- Email: [email protected]
Spatial and temporal matching ability among subgroups of disabled readers
CONTEMPORARY
EDUCATIONAL
Spatial
PSYCHOLOGY
6, 306-313 (1981)
and Temporal Matching Ability among Subgroups of Disabled Readers DEBORAHN. BAUSERMAN Grufton School, Virginiu AND
JOHN E. OBRZUT University of Northern Colorado Spatial and temporal matching abilities of 67 male and female fifth and sixth grade average (18) and severely disabled readers (49) were investigated. Subjects were classified according to the Boder Diagnostic Screening Procedure readers: dysphonetic, dyseidetic, and alexic. Results of the matching task indicated that average and dyseidetic readers were better able than dysphonetic and alexic readers to match purely temporal information. When order of difficulty among the spatial and temporal tasks was analyzed, dysphonetic and alexic readers demonstrated greater difficulty with temporal information. Matching abilities were found to be less related to integration ability than to an ability to sequence temporal information. The existence of possible memory and neurological correlates is discussed.
Since reading is a task that requires translation from an auditory to a visual code and vice versa (Freides, 1974), researchers have used various paradigms of sensory integration to study the phenomenon. Sensory integration, however, includes not only those integrations made across sensory modalities (auditory-visual, visual-auditory) but also within sensory modalities; such as sequential patterning on a temporal (T) basis and simultaneous patterning on a spatial (S) basis. Possible integrations within the visual modality can be assigned the conceptual forms of SS, ST, TS, and TT. In the initial studies the addition of a visual-temporal task, using a flashing light apparatus, was used to test the hypothesis that spatial and temporal qualities within one sensory modality were of equal or greater importance than that of the individual sensory modality in determining task This research was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ed.D. degree at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado by the first author and was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid of Research from Sigma Xi. The authors wish to thank the administrators, teachers, and students who participated in the study, including Jean Dedmon, Paul Spragg, and Larry Wilson who aided in data collection. Reprint may be requested from Dr. Deborah N. Bauserman, Director of Evaluation, Training and Research, Grafton School, Box 469, Berryville, VA 22611. 306 0361-476)(/81/040306-08$02.00/O Copyright @ 1981 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
SPATIAL
AND
TEMPORAL
MATCHING
307
difficulty (Rudnick, Sterritt, & Flax, 1967; Sterritt & Rudnick, 1966). Later, all possible auditory-temporal (beeps), visual-temporal (light flashes), and visual-spatial (printed dots) combinations were used to design nine different matching tasks (Cayton, Sterritt, Gabriel, & Martin, 1974; Rudnick, Martin, & Sterritt, 1972). Sterritt, Martin, and Rudnick (1971) studied the difficulty levels of the nine tasks and found that for primary grade children the purely spatial test was the simplest; those with spatial and temporal features were intermediate and the purely temporal tests were the most difficult. Subsequent studies by other authors have partially confirmed the aforementioned results. For example, using four matching tasks (SS, ST, TS, and TT) with groups of good and poor readers, Rude1 and Denckla (1976) found that poor readers in grades two, four, and six performed poorer than good readers on ST, TS, and TT tasks. Bryden (1972) also found that the timing shifts represented by ST and TS matches were more difficult than shifts between auditory and visual stimuli for poor readers. Additionally, it was found in the Bryden (1972) study that the first task in a match usually determined the subsequent difficulty of the match. However, some researchers believe the discovery of the existence of a simple continuum of difficulty level depending upon whether the test is spatial, temporal, or both, suggests that the factor of integration (ST, TS) appears to be of little or no significance in determining test difficulty for children (Rudnick et al., 1972; Sterritt et al., 1971). Hence, it may be the sheer addition of temporal stimuli that heightens the difficulty level of task demands. The crucial determinant, then, may be whether the stimuli are simultaneous or sequential since some variable other than pattern discrimination and integration appears to be contributing to task difficulty for readers. The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ performance in spatial and temporal tasks in relation to Boder’s (1971) classification system of disabled readers. Contemporary researchers who studied disabled readers classified as dysphonetic, dyseidetic, and alexic have shown qualitative differences in reading groups of their reading-spelling skills as well as their abilities to in process sensory information (Boder, 1973; Camp & Dolcourt, 1977; Obrzut, 1979). METHOD
Subjects The sample consisted of 49 severely disabled readers (SDRs), (32 males, 17 females) and 18 average readers, (11 males, 7 females). They were selected from a larger sample of fifth grade readers in two middle SES class school districts in suburban Denver, Colorado. The students were selected on the basis of teacher ratings of good and poor reading ability and further verified as good and poor readers based on their metropolitan Achievement Test
308
BAUSERMAN AND OBRZUT
AGE,
SEX AND
IQ
OF AVERAGE
TABLE 1 SEVERELYDISABLED READERGROUPS
AND
Characteristic Group Average Dysphonetic Dyseidetic Alexic
N
IQ
SD
Males
Females
CA
17 I3 16 20
107.4 94.2 98.1 98. I
9.1 10.5 9.9 7.7
11 7 I3 12
7 6 3 8
11.7 12.1 11.8 II.6
reading scores obtained from their cumulative folders. Only subjects who scored in the average or above ranges on the WISC-R, either verbal, performance, or full scale IQ, who were free from known sensory, emotional, or physical handicaps, and who were neither bilingual nor disadvantaged were included in the sample. All readers were given the Boder (1971) Diagnostic Word Recognition-Spelling Test. The severely disabled readers demonstrated reading ability which was 2 or more years below their grade level; the average readers exhibited reading ability which was at grade level, plus or minus 1 year. On the basis of their performance, the 49 SDRs were classsified as dysphonetic (N = l3), dyseidetic (N = 16) and alexic (N = 20). Table 1 contains a summary of the characteristics of the average and disabled reader groups.
