Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar/Apr;51(2):137-157.
doi: 10.1177/0022219417691048. Epub 2017 Feb 15.

Sequential Prediction of Literacy Achievement for Specific Learning Disabilities Contrasting in Impaired Levels of Language in Grades 4 to 9

Affiliations

Sequential Prediction of Literacy Achievement for Specific Learning Disabilities Contrasting in Impaired Levels of Language in Grades 4 to 9

Elizabeth A Sanders et al. J Learn Disabil. 2018 Mar/Apr.

Abstract

Sequential regression was used to evaluate whether language-related working memory components uniquely predict reading and writing achievement beyond cognitive-linguistic translation for students in Grades 4 through 9 ( N = 103) with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) in subword handwriting (dysgraphia, n = 25), word reading and spelling (dyslexia, n = 60), or oral and written language (oral and written language learning disabilities, n = 18). That is, SLDs are defined on the basis of cascading level of language impairment (subword, word, and syntax/text). A five-block regression model sequentially predicted literacy achievement from cognitive-linguistic translation (Block 1); working memory components for word-form coding (Block 2), phonological and orthographic loops (Block 3), and supervisory focused or switching attention (Block 4); and SLD groups (Block 5). Results showed that cognitive-linguistic translation explained an average of 27% and 15% of the variance in reading and writing achievement, respectively, but working memory components explained an additional 39% and 27% of variance. Orthographic word-form coding uniquely predicted nearly every measure, whereas attention switching uniquely predicted only reading. Finally, differences in reading and writing persisted between dyslexia and dysgraphia, with dysgraphia higher, even after controlling for Block 1 to 4 predictors. Differences in literacy achievement between students with dyslexia and oral and written language learning disabilities were largely explained by the Block 1 predictors. Applications to identifying and teaching students with these SLDs are discussed.

Keywords: cognitive-linguistic translation; dysgraphia; dyslexia; oral and written language learning disability (OWL LD); reading and writing achievement; specific learning disabilities; working memory components.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alloway TP, Alloway RG. Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 2010;106(1):20–29. - PubMed
    1. Anastasi A. What do intelligence tests measure? In: Anderson SB, Hemlick JS, editors. On Educational Testing: Intelligence, Performance Standards, Test Anxiety, and Latent Traits. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc; 1983. pp. 5–28.
    1. Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological Testing. 7. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1997.
    1. Baddeley AD. Working-memory. London: Oxford University Press; 1986.
    1. Baddeley AD. The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2000;4(11):417–423. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources