drawn—whether to the leaming of letter-to-
sound correspondence rules or to the acquisi-
tion of "sight" words—a deficit in this aspect
of sound-symbol processing would appear to
be an obvious handicap to the acquisition of
decoding skill and a significant concomitant
to these children's persistent inaccuracies.
The reading systems of the rate-disabled
children appeared to be more selectively im-
paired by comparison. The present rate-
disabled and fluent normal subjects, selected
to be equivalent in word recognition accu-
racy, were compared in their identification of
regular and exception words to determine
whether they achieved word recognition by
relying on the same sources of information.
There was no evidence in these data of a dif-
ference between the two groups in their rela-
tive reiiance on phonological recoding versus
word-specific knowledge in word recognition.
The developmental course by which these
children are acquiring words and adding to
their reading vocabularies appeared to be
identical across orthographic regularity and
word-frequency dimensions. The sizable dif-
ferences in median response time did reveal
that the rate-disabled subjects exhibit
significant impairments in word recognition
speed in addition to those already docu-
mented in reading rate for connected text.
The interaction of sample and word-
frequency class, F(2,118) = 5.57, p = .005, in
these data may be likened to a cross-sectional
perspective on what appears to be a basic
consolidation deficit ofthe rate-disabled chil-
dren as they acquire new words and incorpo-
rate them into their reading vocabularies. Al-
though both groups were equally successful
in the number of words they had acquired
and could recognize, the rate-disabled sub-
jects required significantly longer to actually
identify new items—a difference that in-
creased as word frequency decreased.
•' There is reason to suspect that some of the standardized reading achievement tests do yield
estimates of a child's relative level of reading skill that are inflated compared to actual classroom
standards. (See Snart, Dennis, & Brailsford, 1983, for relevant data on the 1978 WRAT reading
norms. Note that the revised WRAT norms are cited in the present report.) In the present instance,
this could suggest the matched normal controls to he functioning within the lov^-er end of the
average distribution of reading skill.
Maureen W. Lovett 255
Whether this recognition speed difference
can be attributed to speech activation time or
whether it is basic to earlier recognition and
lexical access processes has yet to be deter-
mined.
The depressed word recognition times ol
rate-disabled children appear to have had an
adverse effect on these subjects' abiUty to
read connected text. It is these effects that
likely underlie the range of academic com-
plaints and performance problems that lead to
clinical referral of these children. Although
matched with the fluent normal subjects fbr
the accuracy with which they can recognize
words in isolation, the rate-disabled chil-
dren's word recognition accuracy faltered
when words were decoded in context.
There are two possible interpretations to
be considered with respect to the rate-
disabled sample's inferiority in context. The
first possibility is that these subjects' context-
free word recognition accuracy was overes-
timated by the standardized achievement
tests used in subject selection and subsequent
rate-disabled-normal matching. Since stan-
dardized tests typically sample recognition of
a very limited set of words, and require sub-
jects to read only between basal and ceiling,
the present estimates of reading achievement
may be inflated as a result of inadvertendy
biased sampling. There are several pieces of
evidence contrary to this interpretation. The
most important counterargument to this
speculation are the results of the present
word recognition task, an inventory of 120
regular words and 120 exception words
sampled in three ranges of word frequency
according to children's language norms. Sub-
jects are required to identify all 240 words,
thus providing an extensive and more reliable
sampling of each child's word recognition
skill than afforded by the standardized read-
ing tests. The rate-disabled and fluent normal
samples were confirmed to be recognizing
words of both types at equivalent levels of'
accuracy on the Regular and Exception Word
Test. These data, the fact that subject match-
ing was replicated on three different stan-
dardized measures, and the improbability that
the screening measures would overestimate
for one sample only result in rejection of the
first interpretation.