Diagnostic Word Recognition -Spelling Test Boder (1971, 1973) and subsequently Camp and Dolcourt (1977), described a method for distinguishing among normal readers and three types of severely disabled readers irrespective of the degree of retardation. Their method was based on the evaluation of the student’s ability to perform reading and spelling of phonetic and nonphonetic words both known (by sight) and unknown. On the basis of reading-spelling patterns, each subject was classified as one of the following reader types according to Boder’s (1973) procedure: Average readers
Severely disabled readers Dysphonetic readers’
Dyseidetic readers1
Readers at or above grade placement who spelled 70 to 100%of their sight vocabulary at actual grade level, who could sound out unknown phonetic equivalents to over 50% of the unknown words. Readers who were unable to spell 50% of their reading sight vocabulary at their identified reading level which was at least 2 years below grade level. Disabled readers who lacked phonetic analysis skills and tended to read/spell primarily through visual recognition of visual gestalts (whole words) known in their sight vocabulary. Spelled by sight and not by “ear,” making more than 50% “bizarre” errors. Disabled readers who were “letter blind” and reversed visual symbols. They read/spelled by phonetic analysis, decoded new words, and demonstrated good phonetic misspellings. They read/spelled by “ear” and had no visual memory for whole nonphonetic words, making more than 50% “phonetic” errors.
’ Dysphonetic and dyseidetic readers in the present sample actually committed over 70% of the spelling errors that are characteristic of their group.
SPATIAL
Alexic readers’
AND
TEMPORAL
MATCHING
309
Disabled reader/spellers who demonstrated a combined inability to develop phonetic skills and perceive letters and whole words as visual gestalts. They read 3 to 4 years below grade level and made more than 50% “bizarre” spelling errors.
Apparatus The matching task, identical to that used by Rude1and Denckla (1976) consisted of printed dot patterns (spatial stimuli) and flashes of light (tempral stimuli). The test trials ranged from three to seven dots. The printed dot patterns were presented for 2 set in the form of a printed line of dots, one pattern per page. The dots were black, 2 mm in diameter with 2 mm (short space) or 8 mm (long space) between the dots. Temporal stimuli were presented in the form of a pattern manually flashed by a flashlight through one of two apertures on a black field which were 2 mm in diameter and 8 mm apart. The flash of light lasted approximately 0.5 set; the short interval between flashes was 0.5 set, while the long pattern was 1.5 sec. There was a 2.0-set pause between the first and second pattern in all four of the tasks which included the following: (1) spatial-spatial (SS); (2) spatial-temporal (ST); (3) temporalspatial (TS): and (4) temporal-temporal (TT).
Procedure Each subject in the three severely disabled reader groups and in the average reader group received the matching test as described above. The subjects made 80 comparisons. Those comparisons were as follows: 20 each of the SS, ST, TS, and TT in a counterbalanced order, randomly assigned. Prior to each series of 20 matches, each subject was given four practice trials in the specific task followed by feedback regarding the accuracy of their performance.
Dependent Variables hfatching task. The mean scores based on the total number of incorrectly matched items in each of the four matching tasks between reader groups. Total number possible was 80. Order of difficulty. The mean scores based on the total number of errors in each of the same four matching tasks within each reader group. Total number possible was also 80.
RESULTS
Table 2 presents the mean scores of incorrectly matched items for the four groups of readers on each of the four matching tasks. A 4 x 4 analysis of variance was computed to examine the relationship among reader groups (average, dysphonetic, dyseidetic, and alexic) and matching tasks (SS, ST, TS, and TT). Analysis of the results indicated that significant main effects for reader groups, F(3,63) = 4.71, p s .Ol, and matching tasks, F (3, 189) = 48.49, p 4 .OOl, were found. However, no significant interaction effect was recorded, F(9,189) = 1.64, N.S. Z AIexic readers in this study were not quantitatively as low in reading-spelling performance as those of Boder’s group. Therefore, this group consisted of those disabled readers who committed an equal number of dysphonetic-dyseidetic errors within the 45-55% range.
310
BAUSERMAN
AND
TABLE MEAN
Matching task
ss ST TS TT
OBRZUT
2
SCORES ON MATCHING TASKS OF INCOKRECTLY FOR READER GROUPS
Average (N = 18)
Dysphonetic (N = 13)
MATCHED
ITEMS
Dyseidetic (N = 16)
Alexic (N = 20)
X
SD
x
SD
X
SD
x
SD
0.83 3.50 3.89 3.44
1.10 1.65 2.42 1.98
1.38 4.85 6.31 6.38
1.19 2.79 3.40 1.98
1.75 5.06 5.00 4.75
2.52 3.02 3.69 3.02
2.05 4.25 6.80 6.45
2.67 2.51 2.44 2.14
Since the main effects for reader groups were significant, post hoc comparisons were calculated to determine the nature of these differences. The Scheffe procedure for reader groups indicated that average readers performed significantly better than alexic readers on the TS task. In addition, average readers outperformed dysphonetic readers on the TT task. Thus the comparisons among reader groups were interpreted to mean that alexic disabled readers have greater difficulty than average readers when temporal stimuli predede spatial stimuli in matching tasks. Further, when the task requires matching stimuli which are wholly temporal in nature (TT) both alexic and dysphonetic disabled readers exhibit greater difficulty than average readers. A univariate analysis of variance was also computed for order of difficulty in the matching tasks (see Table 2 for mean scores). Results indicated that the SS task was significantly easier than either the ST, TS, or TT tasks for the average reader group, F(3,51) = 11.28, p c .OOl, dysphonetic reader group, F(3,36) = 15.55, p c .OOl, and dyseidetic reader group, F(3,45) = 8.36, p < .OOl. Although the SS task was also significantly easier than the other matching tasks for the alexic reader group, F(3,57) = 17.69, p 6 .OOl, this reader group, according to Scheffe comparisons, found the ST task easier than the TS and TT tasks. Therefore, the findings indicate that a characteristically different order of difficulty exists for alexic readers whereas the difficulty pattern may be quite similar in average and other disabled reader groups. DISCUSSION
In the present study, average and severely disabled reader groups were given four matching tasks that included variations of spatial and temporal stimuli as a measure of matching ability. Differences were found between the reader groups only when they were required to perform temporalspatial and temporal-temporal matches. Average readers were superior to alexic readers when temporal stimuli preceded spatial stimuli in matching.
SPATIAL
AND
TEMPORAL
MATCHING
311
In addition, average readers outperformed alexic and dysphonetic readers when the stimuli were wholly temporal in nature. This suggests that dysphonetic readers experienced almost as much difficulty as alexic readers in processing temporal stimuli and may support the notion of Boder (1973) that these readers least easily manipulate information requiring analytical and sequential processing. When the significant main effects were analyzed to determine the order of difficulty, it was found that the spatial-spatial task was easier than either the spatial-temporal, temporal-spatial, or temporal-temporal tasks for average dysphonetic, and dyseidetic readers. Although the spatial-spatial task was also easier than the other tasks for the alexic readers, this reader group also scored higher on the spatial-temporal task than on the temporal-spatial or temporal-temporal tasks indicative of an order pattern different from that of average or other disabled reader groups. Evidence in the present study also supports previous researchers (Cayton et al., 1974; Rudnick et al., 1972; Sterritt, et al., 1971;) who asserted that the test of intrasensory integration may be assessing some ability other than integration. That is, if integrative ability differentiates among children who vary on characteristics of interest, such as reading, then the spatial-temporal and temporal-spatial sequences should represent the most difficult matches. However, temporal-temporal, along with temporal-spatial, sequences were observed to be the most difficult for the present sample. The results support Bryden’s (1972) finding that the first stimulus in a match, beginning with temporal information, determines difficulty level. Therefore, some explanation other than the integration hypothesis is needed; for example, an hypothesis explaining the difficulty of processing temporal information. Another important finding was that disparate abilities exist in temporal matching performance among subgroups of severely disabled readers. For example, alexic and dysphonetic readers performed poorest on the temporal-temporal task; alexic readers also performed poorly on the temporal-spatial task. Boder (1973) described alexics as dysphonetics with more severe reading problems. Hence, Boder’s theory that these disabled readers would perform poorly on the temporal-temporal task was supported as a result of the nature of dysphonetic disorders. Results related to order of difficulty lend some support to the hypothesis that qualitative differences exist among average and various types of disabled readers. As temporal stimuli are introduced in conjunction with spatial stimuli, the order of difficulty is distinctively different for alexic readers and results in decreased matching performance. Alexic readers in contrast to other types may be experiencing more of a general deficit in
