Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:21:15.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual and phonological spelling errors in subtypes of children with learning disabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Carolyn Lennox  and
Linda S. Siegel
Carolyn Lennox
Affiliation:
Peel Board of Education, Mississauga, Ontario
Linda S. Siegel*
Affiliation:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
*
Linda S. Siegel, OISE, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the hypothesis that children with a reading disability understand and use sound-spelling correspondence rules less frequently in spelling than children with other learning disabilities and normally achieving children. To test this hypothesis, spelling errors of children between the ages of 6 and 16 with a reading disability (RD), an arithmetic disability (AD), and normally achieving children (NA) were examined. Two groups of children with an arithmetic disability were included: those with good spelling skills (AD-good), and those with poor spelling skills (AD-poor). The accuracy of the spelling errors according to sound-spelling correspondence rules (phonological accuracy) of the children was determined using both a constrained system (inclusion of position cues) and an unconstrained system (in which positional cues were irrelevant). The visual similarity of the error to the target word was also determined. The RD group at all ages produced significantly fewer phonologically accurate misspellings than the children with normal achievement scores, whether the constrained or the unconstrained scoring system was used. The AD-poor spellers and the RD group produced significantly fewer phonologically constrained, accurate misspellings than the NA group. Using the unconstrained measure, the AD-poor spellers at the youngest age level displayed as much difficulty using rudimentary sound-symbol conversion rules as the RD group, while at the older age levels, they did as well as the NA group. AD-good spellers performed as well as the NA group on both measures at all age levels. Children who were good readers and spellers (Good RS) were compared with children who were poor readers and spellers (Poor RS) and with children who were good readers and poor spellers (Mixed RS). Mixed RS produced significantly more phonologically and visually accurate misspellings than Poor RS. In summary, subtypes of learning-disabled children use spelling strategies that are significantly different from each other. RD children have the most difficulty acquiring the knowledge of soundspelling correspondence rules that are necessary for English spelling skills. The performance of AD children depends on the complexity of the scoring system, age, and spelling ability. Those students whose knowledge of sound-spelling correspondence rules is sufficiently well developed for reading but not for spelling (good readers/poor spellers) develop their phonetic skills more slowly than the good readers/good spellers. The understanding and use of phonological rules varies according to the subtype of learning disability, with children with a reading disability performing the most poorly at all age levels.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , October 1993 , pp. 473 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Backman, J., Bruck, M., Hebert, M. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1984). Spelling-sound correspon-dences in reading: Developmental aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruck, M. & Waters, G. (1988). An analysis of the spelling errors of children who differ in their reading and spelling skills. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 77–92.Google Scholar
Bryant, R. E. & Bradley, L. (1980). Why children sometimes write words which they do not read. In Frith, U. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 355–370). Toronto: Academic.Google Scholar
Finucci, J. M., Isaacs, S., Whitehouse, C. C & Childs, B. (1983). Classification of spelling errors and their relationship to reading ability, sex, grade placement and intelligence. Brain and Language, 20, 340–355.Google Scholar
Frith, U. (1980). Unexpected spelling problems. In Frith, U. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 495–515). Toronto: Academic.Google Scholar
Holmes, D. L. & Peper, E. J. (1977). Evaluation of the use of spelling error analysis in the diagnosis of reading disabilities. Child Development, 48, 1708–1711.Google Scholar
Jastak, S. & Wilkinson, G. S. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Jastak & Associates.Google Scholar
Malmquist, E. (1958). Factors related to reading disabilities in the first grade of the elementary school. Stockholm: Malmquist & Wiskell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, H. E. (1980). Analysis of spelling errors in normal and dyslexic children. In Frith, U.(Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 475–493). Toronto: Academic.Google Scholar
Nelson, H. E. & Warrington, E. K. (1974). Developmental spelling retardation and its relation to other cognitive abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 65, 265–274.Google Scholar
Pennington, B., McCabe, L. L., Smith, S. S., Lefly, D. L., Bookman, M. O., Kimberling, W. J. & Lubs, H. A. (1986). Spelling errors in adults with a form of familial dyslexia. Child Development, 57, 1001–1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rourke, B. P. (1981). Neuropsychological assessment of children with learning disabilities. In Filskov, S. B. & Bell, T. S. (Eds.), Handbook of clinical neuropsychology (pp. 453–478). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rourke, B. P. & Strang, J. D. (1983). Subtypes of reading and arithmetic disabilities: A neuropsychological analysis. In Butler, M. (Ed.), Developmental neuropsychiatry (pp. 473–488). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Sattler, J. (1982). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Siegel, L. S. & Feldman, W. (1983). Nondyslexic children with combined writing and arithmetic difficulties. Clinical Pediatrics, 22, 241–244.Google Scholar
Siegel, L. S. & Heaven, R. K. (1986). Categorization of learning disabilities. In Ceci, S. J. (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 1, pp. 95–121). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Siegel, L. S. & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Development of grammatical sensitivity, phonological, and short-term memory skills in normally achieving and learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28–37.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. E. & Rourke, B. P. (1978). Neuropsychological significance of phonetically accurate and phonetically inaccurate spelling errors in younger and older retarded spellers. Brain and Language, 6, 212–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waters, G. S., Bruck, M. & Seidenberg, M. (1985). Do children use similar processes to read and spell words? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar