Longitudinal course of rapid naming in disabled and nondisabled readers

Abstract

Phoneme awareness is a powerful conceptual achievement-both for the would-be reader and for the scientist seeking to understand the crucial links between spoken and written language. But it has long been recognized by both researchers and practitioners (1) that success in phoneme awareness depends crucially on other more basic factors; and (2) that other factors may also contribute to the reading difficulties of some children. We are pleased to publish this year four papers that consider correlates of reading difficulty that are not easily subsumed under the construct of phoneme awareness.Chapters 4 and 5 are longitudinal studies of rapid serial naming, which is one of the most reliable and consistent (if least understood) long-term predictors of reading disability. By tracking students through the elementary school years, both provide valuable information about the developmental course of rapid naming skills and the association between rapid naming and other literacy-related skills over time. The normative data on naming presented in chapter 4 by M. Meyers and her colleagues will serve as a valuable resource to clinicians; their kindergarten results should also add to our understanding of the factors that influence naming speed. In kindergarten, the letter/number naming advantage (over object/color naming) is strongly tied to alphabet recitation accuracy; by first grade the letter/number advantage is no longer a useful index of any literacy measure. The data from H. Scarborough make clear just how important and stable naming is as a predictor of reading success. Even when collected at Grade 2, individual differences in naming speed account for variability in 8th grade reading above and beyond what can be explained by phoneme awareness. Scarborough's and other recent studies suggest ways that assessment in schools can easily be expanded to more accurately predict who would benefit most from intervention.The Rapid Automatized Naming Test (Denckla and Rudel 1974) was studied cross-sectionally in an sample of kindergartners (n = 342) atrisk for reading disability (Study 1), and longitudinally in an n = 160 epidemiological normal sample of children tested in first, third, fifth, and eighth grades (Study 2). Study 1 showed faster absolute naming speeds for those with near perfect untimed alphabet recitation, but the stronger and more orderly relation (at r = .31, p < .0001) was between three levels of alphabet recitation accuracy and the relative number~letter naming speed advantage (ratio of mean number~letter naming speed minus mean color~object naming speed over mean color~object naming speed). In Study 2, the number~letter advantage was already strongly present by first grade, and did not increase significantly thereafter, but absolute naming times improved steadily across grades in an exponential decay function. In this sample, the relative number~letter advantage was not related to reading level. However, the absolute color~object naming speed was strongly related

Naming Speed Deficits in Adults with Reading Disabilities

“…This is consistent with the few previous studies in this area (e.g., Chiappe et al, 2002;Felton et al, 1990). Although adult normative data on the RAN do not exist, it is possible to gain an estimate of the severity of naming speed impairment in the RD sample by using normative data for Grade 8 students (normative data provided in Meyer et al, 1998a;see Note). Compared to eighth-grade students, the control group performed between the 50th and 75th percentiles on RAN, which is expected if the skills used in naming speed plateau in adolescence.…”

“…The four RAN tasks were averaged to produce a RAN composite measure (Meyer et al, 1998a). The control group was significantly faster than the RD group on this composite, t(51) = 4.65, p < .0001, d = 1.30.…”

Subgrouping Poor Readers on the Basis of Individual Differences in Reading-Related Abilities

“…This cutoff level is similar to that used by other researchers in the field of reading disabilities (e.g., Hurford, Schauf, Bunce, Blaich, & Moore, 1994;Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton, 1998). It also represents a compromise criterion level when compared to that found in more liberal definitions (25th percentile; Fletcher et al, 1994;Stanovich & Siegel, 1994) or in more conservative definitions of reading disabilities (1.5 SD; Badian, McAnulty, Duffy, & Als, 1990).…”

Differential relationships between RAN performance, behaviour ratings, and executive function measures: Searching for a double dissociation

“…As mentioned above, the letter and digit forms of the RAN (particularly the letter form, see Neuhaus, Foorman, Francis & Carlson, 2001) are good and robust predictors of single word reading, though not always of reading comprehension (Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton, 1998;Scarborough & Domgaard, 1998). While the rapid naming of objects and colours do not consistently predict reading ability (Blachman, 1984;Denckla, & Rudel, 1974;Denckla & Rudel, 1976a;Manis & Doi, 1995;Wimmer, 1993;Wolf, Bally, & Morris, 1986), RAN tasks, particularly RANL and RAND, would seem to be specific predictors of reading problems.…”