The effect of print size on reading speed in dyslexia

The effect of print size on reading speed in dyslexia
复制标题

DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-9817.2005.00273.x
复制
发表时间:
2005-08-01
影响因子:
2.7
通讯作者:
Mansfield, JS
Mansfield, JS
中科院分区:
教育学3区
文献类型:
--
作者:
O'Brien, BA;Mansfield, JS

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

本文详细介绍了一项研究,该研究预测,在各种印刷尺寸上,阅读困难的阅读将遵循与熟练阅读相同的曲线形状,在大印刷尺寸上阅读率保持恒定,而在低于临界印刷尺寸时阅读率急剧下降。它还预测,根据字母位置编码缺陷假设,有阅读困难的读者将需要更大的临界印刷尺寸才能达到最大阅读速度。针对一组 2 至 4 年级(7 至 10 岁)的诵读困难读者和 1 至 3 年级(6 至 8 岁)的非诵读困难读者,测量了 12 种印刷尺寸(从 20/12 到 20/200 字母大小的 Snellen 等效尺寸)的阅读速度。各组的单词阅读能力相等。结果证实,对于阅读困难和非阅读困难的读者来说,阅读速度与印刷尺寸的关系曲线遵循相同的两肢形状。诵读困难的阅读曲线显示出较高的临界印刷尺寸和低于临界印刷尺寸的按印刷尺寸的阅读率斜率较浅,这与字母位置编码缺陷的假设一致。非诵读困难的阅读曲线还显示,临界印刷尺寸随着年龄的增长而减小。阅读障碍阅读的发展滞后模型无法解释结果,因为最大阅读率的临界印刷尺寸的回归在各组之间存在差异。
This article details a study which predicted that across a wide range of print sizes dyslexic reading would follow the same curve shape as skilled reading, with constant reading rates across large print sizes and a sharp decline in reading rates below a critical print size. It also predicted that dyslexic readers would require larger critical print sizes to attain their maximum reading speeds, following the letter position coding deficit hypothesis. Reading speed was measured across twelve print sizes ranging from Snellen equivalents of 20/12 to 20/200 letter sizes for a group of dyslexic readers in Grades 2 to 4 (aged 7 to 10 years), and for non-dyslexic readers in Grades 1 to 3 (aged 6 to 8 years). The groups were equated for word reading ability. Results confirmed that reading rate-by-print size curves followed the same two-limbed shape for dyslexic and non-dyslexic readers. Dyslexic reading curves showed higher critical print sizes and shallower reading rate-by-print size slopes below the critical print size, consistent with the hypothesis of a letter-position coding deficit. Non-dyslexic reading curves also showed a decrease of critical print size with age. A developmental lag model of dyslexic reading does not account for the results, since the regression of critical print size on maximum reading rate differed between groups.