312
BAUSERMAN
AND OBRZUT
serial organization that affects responses to both modalities and stimulus materials. The results of this study are also consistent with the suggestion by Obrzut (1979) that dysphonetic readers may be reflecting a neurological problem specific to the left hemisphere, while dyseidetic readers may be reflecting problems specific to the right hemisphere. It has been generally established that the left hemisphere is the major hemisphere in mediating linguistic, analytic, sequential processing, and that the right hemisphere is the major hemisphere for mediating nonlinguistic, spatial, holistic processing (e.g., Dimond & Beaumont, 1974; Kinsbourne & Smith, 1974). The qualitative analysis of performance in the alexic and dysphonetic groups (difficulty in temporal-temporal matching) may reflect deficits in their abilities to analyze and sequence stimuli whereas the dyseidetics demonstrate deficits in gestalt and spatial processing. In this respect, Efron (1963) reported data that suggest the left hemisphere may be important for temporal processing while others (Fontenot & Benton, 1971; Hecean, 1969; Miller 1972) have suggested that the right hemisphere may be important in mediating spatial perception. Thus, the readers in this study who had the most difficulty processing temporal stimuli may be reflecting deficits related to left hemisphere functioning. Evidence has been suggestive, further, that the sequencing or temporal processing ability required by sensory matching tasks may be related to some form of memory capacity. Thus, investigators in sensory integration research have posited that ordering sequential information, a type of amodal stimulus organization, may be an influential component within memory abilities (Farnham-Diggory & Gregg, 1975; McKeever & Van Denventer, 1975). Researchers who would study directly the contribution of memory skills to temporal processing abilities would demarcate a productive direction for future study. REFERENCES BODER, E. Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic screening procedure based on three characteristic patterns of reading and spelling. In B. Bateman, Learning disorders. Washington, D.C.: Special Child Publications, 1971. Vol. 4. BODER, E. Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental Medical and’ Child Neurology. 1973, 15, 663-687.
BRYDEN, M. Auditory-visual and sequential-spatial matching in relation to reading ability. Child Development, 1972, 43, 824-832. CAMP, B., & DOLCOURT,J. Reading and spelling in good and poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 300-307. CAYTON, J., STERRITT, G., GABRIEL, R., & MARTIN, V. Do auditory-visual or temporal-spatial integration abilities relate to reading? Unpublished manuscript, 1974.
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL MATCHING
313
DIMOND, S. J., & BEAUMONT, J. G. (Eds.) Hemisphere function in the human bruin. London: Paul Elek, 1974. EFRON, R. Temporal perception, aphasia, and dkji vu. Brain, 1963, 86, 403-424. FARNHAM-DIGGORY,S., & GREGG,L. Short-term memory function in young readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1975, 19, 279-298. FONTENOT, D. J., & BENTON, A. L. Tactile perception of direction in relation to hemisphere locus of lesion. Nellrops~chologicl. 1971, 9, 83-88. FREIDES,D. Human information processing and sensory modality: Cross-modal functions, information complexity, memory. and deficienty. PsychologicuI Bulletin, 1974, 81, 284-310. HECEAN, H. Aphasic, apraxic, and agnostic syndromes in right and left hemisphere lesions. Handbook
of Clinical
Neurology.
1969, 4, 291-311.
KINSBOURNE, M., & SMITH, W. L. Hemisphere disconnection and cerebral function. Springfield, III. Thomas, 1974. MCKEEVER, W. & VAN DENVENTER,A. Dyslexic adolescents: Evidence of impaired visual and auditory language processing associated with normal lateralization and visual responsivity. Cortex, 1975, 11, 361-378. MILLER, E. C/inicu/ neuropsychologv. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1972. OBRZUT, J. E. Dichotic listening and bisensory memory skills in qualitatively diverse dysDisabilities, 1979, 12, 304-314. lexic readers. Journul oj’Leurning RUDEL, R. G., & DENCKLA, M. Relationship of I.Q. and reading score to visual, spatial, and temporal matching tasks. Jortrnul of Leurning Disubilities. 1976, 9, 42-51. RUDNICK, M., MARTIN, V., & STERRITT,G. On the relative difficulty of auditory and visual temporal and spatial, integrative and non-integrative sequential pattern comparison. Psyhonomic Science. 1972, 27, 207-210. RUDNICK, M., STERRITT,G., & FLAX, Auditory and visual rhythm perception and reading ability. Child Development, 1967, 38, 581-587. STERRITT,G., MARTIN. M., & RUDNICK, M. Auditory-visual and temporal-spatialintegration as determinants of test difficulty. Psychonomic Science. 1971, 23, 289-291. STERRITT,G., & RUDNICK, M. Auditory and visual rhythm perception in relation to reading ability in fourth grade boys. Perceptuul und Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 850-864.
