The Journal of Genetic Psychology Research and Theory on Human Development
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Differential Transfer in Poor and Normal Readers Frank R. Vellutino , Constance J. Harding , Forman Phillips & Joseph A. Steger To cite this article: Frank R. Vellutino , Constance J. Harding , Forman Phillips & Joseph A. Steger (1975) Differential Transfer in Poor and Normal Readers, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126:1, 3-18, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1975.10532313 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1975.10532313
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
View related articles
Citing articles: 16 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 22:07
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1975, 126, 3-18.
DIFFERENTIAL TRANSFER IN POOR AND NORMAL READERS*' State University of New York at Albany, Albany Medical College, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
FRANK R. VELLUTINO,CONSTANCE J. HARDING, FORMAN PHILLIPS, JOSEPH A. STEGER
AND
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
SUMMARY
It has been suggested that children who sustain specific reading disability experience difficulty in abstracting and generalizing the invariant components of words containing redundant elements because of basic dysfunction in categorical processing. This hypothesis was assessed by comparing independent samples of poor and normal readers on transfer of training tasks of two different types: a visual-verbal association task which simulated the reading process, and a visual-visual association task unlike reading. It was predicted that poor readers would perform significantly below normal readers on both initial learning and transfer under the visual-verbal association conditions. In contrast, it was expected that the performance of similar groups of poor and normal readers would be comparable under the visual-visual training and transfer conditions. The results supported these predictions, and it was concluded that the generalization problems observed in poor readers in early word learning are, most likely, attributable to transfer difficulties associated with specific disorder in visual-verbal integration, rather than primary or basic disorder in categorization ability. INTRODUCTION Because of apparent difficulty in abstracting the invariant components of given words (10, 11, 27, 35), the poor reader is inclined to treat those words containing common or predictable elements as discrete entities. The loss of economy which results from doing so thereby taxes his capacity to A.
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on September 15, 1973. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. Our thanks are expressed to Veronica Carney, Esther Senning, Sylvia Durban, Judith Miller, and Virginia Russum whose assistance in the preparation of this study was above the normal call of duty. We would also like to acknowledge and express our gratitude to the many schools in the Albany Metropolitan area that participated in this research. 3
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
4
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
process orthographic information and increases the probability of discrimination error. Since the poor reader does not acquire the generalizations necessary for word analysis, he is soon encumbered by a limited and fragmented knowledge of grapheme-phoneme relationships, has difficulty identifying even those words containing redundant information, and fails to develop a high degree of reading proficiency. Several authors have suggested that some poor readers’ generalization problems are symptomatic of basic dysfunction in categorical processing. For example, Vernon (35) and Critchley (11) both underscore the poor reader’s difficulty in establishing visual-verbal integrations, and give particular emphasis to the possibility that specific reading disability* is attributable to the failure to abstract and generalize linguistic material ( 1 1, 35). Bryant (10) makes a similar suggestion as does Rabinovitch (24, p. 857-869; 25, p. 1-10), who hypothesizes that poor readers are characterized by difficulties in abstraction and concept symbolization issuing from “broader language deficits” (25, p. 9). Blank and her associates (6, 7, 8) provide research evidence which presumably supports the suggestion of conceptual disorder in poor readers. In two separate studies it was found that the difficulties encountered by this group in establishing spatial-temporal equivalence were attributable to “verbal coding” deficiencies rather than perceptual and cross-modal integration problems as previously suggested (4, 21). Since the results were found with poor readers in both first and fourth grades, the authors conclude that “verbal coding” problems are present at the onset of reading disability and constitute a basic cause of the disorder. It is clear from the above that there is considerable uncertainty as to the nature and cause of the “conceptual” difficulties encountered by poor readers in word identification. Whether or not such problems lie at the root of reading disability or are themselves a consequence of some more basic deficit seems particularly obscure. We think it likely, however, that poor readers, with otherwise normal development, do not sustain primary disorder in categorical thinking, but are impaired in their ability to generalize (invariant) word elements across variable contexts because of basic dysfunction in acquiring lower order (grapheme-phoneme) relationships. To elaborate further, the ability to abstract and generalize similar pat-
’
Specific reading disability is intended to refer to children with reading problems not apparently attributable to subnormal intelligence, gross brain damage, peripheral sensory impairment, severe emotional disorder, inadequate home or school environment, or other extrinsic factors. In this study, the terms “reading disability” and “specif~creading disability” are used interchangeably.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
FRANK R. VELLUTINO
et al.
5
terns in stimuli characterized by common constituents is predicated on a stable knowledge of the composite features which distinguish those stimuli (12, 13, 14, IS). If for any reason such learning does not take place, there is a prolonged tendency toward discrimination error, and the chances for successful (positive) transfer are vastly reduced. Thus, we would expect that the child who has difficulty remembering the sound counterparts of the printed words cat, rat, and can will be ill-equipped to utilize the information contained in those words in decoding the “new” word ran, but it would be inaccurate to infer from this that the child is conceptually deficient in the broad sense. In other words, the verbal abstraction problems observed in poor readers may be more accurately viewed as a “transfer” problem rather than a manifestation of conceptual disorder. The foregoing generates the hypothesis that poor readers would perform as well as normals on both training and transfer tasks that require the learning of relationships unlike those characteristic of reading. In contrast, poor readers should be less apt than normals in the initial acquisition and, consequently, the transfer of relationships comparable to those involved in learning to read. In order to test the above hypothesis, independent groups of poor and normal readers were given paired-associates training and transfer tasks under either visual-visual3 or visuaherbal learning conditions. It was anticipated that poor and normal readers would not differ significantly on the training and transfer tasks administered under the visual-visual condition, but the normal readers were expected to be superior to the poor readers on both the training and transfer tasks administered under the visual-verbal condition.
B. METHOD 1. Subjects The subjects for the two experimental conditions were independently selected from the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of several elementary schools located in middle to upper-middle socioeconomic areas. An equal number of poor and normal readers were chosen from each of the schools providing subjects for the study. There were 60 subjects in each treatment condition for a total of 120. The two groups within each condition contained the same number of poor A visual association task was employed in the present study because previous research in our laboratory (32, 33, 34) has repeatedly demonstrated that the visual skills of poor and normal readers are comparable.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
6
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
and normal readers of both sexes: 23 boys and seven girls. In addition, there was an equal number of children in each grade stratification (N = 10). The age range for all subjects in the sample was between 9.3 and 13.0. The reader groups were differentiated on the basis of several selection criteria which have been found to be reliable indicants of specific reading disability (20; 24, p. 857-869). The poor readers were initially chosen from a group of children referred to the Child Research Center by reading specialists for possible inclusion in the study. Subjects for the normal reader group were initially selected from a pool of candidates who were judged by school personnel to be making satisfactory progress in reading. Prospective candidates for both reader groups were screened at the outset for gross physical and neurological defects, auditory and (uncorrected) visual acuity problems, severe emotional disorder, speech difficulties, and frequent absences from school. The research sample was then selected on the basis of intellectual and achievement criteria. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (37) was employed as the measure of intelligence. Only those with either a Verbal or Performance ZQ of 90 or above were included in the sample. Differentiation of the poor and normal readers was based upon two measures of reading achievement. The Gilmore Oral Reading Test (16) was employed to assess oral reading skill. Only those children scoring two or more years below grade level were chosen for the poor reader sample. Conversely, candidates for the normal reader group were required to have scores at or above grade level for inclusion in the study. T o further distinguish the groups, all Ss were administered a brief (35 item) test of phonic skills employing nonsense syllables (9). Table 1 summarizes the selection criteria for all groups in respective treatment conditions. It can be seen that there are no reliable differences between the poor and normal readers in mean age, grade level, Performance and Full Scale ZQ in either condition. In contrast, the differences between groups in Verbal ZQ and reading achievement are statistically significant in both conditions (p < .05). In addition, the table indicates that the two independent samples are comparable Cp > .05) with respect to the various screening measures. 2.