256 Child Development
The second and more Iikeiy interpreta-
tion of the difference between the rate-
disabled and normal subjects in contextual
decoding accuracy is that tfie depressed word
recognition speeds ofthe former sample inter-
fere with their ability to process words in con-
nected text. The adverse consequences ob-
served in the rate-disabied sample's present
contextual reading performances included
more decoding errors in context and poorer
comprehension scores after silent reading (al-
though posttesting revealed the latter to be
potentially secondary to initial decoding inac-
curacies). What remains to be explained is
why a slow-executing but accurate word
identification process wouid be jeopardized
by the sequentiai demands of textual process-
ing. Proponents of the verbal efficiency
modei of reading skiii suggest that depressed
verbal coding rates affect not only the rate of
processing but also the success ofthe ultimate
performance (Perfetti & Roth, 1981). This the-
ory proposes that slowed word identification
processes will sometimes jeopardize text
comprehension by allowing recently estab-
lished contexts to be deactivated (see Lesgold
& Perfetti, 1978; Perfetti & Lesgold, 1977,
1979; Perfetti & Roth, 1981).
Another "contextual" deficit was evident
when the spelling performances of the rate-
disabled and fluent normal samples were
compared. Aithough the two samples demon-
strated equivaient skiii in spelling to dicta-
tion, the rate-disabied chiidren were inferior
to the normal children on what would appear
a far less demanding task—selecting the cor-
rect spelling of a word from an array inciuding
three misspellings. Deficient spelling recog-
nition accompanied by comparable spelling
production cannot be interpreted as a differ-
ence in spelling knowiedge between the two
sampies: The rate-disabled children consis-
tently demonstrated the same knowledge of
the rules and exceptions of Engflish orthog-
raphy as the normal readers. Their spelling
competence was apparently compromised as
a function of the surrounding context. The
rate-disabied children in their lower spelling
recognition scores appeared more vulnerable
to orthographic interference from competing
visual pattems.
The only common denominator to these
two classes of adverse contextual conse-
quences would appear to be that a written
language skill competently if slowly executed
in isolation is relatively less competently per-
formed when additional words (in sentences
or as foils) appear as surrounding context. The
operations in question, reading for meaning
versus selecting a spelling, would appear so
different in their task demands that it is
difficult to im^ine one processing deficit
underlying both performance probiems.
The resuits summarized above indicate
that quite different profiles of reading devel-
opment are associated with a persistent deficit
in word recognition accuracy versus a more
selective but equally persistent deficit in
word recognition speed. The present investi-
gation was also undertaken to determine
whether these two different patterns of read-
ing dysfunction were associated with a profile
of overall language impairment that may be
potentially constraining botii oral and written
language development.
When different indices of lexical and syn-
tactic language competence were compared,
the accuracy-disabied sample was revealed to
have a multifeceted and far more extensive
oral language deficit than previous investiga-
tions had indicated (Lovett, 1984a). Accuracy-
disabled readers were iess abie than their
rate-disabled and fiuent normal peers to
achieve morphological transformations re-
gardless of whether predictable infiections
(open —» opened) or more idiosyncratic forms
(steal —• stoie) were required, and less able to
apply basic morpholo^cal rules to pseudo-
word materials whether the attendant phono-
logical manipuiations were simple or more
complex. Although their general verbal intel-
iigence equals ihat ofthe other two samples,
the accuracy-disabled children demonstrated
a madcedly deficient understanding of the
morphological and syntactic conventions that
mediate comprehension of connected dis-
course.
The ianguage systems of the accuracy-
disabled subjects also were impoverished rel-
ative to those of their rate-disabled and nor-
mal peers in the range of words with which
they were familiar and in their abiiity to ana-
lyze and contrast word meanings. Although
visual confrontation and serial naming times
were equaiiy slow relative to the normals foi-
the two disabied reader groups, the accuracy-
disabied subjects were significantly slower
than the rate-disabled children in their nam-
ing of serial letter arrays. Accuracy-disabled
subjects also proved inferior to the other twti
sampies of chiidren at the levei of analyzing
individuai speech sounds: The accuracy-
disabled readers were less capable of seg-
menting and identifying individual sounds in
simple spoken pseudowords. These data sug-
gest that accuracy-disabled children suffer a
multidimensional language impaunK'nt
coupled with specific speech sound analysiN

difficulties and a seeming inability to auto-
matize or consolidate singie letter identities
and/or names. While selected aspects of the
former deficit (e.g., vocabulary knowledge)
could conceivably be as much a consequence
as an antecedent of specific reading disability
and its inevitable corollary of impoverished
textual experience, the latter impainnents—
especially given Bradley and Bryant's (1983)
longitudinal evidence—would seem a prob-
able precursor to these children's persistent
decoding failures.
