4.2 Article

Associated reading skills in children with a history of Specific Language Impairment (SLI)

Journal

READING AND WRITING
Volume 19, Issue 1, Pages 77-98

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-005-4322-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-000-27-0003] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A large cohort of 200 eleven-year-old children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) were assessed on basic reading accuracy and on reading comprehension as well as language tasks. Reading skills were examined descriptively and in relation to early language and literacy factors. Using stepwise regression analyses in which age and nonverbal IQ were controlled for, it was found that a single word reading measure taken at 7 years was unsurprisingly a strong predictor of the two different types of reading. ability. However, even with this measure included, a receptive syntax task (TROG) entered when reading accuracy score was the DV. Furthermore, a test of expressive syntax/narrative and a receptive syntax task completed at 7 years entered into the model for word reading accuracy. When early reading accuracy was excluded from the analyses, early phonological skills also entered as a predictor of both reading accuracy and comprehension at I I years. The group of children with a history of SLI were then divided into those with no literacy difficulties at I I and those with some persisting literacy impairment. Using stepwise logistic regression, and again controlling for IQ and age, 7 years receptive syntax score (but not tests of phonology, expressive vocabulary or expressive syntax/narrative) entered as a positive predictor of membership of the 'no literacy problems' group regardless of whether early reading accuracy was controlled for in step one. The findings are discussed in relation to the overlap of SLI and dyslexia and the long term sequelae of language impairment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available