Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-analysis

IF 2.1 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Annals of Dyslexia Pub Date : 2021-03-12 DOI:10.1007/s11881-021-00220-6

George K. Georgiou, Dalia Martinez, Ana Paula Alves Vieira, Kan Guo

{"title":"Is orthographic knowledge a strength or a weakness in individuals with dyslexia? Evidence from a meta-analysis","authors":"George K. Georgiou, Dalia Martinez, Ana Paula Alves Vieira, Kan Guo","doi":"10.1007/s11881-021-00220-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine if individuals with dyslexia (DYS) have a deficit in orthographic knowledge. We reviewed a total of 68 studies published between January 1990 and December 2019, representing a total of 7215 participants. There were 80 independent samples in the chronological-age (CA)-DYS comparison and 33 independent samples in the comparison between DYS and reading-level (RL) controls. A random-effects model analysis revealed a large effect size (Cohen’s <i>d</i> = 1.17) for the CA-DYS comparison and a small effect size (Cohen’s <i>d</i> = 0.18) for the RL-DYS comparison. In addition, we found significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes that was partly explained by the level of orthographic knowledge (effect sizes being higher for lexical than sub-lexical orthographic knowledge). These results suggest that individuals with dyslexia experience an orthographic knowledge deficit that is as large as that of phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming reported in previous meta-analyses.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47273,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Dyslexia","volume":"71 1","pages":"5 - 27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11881-021-00220-6","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Dyslexia","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11881-021-00220-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 13

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine if individuals with dyslexia (DYS) have a deficit in orthographic knowledge. We reviewed a total of 68 studies published between January 1990 and December 2019, representing a total of 7215 participants. There were 80 independent samples in the chronological-age (CA)-DYS comparison and 33 independent samples in the comparison between DYS and reading-level (RL) controls. A random-effects model analysis revealed a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.17) for the CA-DYS comparison and a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.18) for the RL-DYS comparison. In addition, we found significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes that was partly explained by the level of orthographic knowledge (effect sizes being higher for lexical than sub-lexical orthographic knowledge). These results suggest that individuals with dyslexia experience an orthographic knowledge deficit that is as large as that of phonological awareness and rapid automatized naming reported in previous meta-analyses.

Abstract Image

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

拼写知识是阅读障碍患者的优势还是劣势？荟萃分析的证据

这项荟萃分析的目的是检查阅读障碍（DYS）患者是否在拼写知识方面存在缺陷。我们回顾了1990年1月至2019年12月期间发表的68项研究，共有7215名参与者。在按年龄顺序（CA）-DYS比较中有80个独立样本，在DYS和阅读水平（RL）对照之间的比较中有33个独立样本。随机效应模型分析显示，CA-DYS比较的效应大小较大（Cohen’s d=1.17），RL-DYS比较的效应尺寸较小（Cohen‘s d=0.18）。此外，我们发现效果大小存在显著的异质性，这在一定程度上可以由拼写知识水平来解释（词汇拼写知识的效果大小高于亚词汇拼写知识）。这些结果表明，阅读障碍患者的拼写知识缺陷与先前荟萃分析中报道的语音意识和快速自动命名一样大。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Annals of Dyslexia Multiple-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

8.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Annals of Dyslexia is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the scientific study of dyslexia, its comorbid conditions; and theory-based practices on remediation, and intervention of dyslexia and related areas of written language disorders including spelling, composing and mathematics. Primary consideration for publication is given to original empirical studies, significant review, and well-documented reports of evidence-based effective practices. Only original papers are considered for publication.