Biomedical subjects

A van der Leij

Publications and source records attributed to A van der Leij.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1994

Processing units in word reading by disabled readers.

The article addresses the issue of whether disabled readers can be instructed to use within-word (multiletter) units. Several analogy methods were employed. In Experiments 1 and 2 short lists of words that differ in only one letter were repeatedly practiced. In Experiment 3 the subjects blended written and spoken words in which the place of segmentation was systematically manipulated. Subjects were tested in all experiments on the reading of practiced words, on nonpracticed words that orthographically as well as phonologically resemble the practiced words, and on nonpracticed nonsimilar words. The findings indicate that: (1) All types of practice were beneficial for the recognition of the practiced words. (2) Transfer to the reading of novel words appeared only when graphemic and orthographic aspects of words were strongly emphasized. (3) Transfer effects were based upon the improved handling of multiletter within-word units when word lists with auditory prompts were practiced, but on improved (single) letter-sound conversions when the analysis and synthesis of isolated words and word parts was trained. (4) At least in Dutch, segmentations according to the onset-rime principle were not more useful than segmenting written and spoken words at other boundaries.

Acoustic Stimulation↗

PubMed1994

Testing the automatization deficit hypothesis of dyslexia via a dual-task paradigm.

Fourteen children with dyslexia were compared with controls matched for age and reading age on automatic processing under a dual-task paradigm. The primary task was a motor balance one, and the secondary task was an auditory-choice task. Main results show that the dyslexic group was more impaired in the dual-task condition compared to the single-task condition. The findings support the automatization deficit hypothesis of dyslexia.

Attention↗

PubMed1992

Computer-based reading and spelling practice for children with learning disabilities.

To examine the effects of computer-based reading and spelling practice on the development of reading and spelling skills, a pretest-training-posttest experiment was conducted in The Netherlands. Eleven girls and 17 boys with written language disorders (on the average, 9 years, 7 months old and performing 2 grades below age expectancy) practiced hard-to-read words under three conditions: reading from the computer screen, copying from the screen, and writing from memory after presentation on the screen. For all words, whole-word sound was available on call during practice. To assess learning effects, both a dictation and a read-aloud task were administered in which nonpracticed control words were also presented. During training, the computer kept record of several aspects of the pupils' learning behavior. It was found that copying words from the screen resulted in significantly fewer spelling errors on the posttest than writing words from memory, and that both forms of spelling practice led to fewer spelling errors than only reading words during practice. All three forms of practice improved to the same degree both the accuracy and fluency of reading the practiced words aloud. The way in which spelling and reading practice, in combination with speech feedback, support the development of phonological skills in children with written language disorders is highlighted in the discussion.

Child↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Characteristics of dyslexia in a Dutch family.

This study investigates the characteristics of 19 members of a Dutch family. Nine of them, recognized as dyslexic in their early years, are compared with six non-dyslexic members, whereas four form a non-classified category. From their personal histories, it is clear that the dyslexics had a long and troublesome educational career, while the non-dyslexics did not. However, probably because the dyslexic members had considerable intellectual resources and talents in mathematics and technical skills, most succeeded in getting degrees of a reasonably high standard and jobs that more or less matched their talents. In cognitive terms, differences in non-word processing, independent of response mode (reading, spelling, oral repetition), and in speeded word reading suggest stable deficits in phonological processing and in task-specific automatization. The spelling of words was fairly accurate, possibly because compensatory strategies were used, also indicated by remarks of the dyslexic members. Outside the reading and spelling area, only small and non-significant differences appeared in tasks tapping verbal short-term memory, rapid naming and working memory. However, the predicted discrepancy between the conceptual and the sequential factor of the Wechsler intelligence test was shown by most dyslexics. Two of the four non-classified members of the family, who could not be classified as dyslexic because no early diagnosis was made, but had experienced learning problems at school, showed more or less the same characteristics, but were less successful at school and in society. In the discussion, the use of a family control group in studies with a large age range is recommended.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Automatization aspects of dyslexia: speed limitations in word identification, sensitivity to increasing task demands, and orthographic compensation.

A study is presented in which three characteristics of dyslexia were examined: (a) speed limitations in word identification, (b) sensitivity to increasing task demands, and (c) orthographic compensation. Ten students with dyslexia (10 years old) were compared to 10 chronological-age controls and 20 reading-age controls on their performance in reading. Response latencies of the students with dyslexia were slower when familiar words, letter clusters, and nonwords had to be named. A larger word-frequency effect and a larger word-length effect in the these students indicates that they have difficulty with increasing task demands. In addition, a subword-frequency effect was found to be larger in the students with dyslexia. These differences among the three groups of students are interpreted in terms of automatization. Furthermore, it is suggested that students with dyslexia may have a preference for large orthographic units, which is used as a compensatory tool in reading.

Automatism↗