Materials
In order to minimize possible confounding from previous learning, novel visual designs and nonsense syllables were employed as stimuli. The same visual stimuli were used in both the visual-visual and visual-verbal conditions. There were 16 geometric designs chosen from a pool of 25 designs
a
Grade equivalents. Raw scores.
Age (months) Grade Verbal ZQ Performance ZQ Full scale ZQ Oral reading (Gilmorey Phonics skills (Bryant)b
Variables 10.55 1.00 8.12 10.80 7.55 1.56 4.11
SD
vi-vi
130.70 5.00 103.57 103.00 103.60 6.18 24.97
i 8.36 1.00 7.85 6.89 5.39 1.52 6.37
SD
Vis-Verb
130.70 5.00 103.30 103.37 103.60 6.56 24.87
2
Normal readers
13.59 1.00 10.15 9.53 8.73 .79 5.15
SD
vi-vi
132.47 5.00 99.37 102.37 101.00 3.06 11.70
-
X
11.81 1.00 8.75 11.05 9.37 .78 4.68
Vis-Verb SD 136.50 5.00 98.27 105.37 101.83 3.16 11.17
2
Poor readers
SELECTION CRITERIAFOR POORAND NORMALREADERGROUPSIN THE VISUAL-VISUAL (VISVIS) AND VISUAL-VERBAL (VIS-VERB)CONDITIONS
TABLE 1
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
g
2
8
2=!
c
’
twi
J
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
8
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
rated for associability by 90 students from the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of an area public elementary school. This school was comparable to those included in the sample with respect to socioeconomic level and general curriculum. For the 16 designs chosen, the number of different associations to each ranged from 26 to 45 (f= 34.10). The number of responses falling into the three “most popular” response categories for each design chosen comprised less than 50 percent of the total number of responses made to that design. Thus, the visual stimuli were considered to have relatively low associability. The corresponding verbal stimuli were bisyllabic nonsense words selected from Underwood and Schultz (31, Apps. A and C). Only those syllables that were both low in association and meaningfulness ratings and high in pronunciability ratings were selected. While these norms were compiled on adult subjects, the stimuli were, nonetheless, thought to be useful for present purposes. That is, stimuli judged to be low in meaning for adults can he assumed to be so for children. In addition, it was found in pilot study, that children comparable to those included in the experiment proper, had no difficulty pronouncing the nonsense syllables selected. The designs were black on white, two inches high, and approximately one inch in diameter (see Figures 1 and 2). Reliability of Criterion Measures The reliability of the criterion measures was assessed by computing split-half (odd-even) coefficients for the training and transfer tasks in both of the treatment conditions. The Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula (17) was used to obtain an estimate of the reliability of each measure. The visuahisual condition yielded the following coefficients: training, r = .9 7; transfer, r = .96. The correlations in the visuaherbal condition were comparable: training, r = .95; transfer, r = .96. 3.
4. Procedure a . Administration. The S s were tested individually at their respective schools. In every instance the experiment was conducted in a room free from extraneous noise and distraction. Testing took place during the regular school day, but time periods were randomly distributed across subjects. All subjects appeared reasonably comfortable and attentive throughout. In the Visual-Verbal Training Series, S s were told that they were going to be shown four pairs of designs and four two-syllable nonsense words that “always go together.” In each instance, S was told that a nonsense
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
FRANK R. VELLUTINO et
al.
9
word was a word that “did not make any sense and did not mean anything.” S was then shown the design pairs individually, and the nonsense word corresponding to each pair was pronounced by E. The S was requested to repeat the word after E while looking carefully at the designs. All pronunciation errors were corrected at this time. S was also instructed to remember that “the first syllable goes with the first design on the card, and the second syllable goes with the second design.” This instruction was included in order to direct Ss attention to the one-to-one correspondence between designs and syllables. After all four cards and their corresponding nonsense words had been presented to S twice in this manner (preexperimental trials), the experimental trials were begun. S was then shown only the design cards and was asked to produce their corresponding nonsense words. In all instances, S was given five seconds to respond to each card. Following each test trial, E again exposed each card and pronounced the appropriate nonsense word as in the pre-experimental trials. This alternating procedure was continued until S made the correct designnonsense word associations on two successive test trials, or for 15 acquisitions and 15 test trials. In order to avoid order effects, presentation of the four stimulus cards was randomized for each trial. The transfer tasks in both treatment conditions were designed to approximate the beginning reader’s job of distinguishing familiar (alphabetic) symbols appearing in different combinations. In the Visual-Verbal Transfer Series, the individual designs were randomly reordered, but the oneto-one relationship between designs and syllables was maintained [following Bishop and Jeffrey and Samuels ( 5 , 19)]. Thus, the verbal counterparts of the reordered visual stimuli resulted in “different” nonsense words. Directly following the training series, Ss were told that they would see cards “with the same designs as before, except the designs are in a different order.” They were also reminded of the correspondence between designs and syllables, originally paired, and were told that those individual associations “would still be the same.” Thus, the transfer procedure was identical with that for the Training Series except for initial instructions and learning criterion. Criterion for transfer was one errorless test trial, or 10 acquisition and 10 test trials if an S did not achieve criterion. Presentations of the stimuli were randomized as before. The procedure in the Visual-Visual condition was essentially the same as that in the Visual-Verbal condition, except for the responses to be learned. Subjects were presented with stimulus cards containing two pairs of designs (i.e., two designs on the left side and two on the right). Each was
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
10
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
instructed to remember that the two pairs of designs “always go together”; also, that “the first design on this side (left) goes with the first design on this side (right), and the second design over here (left) goes with the second one over here (right).” Test trials consisted of presenting S with response templates depicting the stimulus pairs, and (five) response alternatives, one of which was the correct association. S was to point to the choice he thought was correct. The stimuli and response for the training and transfer series in both conditions are presented in Figures 1 and 2 . The stimulus cards in both conditions were presented individually for five seconds. All responses, correct or incorrect, were recorded by E . The amount of time taken for testing was between 30 and 40 minutes for each child. b . Scoring. Responses in both the Visual-Verbal and Visual-Visual conditions were scored on a righuwrong basis. In the Visual-Verbal condition, production of the nonsense syllables was credited only if the syllables were produced in the correct sequence and if their phonemic structure was maintained. Choices in the Visual-Visual condition were credited only if the Ss recognized the correct alternative and so indicated. No partial credit was given for any response. Data analysis was performed on total number of correct responses.
C.
RESULTS
Because the training and transfer situations employed a different number of trials to criterion, the data were initially converted into arcsine transformations (28) for comparison of proportional differences. However, owing to high correlations found between the transformed and raw scores (mean r = .99), all subsequent analyses employed raw scores. I t was also felt that it would be clearer for present purposes, to report all results in raw scores rather than proportions; thus, it should be pointed out that the differences between training and transfer means, in all groups, are exaggerated. In addition, since preliminary computations yielded no significant interactions between grade levels and reader groups in either of the treatment conditions, the results reported exclude comparisons of performance among grade levels. Separate analyses were performed on the data obtained under the Visual-Visual and Visual-Verbal conditions. The data were analyzed by means of analysis of variance for repeated measures (41). Covariate adjustments were also made where indicated. The raw score means and
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
sI
tn
! ! a
W
tn
W lb
U
tn
2
d
I-
xx
n
h
(9
W
I
11
12
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
TRAINING SERIES
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
Visual Stimulus
Response Template
FIGURE 2 TEMPLATES FOR THE TRAININGA N D VISUAL-VISUAL CONDITION: STIMULI AND RESPONSE TRANSFERSERIES Reprinted from The Psychology ofReading, by Eleanor J . Gibson and Harry Levin, with permission from the MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. * denotes correct response.
standard deviations for the training and transfer scores of the reader groups in each of the treatments can be found in Table 2 . I t can be seen that the differences between the means of the poor and normal readers in the Visual-Visual condition are minimal in the case of both training and transfer. The results of the analysis of variance indicate that these differences are nonsignificant (p > . 0 5 ) . These data support the prediction that the learning of visual paired associates would result in
FRANK R. VELLUTINO ei!
d.
13
TABLE 2 MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TRAINING AND TRANSFERSCORES AND ADJUSTED MEANSCORES FOR TRANSFER TASKS
Scores
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
Training scores Transfer scores Adjusted transfer scores
-Normal
ViS-Vi Poor
X
SD
41.17
10.10
44.60
26.71
9.50
22.80
24.03
22.98
SD
-Normal
Vi-Verb .-
X
SD
13.70
35.11
9.10
19.20 19.38
- Poor X
SD
10.30
25.91
12.20
10.40
13.01
8.30
15.40
equivalent performance levels for poor and normal readers on both acquisition and transfer tasks. The results of the reader group comparisons in the Visual-Verbal treatment are in direct contrast to the findings in Visual-Visual learning. As anticipated, the means of the normal reader group are considerably greater than the means of the poor reader group ip both the initial learning and transfer situations (see Table 2). These differences were found to be statistically significant (F = 12.9,p < .01 for 1 and 54 a!!.). In view of the disparities found between the reader groups in Verbal ZQ, and owing to the fact that there were significant positive correlations between Verbal ZQ and each of the learning tasks in the Visual-Verbal condition (with training, r = .45; with transfer, r = .29,both for 58 ~ d f l , ~ the data were reanalyzed with covariance procedures (41). The results of the analysis indicate that initial differences in “verbal intelligence” contributed significantly to reader group differences in training and transfer, as manifested in a substantial reduction in the index reflecting these comparisons (F = 6.73, p < .05 for 1 and 53 dfl. However, as is apparent, the residual F ratio is yet statistically significant, thereby indicating that performance differences between the poor and normal readers are partly attributable to some other factor. As suggested in our initial hypothesis, a likely source of variance, in the case of the reader group differences in transfer, is the observed differences in initial learning. Since there was a moderately high correlation between training and transfer scores (r = .64),adjustments were made on the transfer scores alone, employing the training scores as the covariate. This Significant positive correlations of about the same magnitude were also found in each of the learning tasks in the Visual-Visual condition, but because there were no significant differences between the group means in this treatment, no covariance adjustments were made.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
14
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
procedure yielded a nonsignificant F ratio (p > .05)for the adjusted transfer means (see Table 2). Thus, as predicted, anticipated differences between poor and normal readers on the Visual-Verbal transfer task were largely due to group differences on the training tasks. In order to refine our observations with respect to the influence of “verbal intelligence” (Verbal ZQ) on the Visual-Verbal training task, a covariance analysis was performed on the acquisition scores only. The residual F ratio yielded by this analysis was yet statistically significant (F = 4.39, p < .05 for 1 and 53 df.). This finding suggests that observed differences between poor and normal readers in visual-verbal integration are the result of factors unique to this variable and, to a lesser extent, to variations in skills measured by the Verbal subtest of the WISC. Finally, it is noteworthy that the range of difficulty levels sampled by the tasks employed in both treatment conditions is rather wide (see Table 2) and thereby speaks for the reliability of our findings. Thus, in view of the fact that independent groups of poor and normal readers were randomly assigned to the treatments contrasted, we may safely generalize our results to like populations. In summary, the current data support the experimental prediction that there would be no performarke differences between poor and normal readers in visual-visual learning and transfer tasks, in contrast to anticipated differences between these groups in visual-verbal training and transfer. Poor readers performed as well as normal readers under the visual learning conditions, but not as well as the normals under the visual-verbal conditions. Covariate adjustments of visual-verbal transfer scores indicated that mean differences in transfer were mainly attributable to reader group differences in initial acquisition. In addition, while a significant proportion of the variance in visual-verbal training was due to group differences in “verbal intelligence,” the data suggested that the largest proportion was due to factors unique to visual-verbal integration, as defined in the present study.
D. DISCUSSION The present results support our contention that poor readers do not sustain any primary deficiency in the categorical process. Children who were judged, operationally, to be significantly impaired in reading performed as well as normal readers on visual-visual association and transfer tasks, but were less able than the normals in the initial learning and transfer of visual-verbal relationships similar to those involved in learning
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
FRANK R. VELLUTINO et al.
15
to read. These data are consistent with our suggestion that the intermediate skill of abstracting and generalizing the invariant components of words is not readily achieved by poor readers because of prior learning difficulties in the process of associating graphic symbols and sounds. The above conclusion accords with Ferguson’s (12, 13) suggestion that any given “ability” (29, 30)is the end result of related processes of learning and differential transfer. Gagne (14) holds a similar view, and both authors postulate that transfer skills are not only hierarchical in nature, but may vary from one stage of development to the next. Thus, in connection with the current problem, the poor reader may be viewed as deficient in prerequisite (transfer) skills that are unique to a given stage of reading development; and because of cumulative deficiencies at subordinate levels, he does not achieve mastery in a categorical skill, in spite of adequate conceptual potential. Gibson has recently formulated a theory of word perception (15) that may help to specify the prerequisite skills unique to the reading process. She suggests that words, as well as other entities, are perceived through the discovery of “distinctive features” and “higher-order invariants,” as a function of acquired cognitive strategies that tend toward the most economical ordering of stimulus input. The distinctive features of words are divided into four general classes: graphic, phonological, semantic, and syntactic. Gibson further suggests that in word perception these featural characteristics are processed sequentially and hierarchically and that priorities in perceptual ordering are determined by developmental changes, as well as by the demands of the task set before the perceiver. Thus, the beginning reader is more sensitive to semantic and syntactic features and associates graphic and phonological features primarily in relation to meaningful context. At an intermediate stage, when the child is learning to “break the code,” graphic and phonological similarities and differences are probably in greater awareness than are semantic and syntactic characteristics. However, as the child develops greater facility in word decoding, he becomes occupied more by the abstraction of meaning, at which time semantic and syntactic features again take precedence over graphic and phonological features (3, 27, 36). Gibson’s formulations permit a more refined analysis of the poor reader’s difficulties in associating the graphic and acoustic components of words, a process which we have already indicted as a major impediment to mastery in reading. Perhaps the most often cited (18, 22, 23) etiological hypothesis is that the poor reader sustains neurological disorder which results in
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
16
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
visual-spatial dysfunction as reflected in the orientation errors typically made in letter and word decoding (i.e., reversals, inversions, sequencing errors, etc.). However, some recent research (33, 32) demonstrates that the visual perceptual skills of poor readers are comparable to those of normal readers and indirectly implicate verbal or, more specifically, visual-verbal integration as a major source of difficulty. These data are supported by a more recent study (34), as well as by the present one, for in both, poor readers performed as well as normals in visual paired-associates learning. Thus, it is likely that perceptual differentiation of the graphic features of letters and words is not a basic deficiency contributing to symbol and sound association problems in poor readers. In the auditory area, there have been suggested difficulties in discrimination (39, 40), temporal sequencing (26, 43, 38), and lunguage development (2; 24, p. 857-869; 25, p. 9; 42). Deficiencies in any of these areas or, combinations thereof, could conceivably contribute to confusion in the detection andlor application of the phonological, semantic, and syntactic features of words, and, thus, impair visual-verbal integration. Reading disorder has also been attributed to select deficiencies in cross-modal transfer ( 1 , 4, 2 1) but this notion has been called into question by the work of Blank and her associates (6, 7, 8) and, more recently, by Vellutino, Steger, and Pruzek (34). It can be seen from the foregoing that the cause or causes of visualverbal learning probletns in poor readers is yet unknown. Most of the research findings are either conflicting or equivocal and there is need for more extensive investigation, as well as more viable etiological hypotheses. Except for those findings relevant to visual learning, the current data do not provide any basis for distinguishing among the above-mentioned hypotheses. However, they do suggest that specific reading disability as defined in the present study, is not attributable to either general or select deficiency in categorical functioning, except as a by-product of dysfunction in the acquisition of transfer skills (12, 13, 14) that impede the abstraction of “higher-order invariants” ( 15) necessary for the development of fluency in reading.