EDUCATIONAL
Spatial
PSYCHOLOGY
6, 306-313 (1981)
and Temporal Matching Ability among Subgroups of Disabled Readers DEBORAHN. BAUSERMAN Grufton School, Virginiu AND
JOHN E. OBRZUT University of Northern Colorado Spatial and temporal matching abilities of 67 male and female fifth and sixth grade average (18) and severely disabled readers (49) were investigated. Subjects were classified according to the Boder Diagnostic Screening Procedure readers: dysphonetic, dyseidetic, and alexic. Results of the matching task indicated that average and dyseidetic readers were better able than dysphonetic and alexic readers to match purely temporal information. When order of difficulty among the spatial and temporal tasks was analyzed, dysphonetic and alexic readers demonstrated greater difficulty with temporal information. Matching abilities were found to be less related to integration ability than to an ability to sequence temporal information. The existence of possible memory and neurological correlates is discussed.
Since reading is a task that requires translation from an auditory to a visual code and vice versa (Freides, 1974), researchers have used various paradigms of sensory integration to study the phenomenon. Sensory integration, however, includes not only those integrations made across sensory modalities (auditory-visual, visual-auditory) but also within sensory modalities; such as sequential patterning on a temporal (T) basis and simultaneous patterning on a spatial (S) basis. Possible integrations within the visual modality can be assigned the conceptual forms of SS, ST, TS, and TT. In the initial studies the addition of a visual-temporal task, using a flashing light apparatus, was used to test the hypothesis that spatial and temporal qualities within one sensory modality were of equal or greater importance than that of the individual sensory modality in determining task This research was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ed.D. degree at the University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado by the first author and was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid of Research from Sigma Xi. The authors wish to thank the administrators, teachers, and students who participated in the study, including Jean Dedmon, Paul Spragg, and Larry Wilson who aided in data collection. Reprint may be requested from Dr. Deborah N. Bauserman, Director of Evaluation, Training and Research, Grafton School, Box 469, Berryville, VA 22611. 306 0361-476)(/81/040306-08$02.00/O Copyright @ 1981 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
SPATIAL
AND
TEMPORAL
MATCHING
307
difficulty (Rudnick, Sterritt, & Flax, 1967; Sterritt & Rudnick, 1966). Later, all possible auditory-temporal (beeps), visual-temporal (light flashes), and visual-spatial (printed dots) combinations were used to design nine different matching tasks (Cayton, Sterritt, Gabriel, & Martin, 1974; Rudnick, Martin, & Sterritt, 1972). Sterritt, Martin, and Rudnick (1971) studied the difficulty levels of the nine tasks and found that for primary grade children the purely spatial test was the simplest; those with spatial and temporal features were intermediate and the purely temporal tests were the most difficult. Subsequent studies by other authors have partially confirmed the aforementioned results. For example, using four matching tasks (SS, ST, TS, and TT) with groups of good and poor readers, Rude1 and Denckla (1976) found that poor readers in grades two, four, and six performed poorer than good readers on ST, TS, and TT tasks. Bryden (1972) also found that the timing shifts represented by ST and TS matches were more difficult than shifts between auditory and visual stimuli for poor readers. Additionally, it was found in the Bryden (1972) study that the first task in a match usually determined the subsequent difficulty of the match. However, some researchers believe the discovery of the existence of a simple continuum of difficulty level depending upon whether the test is spatial, temporal, or both, suggests that the factor of integration (ST, TS) appears to be of little or no significance in determining test difficulty for children (Rudnick et al., 1972; Sterritt et al., 1971). Hence, it may be the sheer addition of temporal stimuli that heightens the difficulty level of task demands. The crucial determinant, then, may be whether the stimuli are simultaneous or sequential since some variable other than pattern discrimination and integration appears to be contributing to task difficulty for readers. The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ performance in spatial and temporal tasks in relation to Boder’s (1971) classification system of disabled readers. Contemporary researchers who studied disabled readers classified as dysphonetic, dyseidetic, and alexic have shown qualitative differences in reading groups of their reading-spelling skills as well as their abilities to in process sensory information (Boder, 1973; Camp & Dolcourt, 1977; Obrzut, 1979). METHOD
Subjects The sample consisted of 49 severely disabled readers (SDRs), (32 males, 17 females) and 18 average readers, (11 males, 7 females). They were selected from a larger sample of fifth grade readers in two middle SES class school districts in suburban Denver, Colorado. The students were selected on the basis of teacher ratings of good and poor reading ability and further verified as good and poor readers based on their metropolitan Achievement Test
308
BAUSERMAN AND OBRZUT
AGE,
SEX AND
IQ
OF AVERAGE
TABLE 1 SEVERELYDISABLED READERGROUPS
AND
Characteristic Group Average Dysphonetic Dyseidetic Alexic
N
IQ
SD
Males
Females
CA
17 I3 16 20
107.4 94.2 98.1 98. I
9.1 10.5 9.9 7.7
11 7 I3 12
7 6 3 8
11.7 12.1 11.8 II.6
reading scores obtained from their cumulative folders. Only subjects who scored in the average or above ranges on the WISC-R, either verbal, performance, or full scale IQ, who were free from known sensory, emotional, or physical handicaps, and who were neither bilingual nor disadvantaged were included in the sample. All readers were given the Boder (1971) Diagnostic Word Recognition-Spelling Test. The severely disabled readers demonstrated reading ability which was 2 or more years below their grade level; the average readers exhibited reading ability which was at grade level, plus or minus 1 year. On the basis of their performance, the 49 SDRs were classsified as dysphonetic (N = l3), dyseidetic (N = 16) and alexic (N = 20). Table 1 contains a summary of the characteristics of the average and disabled reader groups.