While the accuracy-disabled dyslexia ap-
pears characterized by multifactorial determi-
nation, the present data suggest that a single
factor explanation ofthe newly identified dis-
ability in reading rate might eventually be for-
mulated. When the present rate-disabled sub-
jects were compared with normal children
who were decoding at exactly the same level
of word recognition accuracy but reading at
significantly faster rates (an average 32.2
words per minute faster), indices of oral lan-
guage development for the two groups ap-
peared identical, with one exception. The
rate-disabled subjects' deficit in reading
speed was associated with a more global
deficit in the speed with which these children
could access and provide names for single- or
multiple-element visual anays. On confronta-
tion naming tasks, the rate-disabled sample's
speed disadvantage was specific to the rapid
labeling of a visual symbol or picture. In-
creased naming times were not evident on au-
ditory responsive naming or associative nam-
ing measures, indicating that this rate
disability cannot be attributed to a general
word retrieval or lexical access deficit, and
that it appears specific to language in its vis-
ible form.
Differences between the rate-disabled
and normal children were even more striking
when the serial naming of multiple-element
visual arrays was timed. The rate-disabled
children were substantially slower than the
fluent normals in their naming of color and
object arrays, as weii as in the labeling ofthe
letter and number arrays. Their naming-speed
impairment does not appear to be specific to
the identification of alphanumeric symbols.
The investigation of individual differ-
ences in adult reading skill has identified one
critical ability difference among readers to be
the speed with which a meaningful or "name-
able" memory representation can be accessed
(Jackson, 1980; Jackson & McClelland, 1979;
Palmer et al., 1985). The present results sug-
gest a deficit in visual naming speed to be the
only reiiable nonreading correlate of a
Maureen W. Lovett 257
specific disabiiity in reading rate and of the
contextual reading and speiiing problems
with which it is associated. The data on indi-
vidual differences in adult reading skill ap-
pear relevant to interpretation of the present
results in suggesting a potential locus of the
visual naming speed differences between the
rate-disabled and normal readers—a locus in-
dependent of any articulatory activation or
general oral language effects. A basic differ-
ence between the rate-disabled and fluent
normal reader may involve how infonnation
about meaningful visual pattems is repre-
sented or comes to be accessed in lexical
memory. A iexicai memory explanation might
provide some basis for relating the rate-
disabled children's vulnerability to orthog-
raphic interference from competing visual
pattems with their increased error rates when
words are presented for successive recogni-
tion in connected text.
While a deficit in the rapid naming of sin-
gle- or multiple-element visual arrays was the
only nonreading predictor of a rate disability,
visual naming speed deficits were found to be
consistendy associated with deficient reading
skill in the present study, regardless of
whether the disabiiity profile was one of an
accuracy or a rate disorder. There remains
some controversy in the developmental litera-
ture regarding whether a general visual name
retrieval speed factor differentiates skilled
and less skilled readers (Denckla & Rudel,
1976; Ehri & Wilce, 1983; Spring & Capps,
1974), or whether the speed advantage of
skilled subjects is restricted to the decoding
and naming of printed words (Perfetti, 1983;
Perfettj et al., 1978; Stanovich, 1981). The
present evidence is clearly compatible witJi
and provides firther support for the former
position. A visual naming speed disadvantage
of both samples of disabled readers relative to
the normal children was demonstrated for
both single- and multiple-element arrays, and
included the naming of colors and pictured
objects as well as alphanumeric symbols.