REFERENCES 1.
BEERY,J. Matching of auditory and visual stimuli by average and retarded readers.
2.
BELMONT,L . , & BIRCH,H. Intellectual profile of retarded readers. Percept. 6 Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 787-816. BIEMILLER, A. The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Read. Res. Quart., 1970, 6 , 75-96.
Child Devel., 1967, 38, 827-833.
3.
FRANK R. VELLUTINO et al.
17
BIRCH,H., & BELMONT,L. Auditory-visual integration in normal and retarded readers. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1964, 34, 852-861. BISHOP,C. H. Transfer effects of word and letter training in reading. J. Verb. Learn. 6. Verb. Behav., 1964, 3, 215-221. BLANK,M., & BRIDCER, W. Deficiencies in verbal labeling in retarded readers. Amer. J . Orthopsychiat., 1966, 36, 840-847. . Perceptual abilities and conceptual deficiencies in retarded readers. In J. Zubin (Ed.), Psychopathology of Intelligence. New York Grune & Stratton, 1967. Pp. 401-412.
BLANK,M., WEIDER, S., & BRIDGER, W. Verbal deficiencies in abstract thinking in early reading retardation. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1968, 38, 823-834. within a socio9. BRYANT,N. D. Characteristics and prevalence of reading disabili economically and racially heterogeneous city-suburban population. &published population study, Study Center for Learning Disabilities, State University of New York, Albany, 1965. 10. . Characteristics of dyslexia and their remedial implication. Ezcept. Child., 8.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
1965, 31, 195-199. 11. 12. 13. 14.
CRITCHLEY, M. The Dyslexic Child. Springfield Thomas, 1970. FERGUSON, G. A. On learning and human ability. Can. J. Psychol., 1954, 8, 95-112. . On transfer and the abilities of man. Can. J. Psychol., 1956, 10, 121-131. GAGNE,R. M. Cognitive structure in material to be learned. Psychol. Rev., 1962, 69, 355-365.
GIBSON,E. J. Perceptual learning and the theory of word perception. Cogn. Psychol., 1971, 2, 351-368. 16. GILMORE,J. V. Gilmore Oral Reading Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 15.
1951. 17. 18. 19.
20. 21.
22.
GUILFORD,J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York McGraw-Hill, 1956. HERMANN,K. Reading Disability. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1959. JEFFREY, W. E., & SAMUELS,S. J. Effect of method of reading training on initial learning and transfer. J. Verb. Learn. 6. Verb. Behav., 1967, 6, 354-358. JOHNSON,D., 81 MYKLEBUST,H. Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices. New York Grune & Stratton, 1967. MUEHL,‘S.,& KREMENAK, S. Ability to match information within and between auditory and visual sense modalities and subsequent reading achievement. J. Educ. Psychol., 1966, 57, 23G239. ORTON, S. “Word-blindness’’ in school children. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 1925, 14, 581-615.
. Reading, Writing and Speech Problems in Children. London: Chapman & Hall, 1937. 24. RABINOVITCH, R. D. Reading and learning disabilities. In S. Arieti (Ed.), American Handbook of Psychiatry. New York Basic Books, 1959. Pp. 857-869. . Reading problems in children: Definitions and classification. In A. Keeney & 25. V. Keeney (Eds.), Dyslexia: Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading Disorders. St. Louis: Mosby, 1968. Pp. 1-10. 26. SENF, G. Development of immediate memory for bisensory stimuli in normal children with learning disorders. Devel. Psychol. Monog., 1969, 1, 6. 27. SMITH, F. Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, 1971. 28. SNEDECOR, G . W. Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State COIL Press, 1956. 29. SPEARMAN,C. The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and Measurement. London: Macmillan, 1927.
23.
18 30. 31.
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
THURSTONE, L. L. Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1938.
UNDERWOOD, B. J . , & SCHULTZ, R. W. Meaningfulness and Verbal Learning. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1960. 32. VELLUTINO, F. R., STEGER,J. A,, & KANDEL,G. Reading disability: An investigation of the perceptual deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 1972, 8, 106-118. F. R., STEGER,J. A,, & PRUZEK,R. Inter- vs intrasensory deficit in paired 33. VELLUTINO, associate learning in poor and normal readers. Can. J. Behav. Sci., 1973, 5, 111-123. 34. VELLUTINO, F. R., PRUZEK, R., STEGER,J. A,, & MESHOULAM, U. Immediate visual recall in poor and normal readers as a function of orthographic-linguistic familiarity. Cortex, 1973, 9, 368-384. 35. VERNON,M. D. Backwardness in Reading: A Study of Its Nature and Origin. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1957. 36. WEBER,R. M. First graders’ use of grammatical context in reading. In H. Levin & J. Williams (Eds.), Basic Studies on Reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970. Pp. 147-163.
WECHSLER,D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Psychological Corp., 1949. R. H., & RABINOVITCH, S. Serial order ability in good and 38. WEINER,J., BARNSLEY, poor readers. Can. J. Behav. Sci., 1970, 2, 116-123. 39. WEPMAN,J. M. Auditory discrimination, speech, and reading. E k m . Sch. J . , 1960, 9,
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
37.
325-333.
. The interrelationships of hearing, speech, and reading. Read. Teach.,
40.
1961,
14, 245-247. 41.
WINER,B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill,
42.
ZANGWILL,0. L. Dyslexia in relation to cerebral dominance. In J. Money (Ed.), Reading Disability: Progress and Reseavch Needs in Dyskxia. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962. Pp. 103-113. ZURXF, E. B., & CARSON, G. Dyslexia in relation to cerebral dominance and temporal analysis. Neuropsychologia, 1970, 8, 35 1-361.
1971.
43.
