4.5 Article

Automaticity as an Independent Trait in Predicting Reading Outcomes in Middle-School

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 57, 期 3, 页码 361-375

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/dev0001153

关键词

automatic word recognition; reading; fluency; backward masking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many middle school students struggle with basic reading skills, possibly due to a lack of automaticity in word-level lexical processes. Research using a backward masking paradigm showed that decoding ability was uniquely predicted by knowledge, while fluency was uniquely predicted by automaticity. Automaticity was found to be a stable and reliable predictor of skills in average to struggling middle school students.
Many middle-school students struggle with basic reading skills. One reason for this might be a lack of automaticity in word-level lexical processes. To investigate this, we used a novel backward masking paradigm, in which a written word is either covered with a mask or not. Participants (N = 444 [after exclusions]; n(female) = 264, n(male) = 180) were average to struggling middle-school students from an urban area in Eastern Iowa that were all native speakers of English and were roughly equally from grades 6, 7, and 8 (average age: 13 years). Two-hundred-fifty-five students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, a proxy for economic disadvantage. Participants completed different masked and unmasked task versions where they read a word and selected a response (e.g., a pictured referent). This was related to standardized measures of decoding, fluency, and reading comprehension. Decoding was uniquely predicted by knowledge (unmasked performance), whereas fluency was uniquely predicted by automaticity (masked performance). Automaticity was stable across two testing points. Thus, automaticity should be considered an individually reliable marker/reading trait that uniquely predicts some skills in average to struggling middle-school students.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据