Diagnostic Word Recognition -Spelling Test Boder (1971, 1973) and subsequently Camp and Dolcourt (1977), described a method for distinguishing among normal readers and three types of severely disabled readers irrespective of the degree of retardation. Their method was based on the evaluation of the student’s ability to perform reading and spelling of phonetic and nonphonetic words both known (by sight) and unknown. On the basis of reading-spelling patterns, each subject was classified as one of the following reader types according to Boder’s (1973) procedure: Average readers
Severely disabled readers Dysphonetic readers’
Dyseidetic readers1
Readers at or above grade placement who spelled 70 to 100%of their sight vocabulary at actual grade level, who could sound out unknown phonetic equivalents to over 50% of the unknown words. Readers who were unable to spell 50% of their reading sight vocabulary at their identified reading level which was at least 2 years below grade level. Disabled readers who lacked phonetic analysis skills and tended to read/spell primarily through visual recognition of visual gestalts (whole words) known in their sight vocabulary. Spelled by sight and not by “ear,” making more than 50% “bizarre” errors. Disabled readers who were “letter blind” and reversed visual symbols. They read/spelled by phonetic analysis, decoded new words, and demonstrated good phonetic misspellings. They read/spelled by “ear” and had no visual memory for whole nonphonetic words, making more than 50% “phonetic” errors.
’ Dysphonetic and dyseidetic readers in the present sample actually committed over 70% of the spelling errors that are characteristic of their group.
SPATIAL
Alexic readers’
AND
TEMPORAL
MATCHING
309
Disabled reader/spellers who demonstrated a combined inability to develop phonetic skills and perceive letters and whole words as visual gestalts. They read 3 to 4 years below grade level and made more than 50% “bizarre” spelling errors.
Apparatus The matching task, identical to that used by Rude1and Denckla (1976) consisted of printed dot patterns (spatial stimuli) and flashes of light (tempral stimuli). The test trials ranged from three to seven dots. The printed dot patterns were presented for 2 set in the form of a printed line of dots, one pattern per page. The dots were black, 2 mm in diameter with 2 mm (short space) or 8 mm (long space) between the dots. Temporal stimuli were presented in the form of a pattern manually flashed by a flashlight through one of two apertures on a black field which were 2 mm in diameter and 8 mm apart. The flash of light lasted approximately 0.5 set; the short interval between flashes was 0.5 set, while the long pattern was 1.5 sec. There was a 2.0-set pause between the first and second pattern in all four of the tasks which included the following: (1) spatial-spatial (SS); (2) spatial-temporal (ST); (3) temporalspatial (TS): and (4) temporal-temporal (TT).
Procedure Each subject in the three severely disabled reader groups and in the average reader group received the matching test as described above. The subjects made 80 comparisons. Those comparisons were as follows: 20 each of the SS, ST, TS, and TT in a counterbalanced order, randomly assigned. Prior to each series of 20 matches, each subject was given four practice trials in the specific task followed by feedback regarding the accuracy of their performance.
Dependent Variables hfatching task. The mean scores based on the total number of incorrectly matched items in each of the four matching tasks between reader groups. Total number possible was 80. Order of difficulty. The mean scores based on the total number of errors in each of the same four matching tasks within each reader group. Total number possible was also 80.
RESULTS
Table 2 presents the mean scores of incorrectly matched items for the four groups of readers on each of the four matching tasks. A 4 x 4 analysis of variance was computed to examine the relationship among reader groups (average, dysphonetic, dyseidetic, and alexic) and matching tasks (SS, ST, TS, and TT). Analysis of the results indicated that significant main effects for reader groups, F(3,63) = 4.71, p s .Ol, and matching tasks, F (3, 189) = 48.49, p 4 .OOl, were found. However, no significant interaction effect was recorded, F(9,189) = 1.64, N.S. Z AIexic readers in this study were not quantitatively as low in reading-spelling performance as those of Boder’s group. Therefore, this group consisted of those disabled readers who committed an equal number of dysphonetic-dyseidetic errors within the 45-55% range.