Child Research and Study Center State University of New York 1400 Washington Avenue Albany, N e w York 12222
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Differential Transfer in Poor and Normal Readers Frank R. Vellutino , Constance J. Harding , Forman Phillips & Joseph A. Steger To cite this article: Frank R. Vellutino , Constance J. Harding , Forman Phillips & Joseph A. Steger (1975) Differential Transfer in Poor and Normal Readers, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126:1, 3-18, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1975.10532313 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1975.10532313
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 7
View related articles
Citing articles: 16 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [Central Michigan University]
Date: 06 November 2015, At: 22:07
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1975, 126, 3-18.
DIFFERENTIAL TRANSFER IN POOR AND NORMAL READERS*' State University of New York at Albany, Albany Medical College, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
FRANK R. VELLUTINO,CONSTANCE J. HARDING, FORMAN PHILLIPS, JOSEPH A. STEGER
AND
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
SUMMARY
It has been suggested that children who sustain specific reading disability experience difficulty in abstracting and generalizing the invariant components of words containing redundant elements because of basic dysfunction in categorical processing. This hypothesis was assessed by comparing independent samples of poor and normal readers on transfer of training tasks of two different types: a visual-verbal association task which simulated the reading process, and a visual-visual association task unlike reading. It was predicted that poor readers would perform significantly below normal readers on both initial learning and transfer under the visual-verbal association conditions. In contrast, it was expected that the performance of similar groups of poor and normal readers would be comparable under the visual-visual training and transfer conditions. The results supported these predictions, and it was concluded that the generalization problems observed in poor readers in early word learning are, most likely, attributable to transfer difficulties associated with specific disorder in visual-verbal integration, rather than primary or basic disorder in categorization ability. INTRODUCTION Because of apparent difficulty in abstracting the invariant components of given words (10, 11, 27, 35), the poor reader is inclined to treat those words containing common or predictable elements as discrete entities. The loss of economy which results from doing so thereby taxes his capacity to A.
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on September 15, 1973. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. Our thanks are expressed to Veronica Carney, Esther Senning, Sylvia Durban, Judith Miller, and Virginia Russum whose assistance in the preparation of this study was above the normal call of duty. We would also like to acknowledge and express our gratitude to the many schools in the Albany Metropolitan area that participated in this research. 3
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
4
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
process orthographic information and increases the probability of discrimination error. Since the poor reader does not acquire the generalizations necessary for word analysis, he is soon encumbered by a limited and fragmented knowledge of grapheme-phoneme relationships, has difficulty identifying even those words containing redundant information, and fails to develop a high degree of reading proficiency. Several authors have suggested that some poor readers’ generalization problems are symptomatic of basic dysfunction in categorical processing. For example, Vernon (35) and Critchley (11) both underscore the poor reader’s difficulty in establishing visual-verbal integrations, and give particular emphasis to the possibility that specific reading disability* is attributable to the failure to abstract and generalize linguistic material ( 1 1, 35). Bryant (10) makes a similar suggestion as does Rabinovitch (24, p. 857-869; 25, p. 1-10), who hypothesizes that poor readers are characterized by difficulties in abstraction and concept symbolization issuing from “broader language deficits” (25, p. 9). Blank and her associates (6, 7, 8) provide research evidence which presumably supports the suggestion of conceptual disorder in poor readers. In two separate studies it was found that the difficulties encountered by this group in establishing spatial-temporal equivalence were attributable to “verbal coding” deficiencies rather than perceptual and cross-modal integration problems as previously suggested (4, 21). Since the results were found with poor readers in both first and fourth grades, the authors conclude that “verbal coding” problems are present at the onset of reading disability and constitute a basic cause of the disorder. It is clear from the above that there is considerable uncertainty as to the nature and cause of the “conceptual” difficulties encountered by poor readers in word identification. Whether or not such problems lie at the root of reading disability or are themselves a consequence of some more basic deficit seems particularly obscure. We think it likely, however, that poor readers, with otherwise normal development, do not sustain primary disorder in categorical thinking, but are impaired in their ability to generalize (invariant) word elements across variable contexts because of basic dysfunction in acquiring lower order (grapheme-phoneme) relationships. To elaborate further, the ability to abstract and generalize similar pat-
’
Specific reading disability is intended to refer to children with reading problems not apparently attributable to subnormal intelligence, gross brain damage, peripheral sensory impairment, severe emotional disorder, inadequate home or school environment, or other extrinsic factors. In this study, the terms “reading disability” and “specif~creading disability” are used interchangeably.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
FRANK R. VELLUTINO
et al.
5
terns in stimuli characterized by common constituents is predicated on a stable knowledge of the composite features which distinguish those stimuli (12, 13, 14, IS). If for any reason such learning does not take place, there is a prolonged tendency toward discrimination error, and the chances for successful (positive) transfer are vastly reduced. Thus, we would expect that the child who has difficulty remembering the sound counterparts of the printed words cat, rat, and can will be ill-equipped to utilize the information contained in those words in decoding the “new” word ran, but it would be inaccurate to infer from this that the child is conceptually deficient in the broad sense. In other words, the verbal abstraction problems observed in poor readers may be more accurately viewed as a “transfer” problem rather than a manifestation of conceptual disorder. The foregoing generates the hypothesis that poor readers would perform as well as normals on both training and transfer tasks that require the learning of relationships unlike those characteristic of reading. In contrast, poor readers should be less apt than normals in the initial acquisition and, consequently, the transfer of relationships comparable to those involved in learning to read. In order to test the above hypothesis, independent groups of poor and normal readers were given paired-associates training and transfer tasks under either visual-visual3 or visuaherbal learning conditions. It was anticipated that poor and normal readers would not differ significantly on the training and transfer tasks administered under the visual-visual condition, but the normal readers were expected to be superior to the poor readers on both the training and transfer tasks administered under the visual-verbal condition.
B. METHOD 1. Subjects The subjects for the two experimental conditions were independently selected from the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of several elementary schools located in middle to upper-middle socioeconomic areas. An equal number of poor and normal readers were chosen from each of the schools providing subjects for the study. There were 60 subjects in each treatment condition for a total of 120. The two groups within each condition contained the same number of poor A visual association task was employed in the present study because previous research in our laboratory (32, 33, 34) has repeatedly demonstrated that the visual skills of poor and normal readers are comparable.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
6
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
and normal readers of both sexes: 23 boys and seven girls. In addition, there was an equal number of children in each grade stratification (N = 10). The age range for all subjects in the sample was between 9.3 and 13.0. The reader groups were differentiated on the basis of several selection criteria which have been found to be reliable indicants of specific reading disability (20; 24, p. 857-869). The poor readers were initially chosen from a group of children referred to the Child Research Center by reading specialists for possible inclusion in the study. Subjects for the normal reader group were initially selected from a pool of candidates who were judged by school personnel to be making satisfactory progress in reading. Prospective candidates for both reader groups were screened at the outset for gross physical and neurological defects, auditory and (uncorrected) visual acuity problems, severe emotional disorder, speech difficulties, and frequent absences from school. The research sample was then selected on the basis of intellectual and achievement criteria. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (37) was employed as the measure of intelligence. Only those with either a Verbal or Performance ZQ of 90 or above were included in the sample. Differentiation of the poor and normal readers was based upon two measures of reading achievement. The Gilmore Oral Reading Test (16) was employed to assess oral reading skill. Only those children scoring two or more years below grade level were chosen for the poor reader sample. Conversely, candidates for the normal reader group were required to have scores at or above grade level for inclusion in the study. T o further distinguish the groups, all Ss were administered a brief (35 item) test of phonic skills employing nonsense syllables (9). Table 1 summarizes the selection criteria for all groups in respective treatment conditions. It can be seen that there are no reliable differences between the poor and normal readers in mean age, grade level, Performance and Full Scale ZQ in either condition. In contrast, the differences between groups in Verbal ZQ and reading achievement are statistically significant in both conditions (p < .05). In addition, the table indicates that the two independent samples are comparable Cp > .05) with respect to the various screening measures. 2.
