论文部分内容阅读
本研究是一个进行中的纵向实验的一部分,该实验旨在比较一个认知干预方案(PREP:PASS阅读促进方案)和一个主要关注语音、命名速度和意义成分的神经心理方案(DEST-RT:DEST补救工具)在阅读困难补救中的效能。从320位儿童构成的初始样本中,选择4组儿童,并一年级接受四周干预后,对他们在许多认知、语言、阅读和正字法测量上的表现进行比较:两个实验组共28名伴有阅读困难的儿童(每组n=14),平均年龄6岁6个月,分配到PREP和DEST-RT补救方案中,两组儿童基于年龄、性别、父母教育水平、非言语和言语能力进行匹配,同时也考虑他们的认知和语言表现剖面;一个阅读水平匹配组(RA-C,n=19),也存在阅读困难,不接受任何处理;一个实足年龄匹配组(CA-C,n=30)。结果表明,所有四组儿童在所有认知、语言、阅读和正字法测量上均随时间而改善;与CA-C和DEST-RT相比,PREP组在继时性加工上进步显著;在正字法选择,这一在单词加工中利用视觉-字形信息的正字法加工任务上,PREP组的表现也优于DEST-RT组;最后,在语音敏感性、字母数字的RAN、单词阅读(真词和假词)及段落理解等方面,PREP和DEST-RT的表现均显著优于CA-C和RA-C。讨论部分,则着重讨论设计理论驱动的低成本且能有效改善阅读表现的补救方案的必要性。
This study is part of an ongoing longitudinal experiment designed to compare a cognitive intervention program (PREP: PASS Reading Promotion Program) with a neuropsychological program that focuses primarily on speech, naming speed, and meaning components (DEST-RT: DEST Remedies) in reading difficulties remedy. From the initial sample of 320 children, four groups of children were selected and compared for the first four weeks of intervention with their interventions in many cognitive, linguistic, reading and orthographic measures: 28 in both groups Children with dyslexia (n = 14 for each group), mean age 6 years and 6 months, were assigned to PREP and DEST-RT remediation programs. The two groups were based on age, gender, parental education, nonverbal and speech skills (RA-C, n = 19) also had reading difficulties and did not receive any treatment; a true-match age-matched group (CA-C, n = 30). The results showed that all four groups of children improved over time in all cognitive, linguistic, reading and orthographic measures, compared with CA-C and DEST-RT, PREP had a significant improvement over timed processing; The French PREP group also performed better than the DEST-RT group in orthographic processing tasks that used visual-glyph information during word processing. Finally, the speech recognition was performed on speech sensitivity, alphanumeric RAN, word reading And fake words) and paragraph understanding, PREP and DEST-RT performed significantly better than CA-C and RA-C. In the discussion section, the focus is on the need for design-driven, low-cost remedies that effectively improve reading performance.