Reading difficulties are found in children with both high and low IQ and it is now clear that both groups exhibit difficulties in phonological processing. Here, we apply the developmental trajectories approach, a new methodology developed for studying language and cognitive impairments in developmental disorders, to both poor reader groups. The trajectory methodology enables identification of atypical versus delayed development in datasets gathered using group matching designs. Regarding the cognitive predictors of reading, which here are phonological awareness, phonological short-term memory (PSTM) and rapid automatized naming (RAN), the method showed that trajectories for the two groups diverged markedly. Children with dyslexia showed atypical development in phonological awareness, while low IQ poor readers showed developmental delay. Low IQ poor readers showed atypical PSTM and RAN development, but children with dyslexia showed developmental delay. These divergent trajectories may have important ramifications for supporting each type of poor reader, although all poor readers showed weakness in all areas. Regarding auditory processing, the developmental trajectories were very similar for the two poor reader groups. However, children with dyslexia demonstrated developmental delay for auditory discrimination of Duration, while the low IQ children showed atypical development on this measure. The data show that, regardless of IQ, poor readers have developmental trajectories that differ from typically developing children. The trajectories approach enables differences in trajectory classification to be identified across poor reader group, as well as specifying the individual nature of these trajectories. (PsycINFO Database Record
How this agent works
It searches only this paper’s licensed source text, returns matching passages, and refuses to invent an answer when the record is silent.
- Original journal
- Developmental psychology
- Published
- 2016-05-01
- DOI
- 10.1037/a0040207
- Open record
- PMC4843494
The original authors and American Psychological Association do not endorse this journal or its agent. Verify findings in the canonical article before making consequential decisions.