Materials
In order to minimize possible confounding from previous learning, novel visual designs and nonsense syllables were employed as stimuli. The same visual stimuli were used in both the visual-visual and visual-verbal conditions. There were 16 geometric designs chosen from a pool of 25 designs
a
Grade equivalents. Raw scores.
Age (months) Grade Verbal ZQ Performance ZQ Full scale ZQ Oral reading (Gilmorey Phonics skills (Bryant)b
Variables 10.55 1.00 8.12 10.80 7.55 1.56 4.11
SD
vi-vi
130.70 5.00 103.57 103.00 103.60 6.18 24.97
i 8.36 1.00 7.85 6.89 5.39 1.52 6.37
SD
Vis-Verb
130.70 5.00 103.30 103.37 103.60 6.56 24.87
2
Normal readers
13.59 1.00 10.15 9.53 8.73 .79 5.15
SD
vi-vi
132.47 5.00 99.37 102.37 101.00 3.06 11.70
-
X
11.81 1.00 8.75 11.05 9.37 .78 4.68
Vis-Verb SD 136.50 5.00 98.27 105.37 101.83 3.16 11.17
2
Poor readers
SELECTION CRITERIAFOR POORAND NORMALREADERGROUPSIN THE VISUAL-VISUAL (VISVIS) AND VISUAL-VERBAL (VIS-VERB)CONDITIONS
TABLE 1
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
g
2
8
2=!
c
’
twi
J
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
8
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
rated for associability by 90 students from the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of an area public elementary school. This school was comparable to those included in the sample with respect to socioeconomic level and general curriculum. For the 16 designs chosen, the number of different associations to each ranged from 26 to 45 (f= 34.10). The number of responses falling into the three “most popular” response categories for each design chosen comprised less than 50 percent of the total number of responses made to that design. Thus, the visual stimuli were considered to have relatively low associability. The corresponding verbal stimuli were bisyllabic nonsense words selected from Underwood and Schultz (31, Apps. A and C). Only those syllables that were both low in association and meaningfulness ratings and high in pronunciability ratings were selected. While these norms were compiled on adult subjects, the stimuli were, nonetheless, thought to be useful for present purposes. That is, stimuli judged to be low in meaning for adults can he assumed to be so for children. In addition, it was found in pilot study, that children comparable to those included in the experiment proper, had no difficulty pronouncing the nonsense syllables selected. The designs were black on white, two inches high, and approximately one inch in diameter (see Figures 1 and 2). Reliability of Criterion Measures The reliability of the criterion measures was assessed by computing split-half (odd-even) coefficients for the training and transfer tasks in both of the treatment conditions. The Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula (17) was used to obtain an estimate of the reliability of each measure. The visuahisual condition yielded the following coefficients: training, r = .9 7; transfer, r = .96. The correlations in the visuaherbal condition were comparable: training, r = .95; transfer, r = .96. 3.
4. Procedure a . Administration. The S s were tested individually at their respective schools. In every instance the experiment was conducted in a room free from extraneous noise and distraction. Testing took place during the regular school day, but time periods were randomly distributed across subjects. All subjects appeared reasonably comfortable and attentive throughout. In the Visual-Verbal Training Series, S s were told that they were going to be shown four pairs of designs and four two-syllable nonsense words that “always go together.” In each instance, S was told that a nonsense
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
FRANK R. VELLUTINO et
al.
9
word was a word that “did not make any sense and did not mean anything.” S was then shown the design pairs individually, and the nonsense word corresponding to each pair was pronounced by E. The S was requested to repeat the word after E while looking carefully at the designs. All pronunciation errors were corrected at this time. S was also instructed to remember that “the first syllable goes with the first design on the card, and the second syllable goes with the second design.” This instruction was included in order to direct Ss attention to the one-to-one correspondence between designs and syllables. After all four cards and their corresponding nonsense words had been presented to S twice in this manner (preexperimental trials), the experimental trials were begun. S was then shown only the design cards and was asked to produce their corresponding nonsense words. In all instances, S was given five seconds to respond to each card. Following each test trial, E again exposed each card and pronounced the appropriate nonsense word as in the pre-experimental trials. This alternating procedure was continued until S made the correct designnonsense word associations on two successive test trials, or for 15 acquisitions and 15 test trials. In order to avoid order effects, presentation of the four stimulus cards was randomized for each trial. The transfer tasks in both treatment conditions were designed to approximate the beginning reader’s job of distinguishing familiar (alphabetic) symbols appearing in different combinations. In the Visual-Verbal Transfer Series, the individual designs were randomly reordered, but the oneto-one relationship between designs and syllables was maintained [following Bishop and Jeffrey and Samuels ( 5 , 19)]. Thus, the verbal counterparts of the reordered visual stimuli resulted in “different” nonsense words. Directly following the training series, Ss were told that they would see cards “with the same designs as before, except the designs are in a different order.” They were also reminded of the correspondence between designs and syllables, originally paired, and were told that those individual associations “would still be the same.” Thus, the transfer procedure was identical with that for the Training Series except for initial instructions and learning criterion. Criterion for transfer was one errorless test trial, or 10 acquisition and 10 test trials if an S did not achieve criterion. Presentations of the stimuli were randomized as before. The procedure in the Visual-Visual condition was essentially the same as that in the Visual-Verbal condition, except for the responses to be learned. Subjects were presented with stimulus cards containing two pairs of designs (i.e., two designs on the left side and two on the right). Each was
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
10
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
instructed to remember that the two pairs of designs “always go together”; also, that “the first design on this side (left) goes with the first design on this side (right), and the second design over here (left) goes with the second one over here (right).” Test trials consisted of presenting S with response templates depicting the stimulus pairs, and (five) response alternatives, one of which was the correct association. S was to point to the choice he thought was correct. The stimuli and response for the training and transfer series in both conditions are presented in Figures 1 and 2 . The stimulus cards in both conditions were presented individually for five seconds. All responses, correct or incorrect, were recorded by E . The amount of time taken for testing was between 30 and 40 minutes for each child. b . Scoring. Responses in both the Visual-Verbal and Visual-Visual conditions were scored on a righuwrong basis. In the Visual-Verbal condition, production of the nonsense syllables was credited only if the syllables were produced in the correct sequence and if their phonemic structure was maintained. Choices in the Visual-Visual condition were credited only if the Ss recognized the correct alternative and so indicated. No partial credit was given for any response. Data analysis was performed on total number of correct responses.
C.