A final concem of the present study was
whether the correlates of individual differ-
ences in reading achievement would be con-
tinuous or discontinuous across the range of
ability and disability represented in the pres-
ent sampies. It has been suggested that dis-
continuity in or dissociations between some
ability factors in the reading-disabled popula-
tion result in a different pattern of individual
differences findings than that seen among
subjects who vary within what is considered
the "normal" range of reading skill (Perfetti,
1983; Stanovich, 1981). The interrelationship
258 Child Development
of different dimensions of reading skill
proved fairly uniform across the present sam-
ples, indicating considerable continuity in the
general parameters of reading skill acquisi-
tion for both disabled and normal readers.
The present evidence is compatible with a
theoretical perspective that projects a func-
tional continuum of reading skill acquisition
against which the reading behavior of both
normal and reading-disabled children might
be described. These data also suggest greater
differentiation in the interrelationship of con-
textual reading processes, however, as read-
ing skill develops.
Reading skill differences were related to
a number of oral Ianguage skill differences
within each group, with somewhat different
indices of oral language development emerg-
ing as the best predictors for disabled and
normal readers. The speed with which a child
could name visual elements was related to
one or more dimensions of reading skill for
each sample, with visual and serial naming
speed more reliably predictive of reading
achievement for the disabled reader groups
than for the normal children. For the latter
group, general factors such as word knowi-
edge and facility with language structure ap-
peared to be more closely related to individ-
ual differences in reading skill. The "verbal
deficit" hypothesis of reading acquisition fail-
ure (Veiiutino, 1979) may be augmented by
a linguistic skill explanation of reading
achievement.
There exists a continuing need for a com-
prehensive model of reading and language
development. There are obvious theoretical
constraints on our present ability to concep-
tualize the performance of both disabled and
normal readers in the context of a coherent
modei of written or oral language behavior,
and to examine oral and written language de-
velopment as two interactive and mul-
tidimensional behavioral systems {Lovett,
1984b). Final interpretation of the present
data awaits further empirical investigations
with these newly identified types of reading-
disabled children and their matched fluent
normal controls, and ftirdier specification of a
framework within which to describe their de-
velopment. The present study attempts some-
what of a conceptual departure from unidi-
mensional definitions of reading dysfunction
and reading skill and from the !ist-of-deficits
approach that has dominated the clinical re-
search literature on dyslexia. The present re-
sults indicate that there is potential merit in
attempts to conceptualize developmental
reading disorders on a continuum with nor-
mal reading acquisition, and considerable
heuristic value in abandoning the theoretical
dichotomies that have characterized our con-
sideration of beginning, dysfiuent, and dis-
abled reading behavior in children.
References
Baker, H., & Leland, B. (1967). Detroit Tests ofLeum-
ing Aptitude. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
Barron, R. W. (1981). Reading skill and reading
strategies. In A. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti
(Eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp.
299-327). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berko, J. (1958). The child's leaming of English
morphology. Word, 14, 150-177.
Berry, M, F. (1977). The Berry-Talbott develop-
mental guide to comprehension of grammar.
Rockford, IL: M. F. Berry.
Biemiller, A. (1981). Biemiller Test of Reading Pro-
cesses. Toronto: Guidance Centre, Faculty of
Education, University of Toronto.
Bradley, L,, & Bryant, P. (1981). Visual memory and
phonological skills in reading and spelling
backwardness. Psychological Research, 43,
193-199.
Bradley, L., & Biyant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing
sounds and learning to read—a causal connec-
tion. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (Eds.).
(1971). The American Heritage word fre-
quency book. New York: American Heritage.
Carver, R. P. (1983). Is reading rate constant or flex-
ible? Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 190-
215.
Cermak, L. S., Coldberg, J., Cermak, S., & Drake,
C. (1^0). The short-term memory ability of
children with leaming disabilities. Journal of
Leaming Disedjilities, 13, 25-29.
Chabot, R. ]., Zehr, H. D., Prinzo, O. V., & Petros,
T. V. (1984). The speed of word recognition
subprocesses and reading achievement in col-
lege students. Reading Research Quarterly, 19,
147-161.
