4.3 Article

Longitudinal Stability of Reading-Related Skills and Their Prediction of Reading Development

期刊

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF READING
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 111-136

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10888431003604058

关键词

-

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [P50 HD027802-070002, P50 HD027802-17, P50 HD027802-120002, P50 HD027802-140007, P50 HD027802-130002, P50 HD027802-090002, P50 HD027802-140002, P50 HD027802-080002, P50 HD027802-070005, P50 HD027802-100002, P50 HD027802-120007, P50 HD027802-19, P50 HD027802-080005, P50 HD027802-150002, P50 HD027802-110007, P50 HD027802-090005, P50 HD027802-190002, P50 HD027802-150007, P50 HD027802-110002, P50 HD027802-130007, P50 HD027802-180002, P50 HD027802-16, P50 HD027802-18, P50 HD027802, P50 HD027802-100005] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCD NIH HHS [R01 DC005190] Funding Source: Medline
  3. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P50HD027802] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual differences in word recognition, spelling, and reading comprehension for 324 children at a mean age of 16 were predicted from their reading-related skills (phoneme awareness, phonological decoding, rapid naming, and IQ) at a mean age of 10 years, after controlling the predictors for the autoregressive effects of the correlated reading skills. There were significant and longitudinally stable individual differences for all four reading-related skills that were independent from each of the reading and spelling skills. Yet the only significant longitudinal prediction of reading skills was from IQ at mean age 10 for reading comprehension at mean age 16. The extremely high longitudinal latent-trait stability correlations for individual differences in word recognition (.98) and spelling (.95) left little independent outcome variance that could be predicted by the reading-related skills. We discuss the practical and theoretical importance of these results and why they differ from studies of younger children.

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

4.3
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