RESULTS
Because the training and transfer situations employed a different number of trials to criterion, the data were initially converted into arcsine transformations (28) for comparison of proportional differences. However, owing to high correlations found between the transformed and raw scores (mean r = .99), all subsequent analyses employed raw scores. I t was also felt that it would be clearer for present purposes, to report all results in raw scores rather than proportions; thus, it should be pointed out that the differences between training and transfer means, in all groups, are exaggerated. In addition, since preliminary computations yielded no significant interactions between grade levels and reader groups in either of the treatment conditions, the results reported exclude comparisons of performance among grade levels. Separate analyses were performed on the data obtained under the Visual-Visual and Visual-Verbal conditions. The data were analyzed by means of analysis of variance for repeated measures (41). Covariate adjustments were also made where indicated. The raw score means and
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
sI
tn
! ! a
W
tn
W lb
U
tn
2
d
I-
xx
n
h
(9
W
I
11
12
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
TRAINING SERIES
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
Visual Stimulus
Response Template
FIGURE 2 TEMPLATES FOR THE TRAININGA N D VISUAL-VISUAL CONDITION: STIMULI AND RESPONSE TRANSFERSERIES Reprinted from The Psychology ofReading, by Eleanor J . Gibson and Harry Levin, with permission from the MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. * denotes correct response.
standard deviations for the training and transfer scores of the reader groups in each of the treatments can be found in Table 2 . I t can be seen that the differences between the means of the poor and normal readers in the Visual-Visual condition are minimal in the case of both training and transfer. The results of the analysis of variance indicate that these differences are nonsignificant (p > . 0 5 ) . These data support the prediction that the learning of visual paired associates would result in
FRANK R. VELLUTINO ei!
d.
13
TABLE 2 MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TRAINING AND TRANSFERSCORES AND ADJUSTED MEANSCORES FOR TRANSFER TASKS
Scores
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
Training scores Transfer scores Adjusted transfer scores
-Normal
ViS-Vi Poor
X
SD
41.17
10.10
44.60
26.71
9.50
22.80
24.03
22.98
SD
-Normal
Vi-Verb .-
X
SD
13.70
35.11
9.10
19.20 19.38
- Poor X
SD
10.30
25.91
12.20
10.40
13.01
8.30
15.40
equivalent performance levels for poor and normal readers on both acquisition and transfer tasks. The results of the reader group comparisons in the Visual-Verbal treatment are in direct contrast to the findings in Visual-Visual learning. As anticipated, the means of the normal reader group are considerably greater than the means of the poor reader group ip both the initial learning and transfer situations (see Table 2). These differences were found to be statistically significant (F = 12.9,p < .01 for 1 and 54 a!!.). In view of the disparities found between the reader groups in Verbal ZQ, and owing to the fact that there were significant positive correlations between Verbal ZQ and each of the learning tasks in the Visual-Verbal condition (with training, r = .45; with transfer, r = .29,both for 58 ~ d f l , ~ the data were reanalyzed with covariance procedures (41). The results of the analysis indicate that initial differences in “verbal intelligence” contributed significantly to reader group differences in training and transfer, as manifested in a substantial reduction in the index reflecting these comparisons (F = 6.73, p < .05 for 1 and 53 dfl. However, as is apparent, the residual F ratio is yet statistically significant, thereby indicating that performance differences between the poor and normal readers are partly attributable to some other factor. As suggested in our initial hypothesis, a likely source of variance, in the case of the reader group differences in transfer, is the observed differences in initial learning. Since there was a moderately high correlation between training and transfer scores (r = .64),adjustments were made on the transfer scores alone, employing the training scores as the covariate. This Significant positive correlations of about the same magnitude were also found in each of the learning tasks in the Visual-Visual condition, but because there were no significant differences between the group means in this treatment, no covariance adjustments were made.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
14
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
procedure yielded a nonsignificant F ratio (p > .05)for the adjusted transfer means (see Table 2). Thus, as predicted, anticipated differences between poor and normal readers on the Visual-Verbal transfer task were largely due to group differences on the training tasks. In order to refine our observations with respect to the influence of “verbal intelligence” (Verbal ZQ) on the Visual-Verbal training task, a covariance analysis was performed on the acquisition scores only. The residual F ratio yielded by this analysis was yet statistically significant (F = 4.39, p < .05 for 1 and 53 df.). This finding suggests that observed differences between poor and normal readers in visual-verbal integration are the result of factors unique to this variable and, to a lesser extent, to variations in skills measured by the Verbal subtest of the WISC. Finally, it is noteworthy that the range of difficulty levels sampled by the tasks employed in both treatment conditions is rather wide (see Table 2) and thereby speaks for the reliability of our findings. Thus, in view of the fact that independent groups of poor and normal readers were randomly assigned to the treatments contrasted, we may safely generalize our results to like populations. In summary, the current data support the experimental prediction that there would be no performarke differences between poor and normal readers in visual-visual learning and transfer tasks, in contrast to anticipated differences between these groups in visual-verbal training and transfer. Poor readers performed as well as normal readers under the visual learning conditions, but not as well as the normals under the visual-verbal conditions. Covariate adjustments of visual-verbal transfer scores indicated that mean differences in transfer were mainly attributable to reader group differences in initial acquisition. In addition, while a significant proportion of the variance in visual-verbal training was due to group differences in “verbal intelligence,” the data suggested that the largest proportion was due to factors unique to visual-verbal integration, as defined in the present study.
D. DISCUSSION The present results support our contention that poor readers do not sustain any primary deficiency in the categorical process. Children who were judged, operationally, to be significantly impaired in reading performed as well as normal readers on visual-visual association and transfer tasks, but were less able than the normals in the initial learning and transfer of visual-verbal relationships similar to those involved in learning
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
FRANK R. VELLUTINO et al.
15
to read. These data are consistent with our suggestion that the intermediate skill of abstracting and generalizing the invariant components of words is not readily achieved by poor readers because of prior learning difficulties in the process of associating graphic symbols and sounds. The above conclusion accords with Ferguson’s (12, 13) suggestion that any given “ability” (29, 30)is the end result of related processes of learning and differential transfer. Gagne (14) holds a similar view, and both authors postulate that transfer skills are not only hierarchical in nature, but may vary from one stage of development to the next. Thus, in connection with the current problem, the poor reader may be viewed as deficient in prerequisite (transfer) skills that are unique to a given stage of reading development; and because of cumulative deficiencies at subordinate levels, he does not achieve mastery in a categorical skill, in spite of adequate conceptual potential. Gibson has recently formulated a theory of word perception (15) that may help to specify the prerequisite skills unique to the reading process. She suggests that words, as well as other entities, are perceived through the discovery of “distinctive features” and “higher-order invariants,” as a function of acquired cognitive strategies that tend toward the most economical ordering of stimulus input. The distinctive features of words are divided into four general classes: graphic, phonological, semantic, and syntactic. Gibson further suggests that in word perception these featural characteristics are processed sequentially and hierarchically and that priorities in perceptual ordering are determined by developmental changes, as well as by the demands of the task set before the perceiver. Thus, the beginning reader is more sensitive to semantic and syntactic features and associates graphic and phonological features primarily in relation to meaningful context. At an intermediate stage, when the child is learning to “break the code,” graphic and phonological similarities and differences are probably in greater awareness than are semantic and syntactic characteristics. However, as the child develops greater facility in word decoding, he becomes occupied more by the abstraction of meaning, at which time semantic and syntactic features again take precedence over graphic and phonological features (3, 27, 36). Gibson’s formulations permit a more refined analysis of the poor reader’s difficulties in associating the graphic and acoustic components of words, a process which we have already indicted as a major impediment to mastery in reading. Perhaps the most often cited (18, 22, 23) etiological hypothesis is that the poor reader sustains neurological disorder which results in
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
16
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
visual-spatial dysfunction as reflected in the orientation errors typically made in letter and word decoding (i.e., reversals, inversions, sequencing errors, etc.). However, some recent research (33, 32) demonstrates that the visual perceptual skills of poor readers are comparable to those of normal readers and indirectly implicate verbal or, more specifically, visual-verbal integration as a major source of difficulty. These data are supported by a more recent study (34), as well as by the present one, for in both, poor readers performed as well as normals in visual paired-associates learning. Thus, it is likely that perceptual differentiation of the graphic features of letters and words is not a basic deficiency contributing to symbol and sound association problems in poor readers. In the auditory area, there have been suggested difficulties in discrimination (39, 40), temporal sequencing (26, 43, 38), and lunguage development (2; 24, p. 857-869; 25, p. 9; 42). Deficiencies in any of these areas or, combinations thereof, could conceivably contribute to confusion in the detection andlor application of the phonological, semantic, and syntactic features of words, and, thus, impair visual-verbal integration. Reading disorder has also been attributed to select deficiencies in cross-modal transfer ( 1 , 4, 2 1) but this notion has been called into question by the work of Blank and her associates (6, 7, 8) and, more recently, by Vellutino, Steger, and Pruzek (34). It can be seen from the foregoing that the cause or causes of visualverbal learning probletns in poor readers is yet unknown. Most of the research findings are either conflicting or equivocal and there is need for more extensive investigation, as well as more viable etiological hypotheses. Except for those findings relevant to visual learning, the current data do not provide any basis for distinguishing among the above-mentioned hypotheses. However, they do suggest that specific reading disability as defined in the present study, is not attributable to either general or select deficiency in categorical functioning, except as a by-product of dysfunction in the acquisition of transfer skills (12, 13, 14) that impede the abstraction of “higher-order invariants” ( 15) necessary for the development of fluency in reading.