310
BAUSERMAN
AND
TABLE MEAN
Matching task
ss ST TS TT
OBRZUT
2
SCORES ON MATCHING TASKS OF INCOKRECTLY FOR READER GROUPS
Average (N = 18)
Dysphonetic (N = 13)
MATCHED
ITEMS
Dyseidetic (N = 16)
Alexic (N = 20)
X
SD
x
SD
X
SD
x
SD
0.83 3.50 3.89 3.44
1.10 1.65 2.42 1.98
1.38 4.85 6.31 6.38
1.19 2.79 3.40 1.98
1.75 5.06 5.00 4.75
2.52 3.02 3.69 3.02
2.05 4.25 6.80 6.45
2.67 2.51 2.44 2.14
Since the main effects for reader groups were significant, post hoc comparisons were calculated to determine the nature of these differences. The Scheffe procedure for reader groups indicated that average readers performed significantly better than alexic readers on the TS task. In addition, average readers outperformed dysphonetic readers on the TT task. Thus the comparisons among reader groups were interpreted to mean that alexic disabled readers have greater difficulty than average readers when temporal stimuli predede spatial stimuli in matching tasks. Further, when the task requires matching stimuli which are wholly temporal in nature (TT) both alexic and dysphonetic disabled readers exhibit greater difficulty than average readers. A univariate analysis of variance was also computed for order of difficulty in the matching tasks (see Table 2 for mean scores). Results indicated that the SS task was significantly easier than either the ST, TS, or TT tasks for the average reader group, F(3,51) = 11.28, p c .OOl, dysphonetic reader group, F(3,36) = 15.55, p c .OOl, and dyseidetic reader group, F(3,45) = 8.36, p < .OOl. Although the SS task was also significantly easier than the other matching tasks for the alexic reader group, F(3,57) = 17.69, p 6 .OOl, this reader group, according to Scheffe comparisons, found the ST task easier than the TS and TT tasks. Therefore, the findings indicate that a characteristically different order of difficulty exists for alexic readers whereas the difficulty pattern may be quite similar in average and other disabled reader groups. DISCUSSION
In the present study, average and severely disabled reader groups were given four matching tasks that included variations of spatial and temporal stimuli as a measure of matching ability. Differences were found between the reader groups only when they were required to perform temporalspatial and temporal-temporal matches. Average readers were superior to alexic readers when temporal stimuli preceded spatial stimuli in matching.
SPATIAL
AND
TEMPORAL
MATCHING
311
In addition, average readers outperformed alexic and dysphonetic readers when the stimuli were wholly temporal in nature. This suggests that dysphonetic readers experienced almost as much difficulty as alexic readers in processing temporal stimuli and may support the notion of Boder (1973) that these readers least easily manipulate information requiring analytical and sequential processing. When the significant main effects were analyzed to determine the order of difficulty, it was found that the spatial-spatial task was easier than either the spatial-temporal, temporal-spatial, or temporal-temporal tasks for average dysphonetic, and dyseidetic readers. Although the spatial-spatial task was also easier than the other tasks for the alexic readers, this reader group also scored higher on the spatial-temporal task than on the temporal-spatial or temporal-temporal tasks indicative of an order pattern different from that of average or other disabled reader groups. Evidence in the present study also supports previous researchers (Cayton et al., 1974; Rudnick et al., 1972; Sterritt, et al., 1971;) who asserted that the test of intrasensory integration may be assessing some ability other than integration. That is, if integrative ability differentiates among children who vary on characteristics of interest, such as reading, then the spatial-temporal and temporal-spatial sequences should represent the most difficult matches. However, temporal-temporal, along with temporal-spatial, sequences were observed to be the most difficult for the present sample. The results support Bryden’s (1972) finding that the first stimulus in a match, beginning with temporal information, determines difficulty level. Therefore, some explanation other than the integration hypothesis is needed; for example, an hypothesis explaining the difficulty of processing temporal information. Another important finding was that disparate abilities exist in temporal matching performance among subgroups of severely disabled readers. For example, alexic and dysphonetic readers performed poorest on the temporal-temporal task; alexic readers also performed poorly on the temporal-spatial task. Boder (1973) described alexics as dysphonetics with more severe reading problems. Hence, Boder’s theory that these disabled readers would perform poorly on the temporal-temporal task was supported as a result of the nature of dysphonetic disorders. Results related to order of difficulty lend some support to the hypothesis that qualitative differences exist among average and various types of disabled readers. As temporal stimuli are introduced in conjunction with spatial stimuli, the order of difficulty is distinctively different for alexic readers and results in decreased matching performance. Alexic readers in contrast to other types may be experiencing more of a general deficit in
