Rapid Automatized Naming and Reading Performance: A Meta-Analysis
Rapid Automatized Naming and Reading Performance: A Meta-Analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/edu0000006
复制
发表时间：
2015-08-01
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
Faisca, Luis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Araujo, Susana;Reis, Alexandra;Faisca, Luis
近年来，有越来越多的证据表明，快速命名技能与阅读能力有关。然而，有相当大的变化，在文献中关于这种关系的大小。本研究的目的是提供一个全面的分析证据之间的关系快速自动化命名（RAN）和阅读性能。为此，我们对这两个结构之间的相关性进行了荟萃分析，以（a）确定RAN读数关联的总体强度，（B）确定系统调节这种关系的变量。对来自137项研究（857个效应量; 28，826名参与者）的数据进行的随机效应模型分析表明，RAN与阅读表现之间存在中度至强烈的关系（r = 0.43，I-2 = 68.40）。进一步的分析表明，RAN有助于阅读的4个措施（字阅读，文本阅读，非字阅读，和阅读理解），但更高的系数出现有利于真实的的字阅读和文本阅读。RAN刺激类型和阅读得分类型是对RAN-阅读关系的大小具有最大调节作用的因素。正字法的一致性和受试者的年级水平也被发现影响这种关系，尽管这种影响取决于阅读结果。受试者的阅读熟练程度是否在这种关系中起作用则不太明显。对未来研究的意义进行了讨论。
Evidence that rapid naming skill is associated with reading ability has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. However, there is considerable variation in the literature concerning the magnitude of this relationship. The objective of the present study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the evidence on the relationship between rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading performance. To this end, we conducted a meta-analysis of the correlational relationship between these 2 constructs to (a) determine the overall strength of the RAN-reading association and (b) identify variables that systematically moderate this relationship. A random-effects model analysis of data from 137 studies (857 effect sizes; 28,826 participants) indicated a moderate-to-strong relationship between RAN and reading performance (r = .43, I-2 = 68.40). Further analyses revealed that RAN contributes to the 4 measures of reading (word reading, text reading, non-word reading, and reading comprehension), but higher coefficients emerged in favor of real word reading and text reading. RAN stimulus type and type of reading score were the factors with the greatest moderator effect on the magnitude of the RAN-reading relationship. The consistency of orthography and the subjects' grade level were also found to impact this relationship, although the effect was contingent on reading outcome. It was less evident whether the subjects' reading proficiency played a role in the relationship. Implications for future studies are discussed.