The phonological-core variable-orthographic differences (PCVOD) model [van der Leij, & Morfidi (2006). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39,[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] has been proposed as an explanation for the heterogeneity among dyslexic readers in their profiles of reading-related subskills. The predictions of this model were investigated in a sample of 72 Dutch secondary school students (dyslexics and controls). First, the PCVOD assumption was confirmed that phonological processing and orthographic competence are independent contributors to the prediction of reading fluency and spelling. Among the phonological processing tasks, phonological recoding explained substantial unique variance, but not phonemic awareness or rapid serial naming. Next, the dyslexic readers were divided into two subgroups based on high (ORTH + ) and low levels (ORTH -) of orthographic competence. Both subgroups performed below controls on all measures tapping phonological processing, reading and spelling but the ORTH + group performed as well as nondisabled controls on Dutch and English orthographic choice. As predicted by the model, there were no differences between the subgroups on the tasks that depend on phonological processing, with or without reading. There were differences on Dutch word reading fluency and spelling. Furthermore, the ORTH + subgroup outperformed ORTH -on tasks demanding speeded word processing such as 'flashed' presentation. This finding was independent of lexicality (words or pseudowords), language (Dutch or English) or response mode (lexical decision or typing), but restricted to silent reading. This supports the view that the ORTH + subgroup is better at identifying larger orthographic units. There was no indication of differences between the subgroups in reading experience. Our data, therefore, support the PCVOD model.

The present study investigated the reading of secondary school students in their first and second language (L1, L2). Twenty-six average and twenty-six poor readers matched on age, gender, listening and reading comprehension participated. They were native Dutch speakers who started learning English at secondary school (grade 7). We examined whether differences in L2 between the two groups reflect differences in L1 with regard to reading and relevant subskills. In addition, the relationship between reading and its predictors within and across the two languages was investigated. Between group differences were similar in L1 and L2 when task conditions involved high levels of phonological and orthographic complexity or demanded speeded processing. Furthermore, serial rapid naming predicted speeded word reading in both languages and L2 text reading accuracy, while L2 phoneme awareness and orthographic knowledge explained unique variance in L2 text reading accuracy. Cross-linguistic prediction revealed that speeded word reading predicted its counterpart from L1 to L2 and vice versa. Serial rapid naming explained additional variance in the prediction of L2 from L1. After exclusion of the reading predictor from the model, serial rapid naming was the most consistent cross-linguistic predictor, while L2 orthographic knowledge explained a small amount of unique variance in L1 speeded word reading.

No abstract

To investigate the effect of concurrent instruction in Dutch and English on reading acquisition in both languages, 23 pupils were selected from a school with bilingual education, and 23 from a school with education in Dutch only. The pupils had a Dutch majority language background and were comparable with regard to social-economic status (SES). Reading and vocabulary were measured twice within an interval of 1 year in Grade 2 and 3. The bilingual group performed better on most English and some of the Dutch tests. Controlling for general variables and related skills, instruction in English contributed significantly to the prediction of L2 vocabulary and orthographic awareness at the second measurement. As expected, word reading fluency was easier to acquire in Dutch with its relatively transparent orthography in comparison to English with its deep orthography, but the skills intercorrelated highly. With regard to cross-linguistic transfer, orthographic knowledge and reading comprehension in Dutch were positively influenced by bilingual instruction, but there was no indication of generalization to orthographic awareness or knowledge of a language in which no instruction had been given (German). The results of the present study support the assumption that concurrent instruction in Dutch and English has positive effects on the acquisition of L2 English and L1 Dutch.

This study tested the phonological core deficit hypothesis among Dutch dyslexic adults and also evaluated the pattern of individual differences among dyslexics predicted by the phonological-core variable-orthographic differences (PCVOD) model (van der Leij & Morfidi, 2006) in a sample of 57 control adults and 56 dyslexic adults. It was confirmed that Dutch adult dyslexics share a phonological core deficit. As predicted, there was significantly larger variability among dyslexics in orthographic coding relative to phonological coding. Orthographic coding also explained additional variance in word reading fluency after phonological coding was partialled out. Consistent with the PCVOD model, when two subgroups were selected, which differed in levels of orthographic coding, the high-scoring subgroup outperformed the low-scoring subgroup on almost all reading and reading-related tasks. As anticipated, the high-scoring subgroup had near-normal levels of orthographic abilities. These advantages were not attributable to differences in general cognitive competence, print exposure, or educational attainment.In the present study the core features of a Dutch adult dyslexic sample are investigated, in particular the persistence of problems with phoneme awareness, rapid serial naming and phonological recoding. We also evaluate the phonolog-