312
BAUSERMAN
AND OBRZUT
serial organization that affects responses to both modalities and stimulus materials. The results of this study are also consistent with the suggestion by Obrzut (1979) that dysphonetic readers may be reflecting a neurological problem specific to the left hemisphere, while dyseidetic readers may be reflecting problems specific to the right hemisphere. It has been generally established that the left hemisphere is the major hemisphere in mediating linguistic, analytic, sequential processing, and that the right hemisphere is the major hemisphere for mediating nonlinguistic, spatial, holistic processing (e.g., Dimond & Beaumont, 1974; Kinsbourne & Smith, 1974). The qualitative analysis of performance in the alexic and dysphonetic groups (difficulty in temporal-temporal matching) may reflect deficits in their abilities to analyze and sequence stimuli whereas the dyseidetics demonstrate deficits in gestalt and spatial processing. In this respect, Efron (1963) reported data that suggest the left hemisphere may be important for temporal processing while others (Fontenot & Benton, 1971; Hecean, 1969; Miller 1972) have suggested that the right hemisphere may be important in mediating spatial perception. Thus, the readers in this study who had the most difficulty processing temporal stimuli may be reflecting deficits related to left hemisphere functioning. Evidence has been suggestive, further, that the sequencing or temporal processing ability required by sensory matching tasks may be related to some form of memory capacity. Thus, investigators in sensory integration research have posited that ordering sequential information, a type of amodal stimulus organization, may be an influential component within memory abilities (Farnham-Diggory & Gregg, 1975; McKeever & Van Denventer, 1975). Researchers who would study directly the contribution of memory skills to temporal processing abilities would demarcate a productive direction for future study. REFERENCES BODER, E. Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic screening procedure based on three characteristic patterns of reading and spelling. In B. Bateman, Learning disorders. Washington, D.C.: Special Child Publications, 1971. Vol. 4. BODER, E. Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental Medical and’ Child Neurology. 1973, 15, 663-687.
BRYDEN, M. Auditory-visual and sequential-spatial matching in relation to reading ability. Child Development, 1972, 43, 824-832. CAMP, B., & DOLCOURT,J. Reading and spelling in good and poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 300-307. CAYTON, J., STERRITT, G., GABRIEL, R., & MARTIN, V. Do auditory-visual or temporal-spatial integration abilities relate to reading? Unpublished manuscript, 1974.
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL MATCHING
313
DIMOND, S. J., & BEAUMONT, J. G. (Eds.) Hemisphere function in the human bruin. London: Paul Elek, 1974. EFRON, R. Temporal perception, aphasia, and dkji vu. Brain, 1963, 86, 403-424. FARNHAM-DIGGORY,S., & GREGG,L. Short-term memory function in young readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1975, 19, 279-298. FONTENOT, D. J., & BENTON, A. L. Tactile perception of direction in relation to hemisphere locus of lesion. Nellrops~chologicl. 1971, 9, 83-88. FREIDES,D. Human information processing and sensory modality: Cross-modal functions, information complexity, memory. and deficienty. PsychologicuI Bulletin, 1974, 81, 284-310. HECEAN, H. Aphasic, apraxic, and agnostic syndromes in right and left hemisphere lesions. Handbook
of Clinical
Neurology.
1969, 4, 291-311.
KINSBOURNE, M., & SMITH, W. L. Hemisphere disconnection and cerebral function. Springfield, III. Thomas, 1974. MCKEEVER, W. & VAN DENVENTER,A. Dyslexic adolescents: Evidence of impaired visual and auditory language processing associated with normal lateralization and visual responsivity. Cortex, 1975, 11, 361-378. MILLER, E. C/inicu/ neuropsychologv. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1972. OBRZUT, J. E. Dichotic listening and bisensory memory skills in qualitatively diverse dysDisabilities, 1979, 12, 304-314. lexic readers. Journul oj’Leurning RUDEL, R. G., & DENCKLA, M. Relationship of I.Q. and reading score to visual, spatial, and temporal matching tasks. Jortrnul of Leurning Disubilities. 1976, 9, 42-51. RUDNICK, M., MARTIN, V., & STERRITT,G. On the relative difficulty of auditory and visual temporal and spatial, integrative and non-integrative sequential pattern comparison. Psyhonomic Science. 1972, 27, 207-210. RUDNICK, M., STERRITT,G., & FLAX, Auditory and visual rhythm perception and reading ability. Child Development, 1967, 38, 581-587. STERRITT,G., MARTIN. M., & RUDNICK, M. Auditory-visual and temporal-spatialintegration as determinants of test difficulty. Psychonomic Science. 1971, 23, 289-291. STERRITT,G., & RUDNICK, M. Auditory and visual rhythm perception in relation to reading ability in fourth grade boys. Perceptuul und Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 850-864.