| Summary: | The construct of compensation was adopted as a theoretical point of
reference in a follow-up study of young adults with childhood diagnoses of
developmental dyslexia (AD). Using a reading-level (RL) and chronological age-
matched (CA) design, the AD's connected discourse reading skills were evaluated
to determine the extent to which they were appropriate for their age and for
their level of word recognition skill. The AD sample was expected to present with
deficient word recognition and lower-order oral language skills. It was also
expected that individual differences in connected discourse reading achievement
and information processing would be associated with differences in oral language
skills. Specifically, it was expected that the AD subjects with the best
connected discourse reading skills would be those with the best general knowledge
and higher-order oral language skills. It was also expected that the AD would
present with qualitatively different information processing to compensate for
weaknesses in lower-order language and phonological coding.
Consistent with predictions, the AD group fell significantly behind the CA
group on most aspects of reading skill for both accuracy and rate. The connected
discourse reading achievement levels of the AD group were comparable to the
younger RL group (mean age 12 years). The AD subjects, however, fell
significantly below the RL group on phonological coding. For the most part, the
oral language and general information skills of the AD group were comparable to
the RL group. However, the AD group had significantly better scores on two
measures of vocabulary knowledge. As predicted, the AD participants with the best
reading comprehension skills were those with the best higher-order oral language
skills. When AD subjects encountered connected discourse reading tasks for which
the accuracy and speed requirements were demanding, the best predictors of
reading achievement outcomes were word recognition and spelling skills. Although
the achievement outcomes of the AD group were comparable to the RL group, their
information processing was characterized as being qualitatively different. The
results were interpreted as providing support for a model of dyslexic reading
that features an interactive-compensatory component.
|
|---|