Cohen, R. L., & Netley, C, (1978). Cognitive
deficits, leaming disabilities, and WISC ver-
bal-performance consistency. Developmental
Psychology, 14, 624-634.
Curtis, M. E. (1980). Development of components
in reading skill. Journal of Educational Pst/-
chology, 72, 656-669.
Denckla, M. B. (1979). Chiidhood learning dis-
abilities. In K. M. Heilman & E, Valenstein
(Eds.), Clinical neuropsychotogy (pp, 5315-
573). New York: Oxford University Press.
Denckla, M. B., & Rudei, R. G. (1976). Rapid "auto-
matized" naming (R.A.N.); Dyslexia ditU'i-
entiated from other learning disabilitic-;.
Neuropsychologia, 14, 471-479.
DeSoto, J. L., & DeSoto, C. B. (l»-)83). Relationship
of reading achievement to vfiha! piufcssiim

abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology,
75, 116-127.
Doehring, D. G. (1976). Acquisition of rapid read-
ing responses. Monographs ofthe Society for
Research in Child Development, 41(2, Serial
Number 165).
Doebring, D. G., Trites, R., Patel, P. G., &
Fiedorowicz, C. A. M. (1981). Reading dis-
abilities: The interaction of reading, language,
and neuropsychological deficits. New York:
Academic Press.
Drum, P. A., Calfee, R. C , & Cook, L. K. (1981).
The effects of surface structure variables on
performance in reading comprehension tests.
Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 486-514.
Dunn, L. (1965). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Ser-
vice.
Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1970). Peabody
Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines,
MN: American Guidance Service.
Durrell, D. D. (1955). Durrell Analysis of Reading
Difficulty. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Ebri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1979). Does word train-
ing increase or decrease interference in a
Stroop task? Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 27, 252-364.
Ehri, L. C , & Wilce, L. S. (1983). Development of
word identification speed in skilled and less
skilled beginning readers. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 75, 3-18.
Cates, A. I., & McKillop, A. S. (1962). Gates-
McKillop Reading Diagnostic Tests. New
York; Teachers College Press, Columbia Uni-
versity.
Gilmore, J. V., & Gilmore, E. C. (1968). Gilmore
Oral Reading Test. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Goldman, R., Fristoe, M., & Woodcock, R. W.
(1974). Goldman-Fristoe-Woodcock Sound-
Symbol Tests. Circle Pines, MN; American
Guidance Service.
Coodglass, H., & Kaplan, E. (1972). The assessment
of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia:
Lea & Febiger.
Guttentag, R. E., & Haith, M. M. (1978). Automatic
processing as a function of age and reading
ability. Child Development, 49, 707-716.
Hess, T. M., & Radtke, R. C. (1981). Processing and
memory factors in children's reading compre-
hension skill. Child Development, 52, 479-
488.
Jackson, M. D. (1980). Further evidence for a rela-
tionship between memory access and reading
ability. Journal of Verbal Leaming and Verbal
Behavior, 19, 683-694.
Jackson, M. D., & McClelland, J. (1979). Processing
determinants of reading speed. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology: General, 108, 151-
181.
Maureen W. Lovett 259
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). Wide Range
Achievement Test—Revised. Wilmington, DE:
Jastak Associates.
Kail, B. V., & Marshall, C. V, (1978). Heading skill
and memory scanning, youmo/ of Educational
Psychology, 70, 808-814.
Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W. (1968). The Il-
linois Test of Psychoiinguistic Abilities, Re-
vised Edition. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a the-
ory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lesgold, A. M., & Perfetti, G. A. (1978). Interactive
processes in reading comprehension. Dis-
course Processes, 1, 323-336.
Lovett, M. W. (1984a). A developmental perspec-
tive on reading dysfunction: Accuracy and rate
criteria in the subtyping of dyslexic children.
Brain and Language, 22, 67-91.