REFERENCES 1.
BEERY,J. Matching of auditory and visual stimuli by average and retarded readers.
2.
BELMONT,L . , & BIRCH,H. Intellectual profile of retarded readers. Percept. 6 Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 787-816. BIEMILLER, A. The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Read. Res. Quart., 1970, 6 , 75-96.
Child Devel., 1967, 38, 827-833.
3.
FRANK R. VELLUTINO et al.
17
BIRCH,H., & BELMONT,L. Auditory-visual integration in normal and retarded readers. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1964, 34, 852-861. BISHOP,C. H. Transfer effects of word and letter training in reading. J. Verb. Learn. 6. Verb. Behav., 1964, 3, 215-221. BLANK,M., & BRIDCER, W. Deficiencies in verbal labeling in retarded readers. Amer. J . Orthopsychiat., 1966, 36, 840-847. . Perceptual abilities and conceptual deficiencies in retarded readers. In J. Zubin (Ed.), Psychopathology of Intelligence. New York Grune & Stratton, 1967. Pp. 401-412.
BLANK,M., WEIDER, S., & BRIDGER, W. Verbal deficiencies in abstract thinking in early reading retardation. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1968, 38, 823-834. within a socio9. BRYANT,N. D. Characteristics and prevalence of reading disabili economically and racially heterogeneous city-suburban population. &published population study, Study Center for Learning Disabilities, State University of New York, Albany, 1965. 10. . Characteristics of dyslexia and their remedial implication. Ezcept. Child., 8.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
1965, 31, 195-199. 11. 12. 13. 14.
CRITCHLEY, M. The Dyslexic Child. Springfield Thomas, 1970. FERGUSON, G. A. On learning and human ability. Can. J. Psychol., 1954, 8, 95-112. . On transfer and the abilities of man. Can. J. Psychol., 1956, 10, 121-131. GAGNE,R. M. Cognitive structure in material to be learned. Psychol. Rev., 1962, 69, 355-365.
GIBSON,E. J. Perceptual learning and the theory of word perception. Cogn. Psychol., 1971, 2, 351-368. 16. GILMORE,J. V. Gilmore Oral Reading Test. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 15.
1951. 17. 18. 19.
20. 21.
22.
GUILFORD,J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York McGraw-Hill, 1956. HERMANN,K. Reading Disability. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1959. JEFFREY, W. E., & SAMUELS,S. J. Effect of method of reading training on initial learning and transfer. J. Verb. Learn. 6. Verb. Behav., 1967, 6, 354-358. JOHNSON,D., 81 MYKLEBUST,H. Learning Disabilities: Educational Principles and Practices. New York Grune & Stratton, 1967. MUEHL,‘S.,& KREMENAK, S. Ability to match information within and between auditory and visual sense modalities and subsequent reading achievement. J. Educ. Psychol., 1966, 57, 23G239. ORTON, S. “Word-blindness’’ in school children. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 1925, 14, 581-615.
. Reading, Writing and Speech Problems in Children. London: Chapman & Hall, 1937. 24. RABINOVITCH, R. D. Reading and learning disabilities. In S. Arieti (Ed.), American Handbook of Psychiatry. New York Basic Books, 1959. Pp. 857-869. . Reading problems in children: Definitions and classification. In A. Keeney & 25. V. Keeney (Eds.), Dyslexia: Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading Disorders. St. Louis: Mosby, 1968. Pp. 1-10. 26. SENF, G. Development of immediate memory for bisensory stimuli in normal children with learning disorders. Devel. Psychol. Monog., 1969, 1, 6. 27. SMITH, F. Understanding Reading: A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading and Learning to Read. New York: Holt, 1971. 28. SNEDECOR, G . W. Statistical Methods. Ames: Iowa State COIL Press, 1956. 29. SPEARMAN,C. The Abilities of Man: Their Nature and Measurement. London: Macmillan, 1927.
23.
18 30. 31.
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
THURSTONE, L. L. Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1938.
UNDERWOOD, B. J . , & SCHULTZ, R. W. Meaningfulness and Verbal Learning. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1960. 32. VELLUTINO, F. R., STEGER,J. A,, & KANDEL,G. Reading disability: An investigation of the perceptual deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 1972, 8, 106-118. F. R., STEGER,J. A,, & PRUZEK,R. Inter- vs intrasensory deficit in paired 33. VELLUTINO, associate learning in poor and normal readers. Can. J. Behav. Sci., 1973, 5, 111-123. 34. VELLUTINO, F. R., PRUZEK, R., STEGER,J. A,, & MESHOULAM, U. Immediate visual recall in poor and normal readers as a function of orthographic-linguistic familiarity. Cortex, 1973, 9, 368-384. 35. VERNON,M. D. Backwardness in Reading: A Study of Its Nature and Origin. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1957. 36. WEBER,R. M. First graders’ use of grammatical context in reading. In H. Levin & J. Williams (Eds.), Basic Studies on Reading. New York: Basic Books, 1970. Pp. 147-163.
WECHSLER,D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Psychological Corp., 1949. R. H., & RABINOVITCH, S. Serial order ability in good and 38. WEINER,J., BARNSLEY, poor readers. Can. J. Behav. Sci., 1970, 2, 116-123. 39. WEPMAN,J. M. Auditory discrimination, speech, and reading. E k m . Sch. J . , 1960, 9,
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 22:07 06 November 2015
37.
325-333.
. The interrelationships of hearing, speech, and reading. Read. Teach.,
40.
1961,
14, 245-247. 41.
WINER,B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill,
42.
ZANGWILL,0. L. Dyslexia in relation to cerebral dominance. In J. Money (Ed.), Reading Disability: Progress and Reseavch Needs in Dyskxia. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962. Pp. 103-113. ZURXF, E. B., & CARSON, G. Dyslexia in relation to cerebral dominance and temporal analysis. Neuropsychologia, 1970, 8, 35 1-361.
1971.
43.
Child Research and Study Center State University of New York 1400 Washington Avenue Albany, N e w York 12222