Lovett, M. W. (1984b). The search for subtypes of
specific reading disability: Reflections from a
cognitive perspective. Annals of Dyslexia, 34,
155-178.
Lovett, M. W., Ransby, M. J., & Barron, R. W,
(1986). Treatment subtype and word type ef-
fects in dyslexic children's response to remedi-
ation. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Pace, A. J., & Golinkoff, R. M. (1976). Relationship
between word difficulty and access of single-
word meaning by skilled and less skilled read-
ers, Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,
760-767.
Palmer, J,, MacLeod, C. M., Hunt, E., & Davidson,
J. E. (1985). Information processing correlates
of reading. Journal of Memory and Language,
24, 59-88.
Perfetti, C. A. (1983). Individual diflerences in ver-
bal processes. In R. F. Dillon & R. R. Schmeck
(Eds.), Individual differences in cognition
(Vol. 1, pp. 65-104). New York: Academic
Press.
Perfetti, C. A., Finger, E., & Hogaboam, T. (1978).
Sources of vocalization latency difFerences be-
tween skilled and less skilled young readers.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 730-
739.
Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1977). Discourse
comprehension and sources of individual dif-
ferences. In P. Carpenter & M. Just (Eds.),
Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp.
141-183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C. A., & Lesgold, A. M. (1979), Coding and
comprehension in skilled reading and implica-
tions for reading instruction. In L. B. Resnick &
P. Weaver (Eds,), Theory and practice in early
reading (Vol. 1, pp. 54-87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Perfetti, C. A., & Roth, S. F. (1981). Some ofthe
interactive processes in reading and their role
in reading skill. In A. M. Lesgold & G. A. Per-
260 Child Development
fetti (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading
(pp. 269-297). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rudel, R. G., Denckla, M. B., & Broman, M. (1981).
The effect of varying stimulus context on word-
finding ability: Dyslexia further differentiated
from other leaming disabilities. Brain and Lan-
guage, 13,130-144.
Rudel, R. G., Denckla, M. B., & Spalten, E. (1976).
Paired associate leaming of Morse Code and
Braille letter names by dyslexic and nonnal
children. Cortex, 12, 61-70.
Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1972). Misread-
ing: A search for causes. In J. F. Kavanagh & I.
C. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by
eye: The relationships between speech and
reading (pp. 293-317). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I. Y., Mark, L. S., Fow-
ler, C. A., &c Fischer, F. W. (1979). The speech
code and leaming to read. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: Human Leaming and
Memory, 5, 531-545.
Siegel, L. S., & Linder, B. A. (1984). Short-tenn
memory processes in children with reading
and arithmetic learning disabilities. Develop-
mental Psychology, 20, 200-207.
Slosson, R. L. (1963). Slosson Oral Reading Test.
East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Pub-
lications.
Snart, F., Dennis, S., & Brailsford, A. (1983). Con-
cems regarding the Wide Range Achievement
Test. Canadian Psychology, 24, 99-103.
Spring, C, & Capps, C. (1974). Encoding speed,
rehearsal, and probed recall of dyslexic boys.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 780-
786.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-
compensatory model of individual differences
in the development of reading fluency. Read-
ing Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
Stanovich, K. E. (1981). Relationships between
word decoding speed, general name-retrieval
ability, and reading progress in first-grade chil-
dren. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,
809-815.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & West, B. F.
(1981). A longitudinal study of the develop-
ment of automatic recognition skills in first
graders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 57-
74.
Stemberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1982), Automati-
zation failures in leaming disorders. Topics in
Leaming and Leaming Disabilities, 2(2), 1-11.
Torgesen, J., & Goldman, T. (1977). Verbal rehear-
sal and short-term memory in reading disabled
children. Child Development, 48, 56-60.
Veiiutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory atui re-
search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vogel, S, A. (1975), Syntactic abilities in normal
and dyslexic children. Baltimore: University
Park Press.
Vogel, S, A. (1977). Morphological ability in normal
and dyslexic children./ouma/ of Leaming Dis-
abilities, 10, 35-43.